Best Pacific Fighter?

Best Pacific Fighter?

  • Total voters
    146

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
RG, a note about your website and the 250 gallon tanks . . .
110 + 180 + 120 + 500 = 1010?

Try 110 + 180 + 120 + 600 = 1010 gallons.
That would be two 300 gallon tanks and not 2 250 gallon tanks. As I said, the P-38 never carried 250 gallon tanks.

The P-51 tank was probably excluded because the tank caused major CG problems. In the ETO, the tank was often not filled to full capacity and what fuel was in the tank was often burned BEFORE switching to the drop tanks.

The P-38 leading-edge tanks could effect maneuverability, particularly rate of roll. It was for that reason that these tanks were often used for warm-up, take-off, and initial climb-out. All in all I think these tanks were less of a liability than the P-51s. They were certainly less vulnerable than the unprotected leading edge tanks carried by the F4U. It is also interesting that the external fuel carried by the Corsair was greater than it's internal fuel load ( 300 gallons external, 234 internal). If the P-38's massive drop tanks were of no advantage, neither were the Corsair's.
 

The fuel tanks on the P-51H were reduced to save weight. It was an Intercept plane first and foremost. It was not used in Korea not because it was deemed unsuitable, but because there were only 550 of them and parts and spares were very hard to come by. They just weren't logistically feasable for Korea. The fact is the F-51 should not have been used in Korea either, they should have dug up the P-47's for that job!

=S=

Lunatic
 
Or the P-38s. The P-38 had twin-engine relaibility, a better protected cockpit, heavier and more concentrated fire-power, and a better range/payload capability.
 
Lightning Guy said:
Or the P-38s. The P-38 had twin-engine relaibility, a better protected cockpit, heavier and more concentrated fire-power, and a better range/payload capability.
Click to expand...

Yup!

The worst thing is that a couple of monthe before the Korean war a/the last of the P-38Ls were destroyed in Korea, Martin Caiden claims to have been there!
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
and considderably more expensive, out of pruduction and much harder to fly.............
Click to expand...

And more effective and versatile at least in ground attack, the last job of the piston fighters!

Which would you have picked if you were in Korea doing ground attack?
 
The cheaper version that can still do the job, the F-51. You under-estimate the power of tight-fisted politicians.
 
While I like the P-38, I have to admit for ground attack in an American WWII airplane, I would choose the Jug. That darn thing just seemed to take about any punishment dealt out and keep coming. I think the liquid cooled engines were just not as well suited due to the vulnerability of the glycol systems to ground fire.
 
All of that is pointless though because the politicians want the cheapest thing for the job, the F-51.
 
plan_D said:
All of that is pointless though because the politicians want the cheapest thing for the job, the F-51.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, the F-51 was still operationally available, the P-47's would have had to be pulled from mothballs.
 
I was talking about the P-38 being too expensive but the P-47 having to be pulled out, would be more expensive than operationally available equipment. What's the better choice, F-51 (Operational and cheap), P-47 (Mothballs and cheap), P-38 (Scrapped and expensive)?
 

First off, the P-47 was not a "cheap" plane to build. It was quite large, it had (until the N) eliptical wings and tail structures, and a turbo-supercharger (not at all cheap to build or maintain). It was cheaper to build than the P-38, but that hardly makes it "cheap".

Secondly, I really don't think the P-47 was much of an option. At the start of the Korean war, they needed planes NOW. The F-51's were ready NOW. The P-47N's might have been ready in 6 months (which was longer than they thought the war would last), and the P-38's (as you pointed out) were simply not available at all.

The answer was to put the F-51's into action immeadiately, and then to replace them as fast as possible with more capable aircraft. Which is pretty much what was done.

=S=

Lunatic
 
The P-47 wasn't that much cheaper than the P-38. The cost savings were mainly because the P-38 had two engines and two superchargers.

I realize that chances of the USAAF still operating P-38s in Korea were rather low (as Plan_D noted, politicians are cheap). The thing is, when US forces left South Korea in 1946 there were dozens of virtually new P-38s sitting there. Instead of turning them over to the South Koreans, they were ungloriously destroyed. Had the South Koreans had a useful ground-attack fighter, the early days of the war might have been far different.
 
That was my opinion as well, if I had to take a WWII vintage airplane into ground attack, that is what I would prefer. I wasn't saying that is what they should have done in Korea, obviously finance and immediate needs take precedent.
 
Ground attack really requires an aircraft that is relatively slow and can loiter over the area. The AD-1 used in Vietnam is a good example. They also used the T-28s for ground attack and FAC duties. I saw a great program on the T-28s in Vietnam on the Discovery channel a while back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
4K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
7K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
Best Biplane fighter ww2
Replies
1
Views
6K
wlewisiii
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
1K
Vahe Demirjian
  • Poll
Best US escort fighter in ETO during 1943?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
17K
DarrenW
Menu
Log in
Register