Best Pacific Fighter?

[renrich]

Well the pilots at the fighter conference in 1944 did not seem to have a high opinion of the P38. As said before it was rated number one in only one category-worst cockpit. Not sure where you are getting your numbers about range but the only numbers that matter in the real world are combat radius numbers. My reference states that the combat radius of the P38 J and L with 740 gal of fuel has a combat rad. of 650 to 675 miles. The P51D with 419 gals has CR of 700 to 750 miles. Another chart and these are USAAF charts show the P38 has the third best CR with 650 miles, the P51D is second with a CR of 700 miles and the P47N is best of Army fighters with a CR of 1000 miles. That does not support the notion that the "P38 has the longest range of any fighter in WW2." As far as "yardstick" not practical ranges are concerned, a table showing Army Fighter Ranges shows the P38 L with max internal fuel with a range of 1170 miles, the P47 N with max internal fuel with 1700 mile and the P51B/C with max internal fuel with 1275 miles. These are cruise at 10000 feet at most economical power. For Navy fighters on internal fuel most economical cruise speed-F4U1 got 1596 miles. That is substantially better than P38.

 

[syscom3]

The P38's were going on 1300 mile missions (2600 round trip) in 1944.

And the fighter conference in 1944 didn't include the PTO representation, nor an understanding of the difference in operating conditions and tactics out there.

Please keep the discussion to the F4U and P38 for Pacific operations.

 

[kool kitty89]

Structural failures were something that did not happen to either airplane.
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.

There were a hell of alot of land based Corsairs, besides USMC planes there were commonwealth users. (RAAF, RNZAF)

renrich,
It should also be noted that the F4U-1 had the non-sealing wing tanks which were not present on later models. (which thus had shorter range)

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.

Then why use that as a reason to disqualify the P-47D?

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.

(note I edited my previous post to clarify the engine out on P-38 with fire)

And with normal combat load, paddle prop, and increased engine output (due to high octane fuel), the P-47D had very good low-medium altitude performance. Comperable in many ways to the P-38 and F4U. The other 2 had better climb compared to the P-47's ~3,300 ft/min max at ~8,000 ft. (~3,100 ft/min at SL, at just under 14,000 lbs)

 

[syscom3]

Then why use that as a reason to disqualify the P-47D?

Their short range and lack of performance at low and middle altitudes just made them unpopular.

It wasnt untill the "N" model that the P47 had a chance in this theater.

 

[renrich]

KK, of course you are correct that the later model Corsairs like F4U1D did not have the internal wing tanks that were unprotected. However those unprotected wing tanks had a CO2 system to purge them and they would be used first so they were not a problem in combat. I believe they were deleted in later model Corsairs because the AC did not need that additional range because of the common use of one or two belly tanks. The basic Corsair airframe and engine was capable of being adapted for a lot of different missions. If needed it could have been fitted with a different supercharger system(like the F4U5 had) or even turbo charged for better high altitude performance. If it were needed as a very long range fighter, just think what the fuel capacity would have been with the original internal wing tanks and two belly tanks. As we know, some models carried 4- 20mms. The airplane was optimised for the mission the Navy and Marines required, a fighter bomber and later fleet defense. As you know, the original P51s did not have the internal fuselage tank. It was fitted to extend it's range and even though it caused an undesirable CG shift the pilots used it up first and did not try to go into combat with it.

 

[kool kitty89]

I know, and many fighters also had purging systems (using vented exaust) for drop tanks as well.



You could also argue that the P-47 could have performed better down low with the turbo (and all that ducting) removed and replaced with a 2-speed supercharger setup lie the Corsair. The reduced bulk from removing the ducting making a more streamlined belly and reducing considerable weight.


Of course, the F4U still had the high lift airfoil, and removing the ducting from the P-47 would have the disadvantage for crash landings since the ducting acted as a crushable buffer, absorbing alot of shock amd greatly reducing damage to airframe and pilot.

 

[renrich]

KK, there was a recent post about a small air field in Burnet, Texas that had a Mig or two. I posted saying I used to live down the road from that place and that they had a nice airshow every spring. My brother, who is a private pilot, has a Saratoga, lives nearby and he went to the airshow last weekend. Howard Pardue was there with his Bearcat but the neat part was they had an A10 and a P47 there on display and they did a routine together. My brother said it was fun watching them make low passes together. Said the P47 was so loud that he could hardly hear the A10.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well the pilots at the fighter conference in 1944 did not seem to have a high opinion of the P38. As said before it was rated number one in only one category-worst cockpit.

I think this was from biased "single engine" pilots.

 

[syscom3]

I think this was from biased "single engine" pilots.

And it was about the best fighter flying against the LW.

Of course the 5th and 13th AF pilots had a far different opinion about it.

 

[drgondog]

I have to go with GrG and say it was the N1K2-J Shiden-Kai, Allied Code Name: "George"......

The plane was just unreal in its flight performance, and when American test pilots first flew it, the couldnt compare anything in the US arsenal to it, because there was nothing we had that was close.....

A plane flown by the best Japanese pilots they had left......

Four wing-mounted 20 mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon (N1K1-Ja, N1K1-Jb, N1K1-Jc, N1K2-J, N1K2-Ja and N1K2-K)....
One Nakajima NK9H Homare 21 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 1,990 hp for take-off, 1,825 hp at 1,750 m and 1,625 hp at 6,100 m, driving a four-blade metal propeller (production N1K1-J, N1K2-J, N1K2-K, N1K3-J and N1K3-A)....

The Shiden Kai was to become the best all-round fighter to be operational in the Pacific theatre.... It was fast, powerful, and maneuverable, and was well-armed and armored...... In the hands of an experienced pilot, the Shiden-Kai was the equal of any Allied fighter, even the later models of the P-51D Mustang which began to appear over Japan in the spring of 1945......
In one notable action, on February 16 1945 over Yokohama, Warrant Officer Kinsuke Muto of the 343rd Kokutai in an N1K2-J single-handedly battled a dozen F6F Hellcats...... He shot down four of them before the rest were forced to break off combat and return to their carrier......

The Shiden Kai had its center of gravity just alittle too far aft, and to correct this problem the N1K3-J Shiden Kai 1 Model 31 was built, which had the Homare 21 engine moved forward six inches..... This freed up enough space to permit two 13.2-mm machine guns to be fitted in the engine cowling..... Two prototypes were built at Himeji, but this model was never put into production....

Only 415 production examples of the outstanding N1K2-J fighter were built, owing primarily to construction snags and delays resulting from the continuous B-29 raids on the Japanese homeland in the last year of the war..... With the exception of Kawanishi's Naruo and Himeji plants, the other companies involved in the production pool were late in getting started and delivered only a token number of machines before the war ended.....

It is fortunate for the Allies that this outstanding aircraft was not available in greater quantity.

As an interceptor I would go with this fighter also - then I would place the P-38L.

As an all around 'best fighter' in PTO I would go F4U-4 or 5 simply because of it's all around high performance, all around capability and the simple fact that it operated from both land and sea.

 

[drgondog]

And it was about the best fighter flying against the LW.

The P-38?

Maybe in the MTO until the spring 1944, but in the ETO it didn't compare in air to air ratios with either the 47 or the 51... or gross numbers in air`scores or ground destruction of LW (of a/c).

Further - it seems that the losses to flak while strafing was higher for 38 than both the 51 and the 47 despite the two engines - this last figure is a little nebulous from my own research simply because you can get the number of LW a/c destroyed on the ground by all types, you can get the 'probable' losses due to flak for each type and you can get the ground/tree losses and IMPLY flak for each type - but you don't know for sure for any type that the low level loss was strafing, limping home or simple loss of control.

I have the 8th AF statistics but not the 9th or the MTO Groups. In the 8th the P-38 was marginal at best until the P38L... which means most of it's total experience against the LW. Only the 479th FG excelled in the P-38L as compared to P-51 and it's air to air ratio for the 38 was still lower than for 51but higher than averages for P-47.

Of course the 5th and 13th AF pilots had a far different opinion about it.

I probably would also if I had to choose one engine or two over water.. I would sacrifice a little agility for the security. The P-38 was the best all around USAAF fighter in the Pacific.

I was suprised by the study results on the ETO P-38 losses down low in the big strafing days of March-August, 1944 in comparison to 51. Maybe the P-38 was such a big target or loss of one engine on the deck was hard to recover from or most engine losses were accompanied by fire?

 

[kool kitty89]

Once the P-38J/L got boosted ailerons agility became competitive with most single engine fighters, and had a slight roll advantage above 350 mph against most contemporaries. Particularly since the dive flaps kept the compressibility problems at bay. (speed still limited to .68 mach)


Does anyone know about fire suppression systems for the P-38's engines? (having the outboard engine should give the pilot a little more time to get it under control since flames aren't enveloping the cockpit)

 

[Hunter368]

The year the P-38J/L became wide spread operational in ETO, MTO and PTO?

 

[drgondog]

The year the P-38J/L became wide spread operational in ETO, MTO and PTO?

Hunter - The first J's in widespread use was for the 20th and 55th FG in Jan-Feb 1944. The first dive brake kits trickled into the 20th, 55th and 364th in April. The 479th received the production model J with dive brakes in May. A few L's were delivered to 8th in late July but only the 479th had even a few as the 20th, 55th and 364th had already converted to Mustangs when the L arrived.

AFAIK the P-38L was not fully operational even with the 479th as I just ran a check and have no history of a P-38L ever lost for any reason in the 8th AF, and all of the 479FG losses in August and September were P-38J's. The 8th AF did get several Droop Snoot P-38L's in late August as lead 'bomber' ship for P-38 horizontal bombing experiments.

The MTO and 9th AF might have gotten them in the same summer 1944 timeframe - ditto 5th AF...

The 'things' that always bothered me about the P-38 in the ETO is that P-38 equipped groups were at the top of the 'worst fighter loss' days and occupied all of the ' 7 or more lost in air to air combat' missions except for one 78th FG, one 353rd FG (both P-47s - one 8, one 7) and two 4th FG (Mustangs - one 7, one 9) dates.. Ditto MTO. When the P-38's had a bad day they had a very bad day compared to the P-47 and P-51

The other notable fact about the Jug and Mustang losses is that all four of the 7+ days were during the Normandy campaign when they were caught low and slow strafing and bombing on the deck... and even then they gave a decent to good account of themselves...

 

[Hunter368]

Agreed, all I have ever heard from LW pilots is P-38 were easy meat compared (key words is "compared to") to P-51, P-47 and Spitfires.

Meaning I would not want to be flying a P-38 vs LW.

Also from what you are saying really the P-38L really was not a factor b/c of it's late trickle in effect. P-38L really did not make a impact on the war in anyway.

P-38J was the latest model to make any effect on the war, from what you are saying.

Correct Bill?

 

[kool kitty89]

Were all those P-38's shot down, or do the losses also include planes that made it home but had so much damage they had to be scrapped? A very different situation, as you'd still be losing the a/c, but not the pilot, and even then the a/c wasn't a total loss as it would be stripped of usable components for use on others.


And the L saw a lot more service in the PTO.

And I don't know if the P-38J would be worse against the LW than its USAAF contemporaries, but it did take a bit more skill to get the most out of a P-38. If a pilot knew the planes capabilities he could out perform the P-51 and p-47 in most circumstances. It was good in the horizontal, good at roll with boosted ailerons, good in a climb, and excellent in level acceleration due to the good power loading.
But it was totally at a disadvantage in a dive, particularly against the P-47D which would max out at ~100 mph faster TAS and accelerate better.

 

[Hunter368]

Ok, so the L saw service vs weaker enemies then the LW.

I have said this before also, on paper the P-38 was a good plane. But it took a good pilot to get that performance out of it, not the average pilot who fly in the USAF. Air forces are judged how good they are based on thier average pilot skill and plane. So even though the P-38J matched up well on paper vs other US planes (P-47 P-51) it could not live up to that.

When you factored in the pilot and plane, the P-38J was not as good as the P-47 or P-51 in ETO. As proof see its ( P-38 ) losses/sortie compared to others (47 51) in ETO. The P-47 P-51 had many fewer losses per sortie then the P-38. To me that says it all, P-38 in the hands of a average pilot was a sub-standard fighter compared to the P-47 or P-51.

Unless the P-38 was being used in a much different role then the P-47/51 was ever used in, which to my knowledge they were all used in a very similar role. (aka fighter, fighter bomber, recon, lost distance fighter cover)

 

[drgondog]

Agreed, all I have ever heard from LW pilots is P-38 were easy meat compared (key words is "compared to") to P-51, P-47 and Spitfires.

Meaning I would not want to be flying a P-38 vs LW.

Also from what you are saying really the P-38L really was not a factor b/c of it's late trickle in effect. P-38L really did not make a impact on the war in anyway.

P-38J was the latest model to make any effect on the war, from what you are saying.

Correct Bill?

Not exactly what I meant Hunter - only in ETO was 38L negligible in contribution as a fighter-fighter.

They went to Pacific and Phillipines for example but even in that context most of the last opportunities for 38 groups to score was Formosa from Phillipines

Having said that, it made more contribution than the P-47N and P-51H and F7F and F-8F - all late entries in the Great War

I have theories about why the P-38J did not succeed to its potential despite being an excellent airplane. Take away the compressibility issues which made it easy for 109s and 190s to dive then make a slow turn to evade the 38H and J, and take away the extreme cold issues affecting reliability in ETO winter.

I think it is simply that the 38 was big and distinctive. The LW pilot who saw it first had easy recognition and could choose to fight or flee.. so most of the fights were in situations where the 38 did not have a significant tactical advantage in position.

That is my theory..

 

[drgondog]

Were all those P-38's shot down, or do the losses also include planes that made it home but had so much damage they had to be scrapped? A very different situation, as you'd still be losing the a/c, but not the pilot, and even then the a/c wasn't a total loss as it would be stripped of usable components for use on others.

If the question was to me - all the statistics I am talking about are Missing Aircrew - i.e. last seen somewhere behind enemy lines and did not get back to Channel or Manston or CL on friendly soil.

And the L saw a lot more service in the PTO.

Syscom correctly pointed out that the Corsair and Hellcat had far more opportunities throughout the PTO. The P-38L came into 5th AF in middle or latter part of Phillipines, fought against largely the Japanese Army aircraft (not as many as IJN) and only made some missions to Formosa when the big battles around the kamikaze magnets were at Okinawa and USAAF didn't play there... so even in PTO it was very limited as the P-47N was also

And I don't know if the P-38J would be worse against the LW than its USAAF contemporaries, but it did take a bit more skill to get the most out of a P-38.

If air to air ratios are important measue of 'better' or worse' the 38 was half as good as the 47 and the 47 was 2/3 as good as the 51 in the ETO. The LW had the most of it's best remaining pilots in West fighting these aircraft over Germany from Dec 1943 forward.

If a pilot knew the planes capabilities he could out perform the P-51 and p-47 in most circumstances.

That is a bold statement given its lack of success. Doolitle didn't care about NAA, Republic or Lockheed - he wanted to kill the LW and tossed the 38. He may not have been quite as confident as you are that the P-38 could out perform the 109 or 190 as required to complete his mission?

It was good in the horizontal, good at roll with boosted ailerons, good in a climb, and excellent in level acceleration due to the good power loading.
But it was totally at a disadvantage in a dive, particularly against the P-47D which would max out at ~100 mph faster TAS and accelerate better.

But given all those wonderful capabilities the 51 nearly outscored the COMBINED air to air totals for both the P-47 and P-38 in ETO/MTO..despite flying half the time and sorties of either of them - and had a better air to air ratio - how do you figure that?

 

[syscom3]

Hunter, the P38 turned out to be a relatively easy airplane to fly and use in combat.

All it took was some training in one engine flying charchteristics, and the rookie pilots matured into average pilots.

How else can you explain the excellent results of the P38 squads in the Pacific?