Best USAAF fighter for escort missions over Japan

Sorry, duplicate.

tomo pauk said:

How much was the 'problem' with vulnerability of the liquid cooling system of the P-51 (or another similar A/C) really pronounced?

Click to expand...

Data from the ETO shows that the P-51 was not significantly more vulnerable to heavy flak than either the P-38 or P-47 when operating at altitude in an escort role (classified as 20,000 to 30,000 feet in the tables). I imagine this is the intended role in the bombing campaign against Japan as there was little reason to go after the remnants of the Japanese fighter force on the ground.

It was very much more vulnerable to light flak when operating at low level, either forced low by combat or weather or making attacks on ground targets. By far the most dangerous mission for any fighters was attacking airfields. Total losses were typically about double for P-51s compared to P-47s for the 8th AF but that needs to be related to sorties flown by each type and I don't have the overall data to hand.

I do have that data for D-Day and again per 100 sorties the P-51 losses to light flak are higher than P-47s, but losses are too low to draw any firm conclusions.

Cheers

Steve

A study done by the US Navy on aircraft damaged or lost in air to air combat with the Japanese from September 1944 until August 1945. The results are as follows: (sample size 501 single engine aircraft, including fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers, all powered by air-cooled engines.)

Position Hit Total A/C hit A/C lost % Lost*
Propeller 9 0 0
Power Plant 37 23 62
Structure 215 23 11
Pilot or controls 97 74 76
Control Surface 27 0 0
Oil System 27 23 85
Fuel System 30 24 80
Hydraulic System 35 21 60
Electrical System 6 0 0
Other 18 5 28

*Any aircraft that failed to return to a friendly base.

(Source: Combat Development in World War II, Fighter Aircraft, Alfred Price page 43)

Please note that a hit in the engine lead to a lost aircraft 62% of the time. Hits in the oil or fuel system lead to a lost aircraft 80+ % of the time.

One item that this table does not tell us is how far the hit aircraft needed to travel to return to base. The further the distance, the more likely the chance the aircraft will not return. Since it is 700 plus miles from Iwo Jima to Tokyo Japan, from a practical standpoint, if an air cooled or liquid cooled single engine fighter gets hit in the engine, oil, or fuel system, the only difference would be how far from Japan one would get until the plane ditched into the sea.

Perhaps a twin engine fighter would have been a better way to go.

Eagledad

Statistics, despite being quite valuable to the engineer and scientist, can be very misleading if used incorrectly. One of the primary assumptions in statistics is a random sample, but that is almost never the case in wartime numbers. By way of example, the P-38 got to the ETO early and was thrown into battle with almost no pilot training coupled with several faults that were correctable and which WERE corrected, but not quickly, and being sent in where they were expected by the enemy. So the bulk of the P-38 sorties were flown with aircraft faults coupled with poor pilot training flying into known trouble areas that were expecting them.

There is a lot that can be discussed in here, but ... that's another thread.

When the P-51 arrived, we were more seasoned and had a much better idea of what to do and how to do it.

All the above being said, the highest loss rate per sortie for US fighters in the war was the P-38 at 1.35%. Next was the P-51at 1.18%, followed by the Beaufighter at 0.94% (we didn't fly it much), followed by the A-36 at 0.76%. The P-47 was 0.73%. Interestingly, the lowest loss rate per sortie belongs to the P-39 at 0.35% (it only flew 30,547 sorties and had 107 combat losses).

The worst loss rate per sortie in the US Navy was the Douglas Devastator at 24.18% (44 losses in 182 sorties), but it's not a fighter. If you group all Wildcats together, the Wildcat has the highest loss rate per dortie at 2.58% and the F4U Corsair has the lowest at 1.20% with the Hellcat at 1.75%.

Data for the Navy from Naval Combat Statistics, WWII. Data for the USAAF from American Combat Planes by Ray Wagner.

For the ETO only, the P-38 had a loss per sortie of 1.4%, the P-51 was 1.2%, the P-40 and A-36 were 0.8%, the P-47 and P-51 were 0.7%, and the lowest loss rate per sortie was the P-39 at 0.4% per sortie. These data from Francis Dean.

For bombers in the ETO, the highest loss rate was the B-17 at 0.0161 and the B-24 was next at 0.0160. All the medium bombers were more than twice as good as either heavy, with the safest being the B-25 at 0.0060.

Putting that into different terms, the B-17 flew 62.2 sorties per loss, the B-24 flew 62.5 sorties per loss, the and the B-25 flew 166.3 sorties per loss, with the B-26, A-26, and A-20 all flying more than 142 sorties per loss. If you were going to fly bombers in the ETO, you had twice the chance to survive in medium bombers.

The B-29 in the Pacific flew 75.8 sorties per loss making it the safest US heavy bomber of the war. The safest bomber period, for the USA at least, was the B-25 with the other medium bombers not being far behind.

For contrast, the Lancaster flew 38.7 bombing sorties per loss, the Halifax flew 32.8 sorties per loss, and the bomber version of the Mosquito flew 72.3 sorties per loss.

Much of the loss rate was due to the missions assigned and not to the aircraft. If you were bombing Schweinfurt, you were flying over a very dense AAA site with protection from fighters second to none. If you were bombing a much lower priority target, you might not SEE an enemy fighter or an AAA site. Airfields and V-1 / V-2 sites had VERY dense AAA as well as fighter cover.

Nothing new in these data.

VERY good and informative article regarding the P-51 escorts that accompanied the B-29s over Japan.

'Very Long Range' P-51 Mustang Missions to Japan Taxed Pilots | Defense Media Network

I think a pilot would choose the P-38, simply due to the comfort of having a second engine. I think a commander may choose the P-51 or P-47N, depending on which qualities he found to be most important.

I would have to imagine the perceived stress of long over-water flights in a single engine fighter may be greater than the statistics may prove, but perception is reality.

does the p-38 have the same range capabilitiesas the P-51? Iam talking late 1944 to early 1945..... P-51s were only able to undertake operations over Japan from April 1945, when the 506th began operations there. these were termed VLR operations, and as i understand it, at that time the P-51s were the only US fiighter with the necessary legs to travel the 650nm from Iwo to the Japanese Coast, and then retain some loiter time. Eventually the P-47Ns that were received, did possess this most vital of characteristics (range), plus the better capability (than the P-51) in carrying ordinance to Japan. Had the war continued after August, it had been planned to replace the P-51s based on Iwo, with P-47Ns, because of that enhanced flexibility.

On Oct 10, 1944 16 P-38's and 16 P-47's escorted B-24's to the Balikpapan Oil refinery. The fighters were based on Morotai Island, which is more than 800 miles from the refinery. The escort for the bombers used a relay system like the 8th AF raids in Europe. Other P-38's and P-47's escorted the bombers during the first legs of the mission. The last 2 units of P-38's and P-47's escorted the bombers on the later legs of the mission and fought Japanese interceptors over the target. The pilots used the cruise techniques taught to them by Charles Lindbergh. I believe that these aircraft carried large than normal drop tanks (I believe they carried either 1 or 2 300 gallon tanks on this mission). One item of difference between this mission and later B-29 missions; the B-24's bombed from around 15,000 feet, not the 30,000 feet of the B-29. So the P-38's demonstrated that they did have the range to do the job from Iwo Jima. However, I believe that the P-51 still had a marginally greater radius of action.

Eagledad

The ability of the P-38 to escort B-29s may well have depended on the operating altitude of the B-29s. Early on when they were bombing from very high altitude, could the P-38 have had the same cooling/supercharger problems as it did in Europe? The P-38 never had to operate at those altitudes
in the pacific and it could get pretty cold over Japan.

Duane

By the time the B-29s were operating from Pacific Islands and not China the high altitude problems of the P-38 had been fixed and had been fixed for months (most, if not all of the problems had been fixed by spring/summer of 1944).

Jenisch said:

Hello,

I was wondering which USAAF fighter was the best for long-range escort of USAAF bombers to Japan in 1944/45. I'm with the impression that given the long durance of overwater flight required in such missions, the P-38 is a very interesting option with the supposed twin-engine safety, despite that I have the impression it was not as combat capable as the P-51D or the P-47N.

What are your impressions about the subject?

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-82_Twin_Mustang
F-82 Twin Mustang

From the Wikipedia article:
Initially intended as a very long-range (VLR) escort fighter, the F-82 was designed to escort Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers on missions exceeding 2,000 miles (3,200 km) from the Solomons or Philippines to Tokyo, missions beyond the range of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning and conventional P-51 Mustangs. Such missions were part of the planned U.S. invasion of the Japanese home islands, which was forestalled by the surrender of Japan days after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

a couple of months ago i bought a magazine about P38's. while it told a lot of good story's there was one where on a escort mission to the Borneo oil refinery a P38 took a 20 mm cannon shell to an engine, then he limped over 800 miles home on 1 engine. they said it was the longest known flight on one engine. of course i can't find the magazine right now so i can't give the name of the pilot, i hope someone knows what i'm talking about.

Problem with the F-82, is that it didn't make it to the war on time. Had the Islands not been atomic bombed and the Japanese not surrendered, dragging the war on for another 6-8 (estimated) months, it is very likely you would have seen the F-82 (and P-51H) in action over Japan.

snelson said:

a couple of months ago i bought a magazine about P38's. while it told a lot of good story's there was one where on a escort mission to the Borneo oil refinery a P38 took a 20 mm cannon shell to an engine, then he limped over 800 miles home on 1 engine. they said it was the longest known flight on one engine. of course i can't find the magazine right now so i can't give the name of the pilot, i hope someone knows what i'm talking about.

Click to expand...

FWIW, there was a RAAF PR Mosquito (A52-2 F/O Boss-Walker) that flew 900 miles on one engine from Surabaya to Australia in June 1944.

Wildcat said:

FWIW, there was a RAAF PR Mosquito (A52-2 F/O Boss-Walker) that flew 900 miles on one engine from Surabaya to Australia in June 1944.

Click to expand...

that is to cool thanks. i wish i could find that magazine but it got lost in the move i'll probably find it a year from now

snelson said:

that is to cool thanks. i wish i could find that magazine but it got lost in the move i'll probably find it a year from now

Click to expand...

Yep, that's what normally happens. When you want it, can't find it, when you don't need it - there it is

GrauGeist said:

Problem with the F-82, is that it didn't make it to the war on time. Had the Islands not been atomic bombed and the Japanese not surrendered, dragging the war on for another 6-8 (estimated) months, it is very likely you would have seen the F-82 (and P-51H) in action over Japan.

Click to expand...

I've often wondered about the P-82. How much earlier could it have been available, had NA based it on the P-51D?

It should've been by early 1945?

An interesting tidbit from the AHT:
Oct 8th, 1944 - against the targets 835 miles away (Morotai to Balikapan), the 5th air force uses the P-47D-28s that have, apart from internal 370 gals, also the 310 US gal tank under one wing, the 165 gal under another, and a 75 gal tank that was carried all the way. They do the fighter sweeps, claiming 15 Japanese aircraft on this date, and so much each of 2 days following. Losses were 2 pilots total. Following them were the B-24s with P-38 escort.

It was, of course, much easier to obtain a good radius if one can do 200 mph at, say, 15000 ft, rather than at 300 mph at 25000 ft. The 'permanent' drop tank was not that a detrimental thing when battling the 350 mph Japanese fighters, rather than 400 mph German ones.

Another one, same source:
Aug 1944: FEAF Service Command experiments with a 42 gallon fuel tank just under the pilot, and a 70 gal form-fitting (slipper) belly tank for the P-47s. However, the pilots were expressing the concerns for take off crashes due to overload (having witnessing those), and, without heavier-ply tires, Gen Kenney cancelled the use of those 'permanent' tanks.

GrauGeist said:

Problem with the F-82, is that it didn't make it to the war on time. Had the Islands not been atomic bombed and the Japanese not surrendered, dragging the war on for another 6-8 (estimated) months, it is very likely you would have seen the F-82 (and P-51H) in action over Japan.

Click to expand...

Dave - the P-51H could have been deployed easily in July had the perceived need for improved performance arisen. The P-82B with Packard Merlin 1650-11 was cancelled in August 1945 after some 18-20 had been built so it would have been operational perhaps in November/December 1945, but more likely early 1946 had the need been there.

Candidly I don't know why Okinawa would not have been sufficient as an additional base so I doubt that the 1800-2000 mile combat radius would have been required for WWII. Post war SAC support is an entirely different matter.

snelson said:

a couple of months ago i bought a magazine about P38's. while it told a lot of good story's there was one where on a escort mission to the Borneo oil refinery a P38 took a 20 mm cannon shell to an engine, then he limped over 800 miles home on 1 engine. they said it was the longest known flight on one engine. of course i can't find the magazine right now so i can't give the name of the pilot, i hope someone knows what i'm talking about.

Click to expand...

Dubious but possible if he had retained his external tank and it still had fuel. AFAIK, here was no ability in P-38 to transfer fuel from one wing to the other wing.

That flight would get dicey as he drained external fuel, dropped tank and drained internal fuel on the good engine side. The dead load on the bad engine side with full internal fuel would have made his flight pretty tricky as he reduced speed to land. Additionally the fuel consumption rate of the good engine at higher boost/rpm to overcome the drag of the dead engine/trim drag would have been a lot higher.

The max internal fuel available would have been perhaps 10-20 gallons less (or more) than max internal capacity of 205 gallons/wing after warm up and take off. The 300 gallon externals would have gotten him to the target but presumably he dropped thise when he was getting shot at?

If the above assumptions are correct, the he had to get 800 miles out of a draggy, slower, gas gobbling engine (relative to optimal cruise setting)

More than 4 miles per gallon