Best Pacific Fighter?

[kool kitty89]

In normal cofig the P-38 could carry up to 4,000 lbs bombs, (2x 2,000 lb) but range would hardly be useful. A 2,000 lb plus a 300 gal drop tank would work well though. (I don't have actual range figures with this)

The F4U-4/5 (from land bases) could carry up to 5,200 lbs of bombs (2x 1,600, 1x 2,000 lb) but again for only short range. Mix with drop tanks is most useful here as well.

Due to the near centerline bomb/tank pylon placement, both a/c should be able to carry off-center loads. If we compare the carrying capability of store selections. P-38L: bombs up to 2,000 lbs and various drop tanks up to 310 US gal. on each (of 2x) pylon. F4U-4: up to 1,600 lb bomb or 154 US gal. drop tank on each wingroot pylon, and up to 2,000 lb bomb or 300 gal drop tank on centerline.

Due to the high external fuel capacity max range is much more than max practical radius, as far more than 1/2 the fuel is carried externaly. The max radius should be limited to somthing less than the max clean range of the a/c, otherwise you'd have to enter combat with drop tank(s) still on
For example, the P-38L could easily have a ferry range of over 3,300 mi, but operational radius would be ~1,000 mi with economical return cruise and that's stretching it with 15-30 min combat.

I don't have comprehensive figures on the F4U's range performance but there are these on the P-47, P-51, and P-38: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51-tactical-chart.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-tactical-chart.jpg


The Corsair would roll much better at low to medium speeds (and probably similar at high speed) it could turn tighter, but the P-38 could accelerate faster and keep its speed better in maneuvers, the F4U could dive much better. (even with flaps the P-38 was limited to .68 mach which is ~500 mph at low level and much less at altitude) Level speed and climb was about equal up to 23,000 ft. Above 23,000 ft the P-38 would start to gain a performance advantage, but sustained combat at those heights was unlikely, much moreso in the PTO. The P-38 had no torq and sometimes a rudementary autopilot for long missions being much more pleasant to cruise and controll in general due to little need for trimming. The P-38 had more concentrated firepower with no convergence zone and more ammo (500 rpg opposed to 400 rpg) and a standard 20mm cannon with 150 rpg. The cannon armed Corsair was not common, had problems with guns freezing at altitude, and had limited ammo (though similar to the P-38's), while both used the somewhat unreliable M2 20mm Hispano cannon, the P-38 still had the 4x MG's if it failed and with all the previous advantages. The P-38 had better visibility as well.

We can argue about engine volnerabillity and reliability, 2x liquid vs 1x radial, the F4U's volnerable oil coolers etc... So I won't go there now.

Both were excelent fighters, particularly in this theater, both were excelent fighter bombers with an edge to the Corsair IMO. But as pure fighter I can't choose, but I'd take either over the P-51 (a single liquid cooled engine with "miles" of coolant lines between the engine and radiator, flying long range over the expansive Pacific 0_0)

I'd also choose the P-47D (let's stick with the D to be fair since it saw the most service and was the most available while the N saw limited service at the very end of the war) With continued improvements had speed as good or better than the P-38 of F4U thoughout the war, climb was decent but not nearly as good. (particularly at low level where the F4U-4 would have a ~1,000 ft/min advantage) Max dive speed, acceleration and critical Mach is higher than any other major Prop fighter of the war. Roll rate is good, though not as good as the F4U-4. It would lose in a turning fight with either under most circumstances. Visibility is worse than either in razorback, better than both bubble-top. Range of all 3 should be comperable. Could not carry as much ordinance due mainly to the limited clearance for the belly shackel, but could carry up to 1,500 lbs under each wing and anothe 1,000 lb bomb on belly. Could take more damage than either due to heavy frame and placement of oil cooler in engine compartment.

 

[renrich]

KK, some good analysis. The range figure I quoted for F4U was the later model without internal wing tanks. The F4U1 actually had a max range of 2200 miles with the internal wing tanks. As you say, the combat radius of an AC is going to be much less than one half of max range. Those max range figures are "yardstick" ranges and only good for comparison. All of us armchair pilots sit around and throw these numbers out we have read about as if they represent the real world. I remember reading in Lundstrom( who I believe is one of the best) that the A6M had a combat radius from a carrier of about 300 miles and from land bases about 500 miles. That is a far cry from numbers we bandy about. Another sticky point is we quote Vmax, range, load and rate of climb as if they all happen together. Baloney! All those properties don't exist at the same time. That is the main reason I don't put a lot of credence in the performance numbers of these "wunder airplanes" that were designed and some produced in small numbers near the end of the war by all the powers. Until an AC has been produced in fairly large numbers, the bugs ironed out(if possible) and it has seen operational service, then I don't see how one can tell how effective that particular AC is. Just because a fighter can go really fast at some height way up there according to the manufacturer doesn't mean in the real world it will be a winning performer. Also just because one airplane can go 20 mph faster at a certain altitude than another, that does not mean that that speed difference at that altitude is tactically significant. An extreme case: In a book of mine an experienced Navy fighter pilot in an F8 was in a mock dogfight with a guy in an A4. The F8 at altitude is roughly twice as fast as an A4. Everytime the F8 made a run on the A4 he found the A4 was going nose to nose with him with his 20 mms ready. Looking at the numbers a Mig 17 has no chance against an F4. Not true! Paper numbers don't mean as much as operational experience. One of the fighter factors that I don't believe is given enough emphasis but is also hard to evaluate is range. Not only to get into the fight but to stay in the fight. If one is in ACM with another and one AC has 5 minutes of WEP and the other 10 minutes, that is a factor. If normal fuel will allow 10 minutes at military power and another has 20 minutes at military power, there is an advantage. I remember in Lundstom he mentioned that a section of Wildcats in protecting the carrier had to fight at 50% power because they were running low on fuel. I have a friend, a retired Navy Capt., who flew the A6 in an evaluation against a Mig 21. He said their best tactic to survive was to get down on the deck and run because the Mig 21 did not carry much fuel. Anyway, a BF109 with full internal fuel is a different animal to a P51 with full internal fuel. Many of the ETO fighters just did not have the range to get into and stay into the fight in the PTO.

 

[kool kitty89]

It's most fair to compare performance in a configuration for similar range. While this doesn't reflect the actual situations that may have occurred (particularly if comparing US and LW fighters in the ETO, as the intercepting LW fighters needed much less range) But even then, a plane designed to have more range will have a somewhat greater empty weight as well due to the larger tanks (and reinforced structure if needed) so the only really fair comparison is if there is a version of each plane capable of the same max range on internal fuel. Ie a long range Spitfire with increased internal fuel will perform worse than a normal ranged one.

And the power rating time limits could and were exceeded, but it was then necessary to fully inspect the engine (or a completer tear down in some cases) to ensure it wouldn't fail on a later mission.



And one thing to note on the P-47D is that at it's highest performance at 2,600 hp (some, like Robert S. Johnson's may have been as high as 2,700 hp) with 100/150 grade fuel at 70" Hg boost, it's turbo limited this power to ~23,500 ft at which it could manage 444 mph. (it HAD been officially cleared for 2,600 hp @ 70" boost with 100/150 grade) So performance up to this altitude would only have been marginally better with the P-40M (mostly in climb, due to reduced weight, but also since the M hadn't initially been fitted with wing pylons) and very similar to the N (though the N was more maneuverable with better roll and slightly better wing loading).


I hadn't mentioned the armament of the P-47 either, with higher max ammo at 420 rpg to the F4U-4's 400 rpg and with 8x compared to 6x .50" M2 (with ability to chose 4x or 8x in the P-47) the P-47 had an advantage in firing time max firepower and ability to conserve ammo with 4x guns. This was important for both strafing and air to air combat and since both have similar wing mountings in concentrated blocks the layout is easily comparable. The P-38 is more debatable due to the concentrated nose armament with no convergence zone and added 20mm cannon plus an even higher 500 rpg for the .50's.


One other ting to note is that with rocket armaments the HVAR used on the F4U were superior to the "bazooka tube" 3x cluster rocket mounts of USAAF a/c, though the P-38 could carry either. (M10 three-tube 4.5 in (112 mm) rocket launcher) The HVAR were more accurate, better trajectory, more powerful, added less drag, and the mounting added very little drag with rockets gone. (opposed to the huge tube launchers of the M10 launchers) The HVAR could also be better adapted to the interceptor role as well, if needed. But the P-47 could have easily been adapted to use the HVAR as well. (though I don't think the D model did in service, the N may have, at least post war)

For rockets the P-47 could carry 6x 4.5" rockets, the F4U 8x 5" HVAR, the P-38 could carry 6x or 12x 4.5" rockets or 10x 5" HVAR.

The F4U carried other things like 2x "Tiny Tim" missiles too, but those were more Navy specific. (the HVAR started that way too though IIRC)

 

[renrich]

The standard load for a P47 was 267 rds per gun which gave a firing time of 17.8 seconds. A max load was 425 rds per gun but was not always carried because of weight considerations. The Corsair had a standard load of 400 rds per gun with a firing time of 26.7 seconds. In early 1943 in the ETO, it would have been handy to have had a fighter that could take off from a short field with an ammo load of 400 rds per gun and 361 gallons of internal fuel or 536 gallons with external tank which would give it a yardstick range of as much as 2200 miles, was very maneuverable, had a sea level top speed of 340 mph and a Vmax at altitude of 395 mph, a rate of climb of 2890 fpm, a service ceiling of 36900 feet, was armored and fully combat capable and had a decent cockpit heater and could do all of these things in an escort mission. The F4U1 could have done that. I don't know of another AC that could have done it as well in that time frame.

 

[syscom3]

The P38 did that only it was 1300 miles from base. Plus it could easily be converted to the recon role, or used a light bomber (as in the droop snoot role).

Now what plane would you rather be in with engine damage, a few hundred miles from land and nothing but an ocean under you? The P38 or the F4U?

 

[Hunter368]

Now what plane would you rather be in with engine damage, a few hundred miles from land and nothing but an ocean under you? The P38 or the F4U?

Which would you rather be flying when you took damage, radial engine or liquid cooled plane? Miles from home flying over shark infested waters.

 

[renrich]

You have twice as much possibility of engine failure with two engines as with one. That is the reason Lindberg went with one engine. The problem was that when a P38 got hit in the engine, which was much more likely than with a single engine AC, the engine caught on fire and your second engine did you no good. Plus in early 43 in the ETO the P38 had real problems with diving into compressibility, engine failures and the pilots could not stay warm. All of those factors contributed to the high loss rate in the ETO. The following are quotes from a chronology of the P38: Jan 30, 1944 "A quarter of the P38s escorting bombers over Europe return early because of power plant problems." Feb. 4, 1944, "Nearly half of the 20th and 55th FGs Lightnings on escort need to abort with powerplant problems due to severe cold weather. P38s now limit operations to 30000 feet because of potential powerplant troubles." March 3, 1944, " P38s of the 55th FG fly over Berlin, though many pilots have to drop out due to engine problems. The fighter pilots are almost frozen stiff from cold cockpits." March 3, 1944, " The 364th FG goes operational with P38s but is plagued with engine failures. The group commander is killed when both his engines fail. 16 AC fail to return from missions in the month of march. The group stays down at lower warmer altitudes."

 

[syscom3]

It doesnt matter what the performace problems of the P38 was in Europe, because those problems didnt happen in the PTO. And then there is the issue of the P38 flying missions in Europe and the Med and going up against the LW, and the Corsair not.

Now about the engine problem; how would you like to be over the ocean 500 miles from base with engine damage? P38 or F4U?

 

[renrich]

Sys, I know what you are saying and I think that having a second engine under the right circumstances would be safer than with only one engine. However if I was 500 miles from base all over water with a damaged engine in either AC I think I would be taking a bath soon. Do you know how many combat sorties the P38 flew in the PTO?

 

[syscom3]

Not off hand, although I know they were flying first up in the Aleutians in fall of 1942, and there was a PRG in New Guinea towards the end of 1942.

Eventually they flew in all of the PTO Air Forces (maybe not the 7th, I have to check on that).

 

[kool kitty89]

If it was equal amount of damage to the engines I'd take the Corsair, the R-2800 could continue to run and produce sufficient power to fly (and climb, and get home) with several cylinders out, somwtimes with the entire jug blown off. The P-38 was no good if it lost a single engine if the down engine caught fire (which would be likely) and that engine could not be extinguished as was sometimes the case, in most circumstances though I'd certainly take a P-38 over a P-51 in this theater. Plus with outboard engines you have quite a bit more time to get an engine fire under controll: 1. you dont have flames and oil engulfing the cockpit, 2. you have another engine to keep flying with.

But it should be noted that the F4U had vulnerable oil coolers which could easily be hit by ground fire, drain out, and result in the engine ceasing. The P-47 had a much more protected placement inside the engine compartment.


Granted the F4U was more maneuverable than the P-47 (and by some standards the P-38 ) in addition to slightly lower wing loading it had a high lift airfoil, the same as used on the Fw 190, with an unusually high CL. However with proper tactics the P-47 could out maneuver and out fight the Corsair but both had their advantages. (I'd take the P-47 in a defensive combat suiuation, ie if bounced or evading it had a better chance, especially with some altitude: ~10,000 ft should be sufficient to dive away)


I totally agree on the STOL characteristics (it was a carrier a/c for crying out loud) and I'd bet it was better than the P-38 at this. (though the P-38's fowler flaps helped alot, in maneuvering too) I assume that climb figure is at full (clean) combat weight, otherwise it seems a little low.


But for High altitude escort (crusing above 25,000 ft) the P-47 was the best, kept it's rated power of 2,300 hp over 30,000 ft (depending on turbo unit), very comfortable, well organized, cocpit and good all around performance.

 

[syscom3]

What do you mean the P38 was no good with only one engine?

The P47D wasnt up to the task in the PTO due to its poor maneuverability and acceleration at low and middle altitudes where most of the fighting took place, as well as its notoriously short range. In fact, you could make a case that the P40 was better than the P47 in this theater.

The P38 is still the best fighter of the PTO because of its versatility, long range capabilities, climb rate and payload. As for ruggedness, both were equal.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As for ruggedness, both were equal.

Not argueing with you on what is best or not because both the P-38 and the Corsair were wonderful aircraft, but what is your proof that the P-38 and the Corsair are equal in reliability and ruggedness.

 

[Hunter368]

The P38 is still the best fighter of the PTO because of its versatility, long range capabilities, climb rate and payload. As for ruggedness, both were equal.

While this is your opinion which is fine, you have given no proof that the P-38 was the best.

While many others have given proof (real facts, not just general statements)that the Corsair was better. I have seen real proof how tough a Corsair is, I don't remember ever seeing the same sort of information posted for the P-38 on this forum (I could of missed it, post if you have facts to back up your claim of it being as tough as the Corsair).

But to each their own, if you like the P-38 good. Both were good and both help win the war in the PTO.

 

[syscom3]

Not argueing with you on what is best or not because both the P-38 and the Corsair were wonderful aircraft, but what is your proof that the P-38 and the Corsair are equal in reliability and ruggedness.

Structural failures were something that did not happen to either airplane. (except in the well known compressibility problems the P38 encountered).

As for reliability, once the logistics issues were worked out, then the availability rates for the P38 were acceptable. In fact, the P38 availability (compared to the carrier based Corsairs) was probably better due to them being land based and had far better access to depot supplies/repair and mechanics.

I asked these things to that 475th FG pilot I met at Chino.

 

[syscom3]

But to each their own, if you like the P-38 good. Both were good and both help win the war in the PTO.

The only reason I say the P38 was better, is its range and versatility.

As for maneuverabilty in the PTO ...... the Japanese planes were so much better in that catagory, theres really no point in trying to compare allied fighters to Japanese fighters.

 

[renrich]

I question although I can't prove it that a P38 had any more range with a bomb load than a Corsair. As far as versatility, the Corsair was a better fighter below 25000 feet where the vast majority of ACM took place in all theatres, it was the best fighter bomber of the war, it turned out to be an excellent dive bomber(as accurate as an SBD) was a good recon plane, was a night fighter and could do all these missions and operate off carriers. The P38 was in service in the PTO before the F4U but the Corsair had 2155 kills to the P38's 1700 and although I don't know how many P38 sorties were flown the Corsair had a good sortie to loss ratio of 119 to 1. The P38s in the ETO had a sortie to loss of 74 to 1. I believe that Rex Barber made the statement that if the US had to build one fighter in WW2 it should have been the Corsair. Rex Barber flew the P38 extensively.

 

[parsifal]

A good indicator of the relative merits of US aircraft is...which ones continued in service after 1945. How long beforethe P-38s and hellcats were retired, and how long dod the Corsair continue in service. As for P-51, dint derivatives continue to fly into the Vietnam war (F-82???).

P-47 is a bit tricky. I believe it wa sold or given to avery two bit hanger on after the war. They did surpisingly well with it as i understand. USAF didnt want them though. Why not? its a genuine question

Michael

 

[syscom3]

The P38 had the greatest range of any fighter of WW2, beating the Corsair by a large margin.

The P38 was a far better recon platform as compared to the Corsair because of its extensive range, high altitude capability and big fat nose to mount multiple camera's.

Corsair was a far better dive bomber than the P38. No doubt about that!

But the P38 was a far better light bomber than the Corsair.

Both had equal capabilities in fighting at low and middle altitudes. Remember their was no torque factor for the P38.

P38 was a far safer airplane to land and takeoff compared to the Corsair due to its tricycle gear.

Gunnery? I'd say the edge goes to the P38 because of no convergence issues. But its a close call.

Sortie rate? Hard to compare. If we look at 1944 when the logistics were sorted out, there probably wasn't much difference between the land based Corsairs and the P38's. The sea based Corsairs would have the advantage for short term sortie rate, but decreasing sortie rate over the long haul.

Air kills? The Corsair pilots had far more opportunities to get air kills throughout 1945, simply because there weren't many targets for the land based P38's as compared to the Kamikazi magnets called aircraft carriers. But then, the Corsair wasnt found over NG where most of the fighting in 1943 took place.

Economics, the edge goes to the Corsair. Single engine and smaller airframe makes for an easier production rate. But with the vast production capabilities of the US, it didn't matter the P38 cost more and took longer to build.

Richard Bong said the P38 was the finest fighter in the AAF.

 

[syscom3]

The P38s in the ETO had a sortie to loss of 74 to 1.....

And put your Corsair into the thick of things with the LW and the hi quality flak, and watch your loss rate go way up.