Best Pacific Fighter? (1 Viewer)

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.
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.
 
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.
 

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)



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

(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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

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.
 

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?
 
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 said:
The year the P-38J/L became wide spread operational in ETO, MTO and PTO?
Click to expand...

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...
 
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?
 
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.
 
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)
 

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..
 

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?
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

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