Sys, as usual you make some good points. Obviously I have never flown a P38 or F4U(except in my dreams) and I have only a few solo hours in an Atlas Skyrocket so all I can go on is what other people have written about both AC. Let me quote from Dean in "America's One Hundred Thousand'" about the P38. "The P38 was a large heavy fighter not suited for quick "snap" or "slam bang" maneuvers and had a particularly slow initial response in roll due to a high lateral inertial characteristic. The problem was a slow start into a roll and thus an inability to switch quickly from one attitude to another, as in reversing from a turn in one direction to one in the other. As one pilot said" It was disconcerting to have a fighter barreling in on you, crank the wheel over hard and just have the P38 sit there. Then, after it slowly rolled the first five or ten degrees of bank it would turn quickly, but the hesitation was sweat producing." That doesn't sound like fun when surprised by a Zero! He goes on to say that power boosted ailerons introduced later improved roll characteristics at high speeds but did nothing to improve them at low to moderate speeds. Now from the same book on the Corsair. " A company test pilot claimed "Throwing the stick hard would roll the airplane more than 180 degrees per second." "There is no question, however, that the Corsair roll performance was very good for a WW2 US fighter." From Richard Linnekin in "80 knots to Mach 2." " The Corsair was a stable airplane with reasonable, not objectionable, control forces. It had a comforting, solid feel in cruise configuration, yet maneuver response was quick and relatively easy. It was not as quick as in the Bearcat but in some ways it was more controllable. My subjective impression is of better "control harmony" in the Corsair than in either of the Grummans." Speaking of gunnery runs in the Corsair Linnekin said, " The Corsair was the most comfortable airplane I had yet flown in a gunnery pattern." "In a Corsair, for the first time I let the airplane do most of the work, correcting only as necessary. I think that control harmonisation made that possible." Let me add that Linnekin was not just a Navy pilot but an aero engineer and test pilot. Now from the fighter conference in 1944 and these comparisons have nothing to do with ETO or PTO but rather flying characteristics. Best all around cockpit-F4U4- second, P38 not rated. Best engine controls-F4U-fourth, P38-ninth and last. Best all around armor-F4u-second, P38 not mentioned. Best overload takeoff from a small area-F4U-second. P38- third. Best ailerons at 350 mph-F4u-second, P38L-third. Best ailerons at 100 mph, F4u-second, P38L- sixth. Best elevators-F4U-First, P38L-seventh. Best rudder-F4U-second, P38L third. Nicest all around stability-F4U-second, P38L-seventh. Best characteristics 5 mph above stall-P38L-third, F4U sixth. Best dive stability and control-F4U-first, P38L-eighth. Best instrument and night flying qualities- F4U-third, P38- fifth. Best fighter above and below 25000 feet F4U rated better than P38L. Best production carrier based fighter-F4U- first, P38 can't operate from carrier. Best fighter bomber-F4U-first, P38L- fifth. Best strafer, F4U - second, P38L-fifth. As far as range is concerned official USAAF charts show P38L with 740 gallons of gas with max combat radius of action of 650 miles. How much gas did they have for those 2600 mile missions and what was the ordnance load? The Corsair was deployed to the Pacific more than six months after the P38 and had 2155 kills to 1700 for the P38. The Corsair flew 64051 combat sorties and dropped 15, 621 tons of bombs which I have to believe was more than the P38. The Corsair had 189 losses to enemy AC and 349 to enemy triple A. What are the comparable statistics as far as the P38? The P38 was not desirable in the CBI because of gasoline and parts shortages and was drawn down in numbers there as soon as possible. I agree with Rex Barber of P38 fame when he said that if the US had to build one fighter it should have been the Corsair.
