Best Pacific Fighter?

[Hunter368]

Interesting,

I have read the same thing from LW vets, they respected and feared the P-47 more then any other Allied fighter.

 

[drgondog]

Interesting,

I have read the same thing from LW vets, they respected and feared the P-47 more then any other Allied fighter.

I have talked to some, it all depends on whom and when. I' have heard Spifire, Mustang and P-47 from different pilots

The 51 killed a lot more LW pilots than any Allied fighter except perhaps the Spitfire - I am still having trouble getting those statistics.. but the Spit fought a lot longer.

Zemke is a notable P-47 scorer that liked the 51 better air to air against the LW when he took over the 479th, although he loved the Thunderbolt.

 

[Soren]

The 51 killed a lot more LW pilots than any Allied fighter except perhaps the Spitfire

Its easier to shoot down enemy fighters when they're busy shooting down bombers, the Spitfire pilots didn't get that luxury. The P-51 for the most part also got to fight at its best altitude, again a luxury the Spitfire didn't enjoy to the same extent. Hence the very high losses the Spitfire suffered.

The point is however that the Mustang was great as it allowed the Allies to protect their bombers, but as an individual air superiority fighter it wasn't anything special, the latest Fw-190, Spitfire Bf-109's being better in terms of performance agility. But good it was and very fast esp. at its introduction, and it did well.

As for killing the most LW pilots, well that honor goes to the Spitfire hands down.

 

[drgondog]

Its easier to shoot down enemy fighters when they're busy shooting down bombers, the Spitfire pilots didn't get that luxury. The P-51 for the most part also got to fight at its best altitude, again a luxury the Spitfire didn't enjoy to the same extent. Hence the very high losses the Spitfire suffered.

The point is however that the Mustang was great as it allowed the Allies to protect their bombers, but as an individual air superiority fighter it wasn't anything special, the latest Fw-190, Spitfire Bf-109's being better in terms of performance agility. But good it was and very fast esp. at its introduction, and it did well.

As for killing the most LW pilots, well that honor goes to the Spitfire hands down.

Ah I knew someone would have the facts on this.. What are they Soren? How many LW fighters did the Spitfire claim? Source?

And what other fighter than the Mustang gained air superiority over Germany?

And to point/question of air superiority.

would you say the Spitfire achieved that over UK? Did they manage over German territory? Did the 109 and 190 dominate over USSR/East? How did they manage against the Mustang over their own territory and specifically over Germany? Did any other fighter achieve air superiority over Germany?

 

[Soren]

Well lets see Bill, the Spitfire fought from the BoB till the end of the war, the P-51 first started its career THREE years later in 1943! It's a no'brainer.

The Spitfire was responsible for allot of LW fighters and bombers shot down in BoB alone, and it didn't stop fighting the LW from then on. The P-51 hardly shot down any bombers, and the number of fighters it shot down I sincerely doubt is as high as that of the Spitfire.

One has to remember the time of introduction for these two a/c as one served 3 more years than the other.

 

[syscom3]

lets get back to the Pacific.

I still dont see anything contrary to the P38 not being the best.

The Corsair was a great fighter, but in 1943 and 1944, the P38 was supreme.

 

[drgondog]

Well lets see Bill, the Spitfire fought from the BoB till the end of the war, the P-51 first started its career THREE years later in 1943! It's a no'brainer.

The Spitfire was responsible for allot of LW fighters and bombers shot down in BoB alone, and it didn't stop fighting the LW from then on. The P-51 hardly shot down any bombers, and the number of fighters it shot down I sincerely doubt is as high as that of the Spitfire.

One has to remember the time of introduction for these two a/c as one served 3 more years than the other.

Well - 'no brainer' as it may be for you, consider this. The P-38 fought the LW since Nov 1942, the P-47 since Apr 1943 and both were far behind the Mustang. The Spitfire fought from late 1939 and engaged quite a bit so it raises the question doesn't it?

Like the P-47 the Spitfire was largely fighting smaller clashes with the LW from 1942 forward.. steady but small. Ditto P-47 and P-38 in 1943 and 1944 up to D-Day. The 51 was fighting and winning big air battles over Germany while the 47 and Spitfire and Tempest and Typhoons and Hurricanes were on the periphery due to lack of range and lack of incentive for LW day fighters to come up and fight,

But I asked for facts and you give me 'no brainer'.. what is your fact base Soren? How many awards for LW fighters were assigned to Spitfires? Specifically a 'number'... and the source for the number.

You may doubt it (Mustang shot down higher number of fighters). I expressed doubt also - but my doubt was based on "I don't know because I haven't found the facts yet".

This is interesting if you have facts. Otherwise it is not interesting.

 

[drgondog]

lets get back to the Pacific.

I still dont see anything contrary to the P38 not being the best.

The Corsair was a great fighter, but in 1943 and 1944, the P38 was supreme.

They were both great. The P-38 had some performance advantage, the F4U had some performance advantages. The F4u could operate from land and sea. It engaged more and destroyed more and lost fewer air to air than the 38 (IIRC). The F4U was cheaper. The F4U continued stellar service through the Korean War. The P-38 did not.

It's a matter of preference for many but certainly not a 'clear win' for the P-38.

I picked the F4U because I think it was a slightly better air fighter than the 51, that the 51 was better air fighter than the 38 (in my opinion), and the F4U derivatives which went into Korean War were better air to ground platforms for ground support than any P-38. I'm having a hard time finding data to support that a P-38 was more survivable as a strafer than a 51 - at least with 8th AF statistics from the Macrs.

I also think the P-38 was the greatest fighter 'we could have built' in WWII had the program not been set back two years and had a P-38L in the air in late 1942 - but it was and it wasn't.

I am really not that passionate about arguing either position except that I would clearly buy all F4U's in 1942 if I had to pick one fighter for the rest of the war.

 

[Soren]

Bill do you even consider the fact that the Spitfire was responsible for a huge loss of LW bombers transports ? Do you also realize that LW bombers transports often featured a crew of 5 or more ?

And as for tallies well do you have info which suggests that the P-51 shot down more fighters than the Spitfire ? (In the air that is)

 

[drgondog]

Bill do you even consider the fact that the Spitfire was responsible for a huge loss of LW bombers transports ? Do you also realize that LW bombers transports often featured a crew of 5 or more ?

And as for tallies well do you have info which suggests that the P-51 shot down more fighters than the Spitfire ? (In the air that is)

How many Spitfire awards Soren for LW fighters - the central question and the repeated request.

 

[Soren]

The central question ??

You're the one who's claiming the P-51 shot down more fighters than the Spitfire, well where's the proof of this Bill cause like I said, I doubt it!

Now as if this isn't enough you're also claiming that the P-51 was resposible for more LW casualties than the Spitfire, something which just doesn't add up to the already known facts. The Spitfire did afterall shoot down over 600 a/c during the BoB alone, many of them being bombers. The Spitfire was also responsible for allot of LW transports shot down, among these a numbrt of Me-323's.

 

[drgondog]

The central question ??

You're the one who's claiming the P-51 shot down more fighters than the Spitfire, well where's the proof of this Bill cause like I said, I doubt it!

Soren - please go back to my original comment. You will see, given an average reading comprehension ability that I said no such thing. In fact I stated that I thought it highly possible that the Spitfire shot down more LW fighters than the Mustang _ I JUST COULD NOT FIND THE FACTS!.

Please parse these words and tell us how you came to your conclusion - this is EXACTLY what I wrote

The 51 killed a lot more LW pilots than any Allied fighter except perhaps the Spitfire - I am still having trouble getting those statistics.. but the Spit fought a lot longer.


You jumped in like a fat toad and said it was a 'no brainer'.

I asked you for facts (one way or another) and we get to this point.

Stop.

You owe me (still) an explanation for why you thought 'suction' in Lednicer's models were 'drag'.... and why anyone with any knowledge of aero could think otherwise?

Three weeks ago you said you would be 'right back' on that discussion and I am still waiting from the self proclaimed aerodynamics expert. You laid low for two weeks (on vacation?) and thought that blooper would go away.

It hasn't.

How many LW fighters awarded to Spitfires makes it a 'no brainer'?? And when does 'suction' equate to 'drag' in a finite element, distributed vortices model? Simple facts. No ad hominem attacks, please

You scheduled to go on vacation again?

 

[Hunter368]

Can we please keep this on subject here guys, many of us want to keep this thread from getting closed like others. Perhaps one of you could open a thread on the subject you are talking about.

Thread is about PTO fighters.

Respectfully Hunter

 

[Soren]

Huh ?

You wrote this Bill "You may doubt it (Mustang shot down higher number of fighters). " which looks like a claim to me. Or perhaps I misinterpreted it ? (Its 4 AM where I'm at this moment and Im on watch)

And what's with the sudden paranoia Bill? You seriously think I've been away from the forum because of a discussion we had ? Bill I could care less, besides the discussion was over in my eyes.

And as to suction, well I thought we had settled this already, and yes suction equals drag. A razorback design has less drag than a bubble canopy one, the simple reason being that there's not the turbulent area right behind the canopy creating extra drag. I thought you understood this.

The sudden drop over the top of the canopy is what causes the boundary layer to seperate, causing turbulence to the rear(Hence the stability issue), and therefore extra drag. It's the same with bullets Bill, if you say cut way the boattail you'll get sooner seperation and more turbulence which means more drag, hence why spitzer bullets aren't as drag efficient as boattailed ones.

 

[syscom3]

Thank you Hunter.

OK .... lets list the attributes between the F4U and P38.

Airframe strength: F4U
This is then offset because neither airframe was known to be weak. As I argued with Soren in another thread, once you reach a point in design where it does the job, anything more is just gold plating.

Guns: Tie - four .50's in a nose config. is as deadly as six .50's in the wings. I don't think the 4 x 20mm's for the Corsair was all that prevelaint.

Gunnery: P38. No convergence issues.

Payload: P38. 4000 pound payload with the ability to have a droop snoot type light bomber.

Range: P38 by a large margin.

Performance. Even at low and middle altitudes. P38 has an edge up high.

Ease of flying: P38. No torque factors and tricycle landing gears.

Dive performance: F4U by a good margin.

Production factors: F4U for cost and man hours to build.

Logistics: Slight edge to the F4U. But when on a carrier, huge edge to the P38.

Variants and roles: Slight edge to the P38 as its role as a photo-recon fighter.

Pilot training: Once the twin engine curriculum was perfected in 1943, it probably worked out even. More hours needed for the P38 for the twin engine, offset by the USN needing more hours to qualify pilots for carrier ops.

 

[Thorlifter]

nice outline Soren.

1 question. I'm confused why under Logistics, you give the P-38 a huge edge when on a carrier. Did you mean to type Corsair? Just want clarification.

 

[syscom3]

nice outline Soren.

1 question. I'm confused why under Logistics, you give the P-38 a huge edge when on a carrier. Did you mean to type Corsair? Just want clarification.

I meant that when the Corsair was carrier based, its supportability dropped by a huge margin, as compared to a P38 on a ground base, with all the supporting depots.

When the Corsair was land based, the supportability would have been equal.

 

[Thorlifter]

Ah.......got it. Thanks

 

[renrich]

According to "Air and Space, Smithsonian" in a recent article comparing Spitfire to Hurricane, Spitfire shot down 529 EA in BOB, not 600 as recently stated in this forum. Good article. Attributes of P38 versus F4U- I differ on following: Payload-tie, Corsair carried 4000 pound bombload also: Range- I would not give P38 huge edge her as USAAAF charts do not support, but edge to P38; Performance- I would give edge to Corsair because of low to medium altitude better overall performance which would include maneuverability; Ease of flying-definite edge to F4U as it was notable for beautiful handling once in the air. Landing it took concentration, particularly on carrier but handling in combat was much superior. Logistics-Huge edge to F4U, less gasoline needed, many less spare parts, engine much more reliable, only one kind of engine to fit(no right or left engine) Variants- Edge to Corsair because mainly of ability to dive bomb which P38 could not do at all. One other big advantage is that P38 much easier to identify and is huge target with many vulnerable places to hit. A P38 along with all liquid cooled engined fighters could be more easily damaged fatally by rifle caliber weapons and the P38 had twice as many engines to be hit and catch fire. Look at combat film of enemy fighters in classic rear quarter attack on P38s and think of enemy gunners on ground. Radial engined fighters very difficult to shoot down with rifle caliber weapons. Corsair much more survivable air to air and air to ground.

 

[syscom3]

Attributes of P38 versus F4U- I differ on following: Payload-tie, Corsair carried 4000 pound bombload also:

Fair enough

Range- I would not give P38 huge edge her as USAAAF charts do not support, but edge to P38;

The P38's flew 1300 mile missions (2600 round trip). Show me the F4U doing that. Thats a HUGE edge.

Performance- I would give edge to Corsair because of low to medium altitude better overall performance which would include maneuverability;

But then the P38 and F4U were both fighting against the Japanese fighters which were far more maneuverable, and not against themselves. So the question on who has the best maneuverability is kind of irrleveant.

Ease of flying-definite edge to F4U as it was notable for beautiful handling once in the air. Landing it took concentration, particularly on carrier but handling in combat was much superior.

So the torque issues of that big paddle blade prop is not a factor?

Logistics-Huge edge to F4U, less gasoline needed, many less spare parts, engine much more reliable, only one kind of engine to fit(no right or left engine)

Once the industrial might of the AAF was felt, there were so many spare parts available, it meant nothing. And then if the Corsair was on an carrier, then its logistical requirements went up dramatically, including the disposal overboard of moderatly damaged aircraft that could not be fixed on board.

Now about the tricycle gear.... flyboy has some definate opinions on how good that was for takeoff and landings, especially in poor visibility and rotten airstrips.

Variants- Edge to Corsair because mainly of ability to dive bomb which P38 could not do at all. One other big advantage is that P38 much easier to identify and is huge target with many vulnerable places to hit.

But the Corsair was not a level "light bomber" like the P38 Droop Snoot version. Nor was the Corsair anywhere nearly as good as the F4 and F5 phot recon types. In fact the P38 gets a huge extra credit for this for performing fantastic service in that role. Long range, big camera payload and high altitude capability!

P38 gets the nod for this. BTW, did you know the P38 was also rated as a torpedo bomber?

A P38 along with all liquid cooled engined fighters could be more easily damaged fatally by rifle caliber weapons and the P38 had twice as many engines to be hit and catch fire.

And a single golden bullet into the single engine of the Corsair was definatly a mission stopper. Two engines means you can get home.

Look at combat film of enemy fighters in classic rear quarter attack on P38s and think of enemy gunners on ground. Radial engined fighters very difficult to shoot down with rifle caliber weapons. Corsair much more survivable air to air and air to ground.

True. Bit there are many Spitfire, P51 and -109 aces that say any aircraft was vulnerable.