FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Shades of the Forrestal!
Corsair vs Lightning
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
I recently reviewed the comments Jimmy Doolittle gave Warren Bodie:
The P-38 may not have been the best fighter in WWII, but he does conced that this can probably be attributed to factors unrelated to the aircrafts abilities. Strategic and tactical doctrine proved to be a severe handicap to utilization of this type in Northern Europe. Early P-47s and P-51swould have fared poorly under the rules prevailing.
G. Doolittle expressed the opinion that the P-38 was surely at it's best in the warmer climes of the MTO. On the balance - in his opinion - was far ahead of all but 1 or 2 of the most outstanding fighters of WWII. It was certainly the most versatile ...
It also should be noted that on D-Day he flew a P-38 to view the landings.
wmaxt
The P-38 may not have been the best fighter in WWII, but he does conced that this can probably be attributed to factors unrelated to the aircrafts abilities. Strategic and tactical doctrine proved to be a severe handicap to utilization of this type in Northern Europe. Early P-47s and P-51swould have fared poorly under the rules prevailing.
G. Doolittle expressed the opinion that the P-38 was surely at it's best in the warmer climes of the MTO. On the balance - in his opinion - was far ahead of all but 1 or 2 of the most outstanding fighters of WWII. It was certainly the most versatile ...
It also should be noted that on D-Day he flew a P-38 to view the landings.
wmaxt
wmaxt said:
Top speed of the F4U-4 was 464 mph TAS at ~21K, 448 mph TAS with "capped" pylons installed. Since the top speed figures for the P-38L are without pylons the fair comparison is to the 464 mph figure.
In my opinion the F4U-4 was better than the P-38L below about 27K, the P-38L was better above about 31K, and they were evenly matched between 27K and 31K. The Corsair was the tougher plane w.r.t. combat damage, the P-38 definitely had an edge when it came to surviving mechanical problems. The P-38 had a lot more vulnerable target area given its gas in the wings and the layout of its engines and turbo-superchargers.
And the F4U-1c was the cannon armed version that definitely saw action during WWII (first blood drawn 4-6-45). The F4U-4C may have seen action but no confirmation can be found (a few hundred were delievered in time for the war).
The F4U-1c's had gun freezing problems and were ineffective above 15K and were intended for ground attack from conception.
=S=
Lunatic
- Thread starter
- #44
syscom3
Pacific Historian
But some P38 pilots in the PTO said that the two engine design is what brought them home, as compared to a single engine. Again, both planes have outstanding airframes and could bring their pilots home time after time. Perhaps only the P47 was tougher.
P38 Pilot
Tech Sergeant
Agreed. With that Two engine design, they could keep on going even after they took some damage.
P38 Pilot said:
It was really not vs. damage that those pilots were usually talking about. It was vs. mechanical failure.
The odds that after taking hits the P-38 was going to go down were much higher than for a corsair or hellcat. The fuel tanks are comparitavely exposed and the engines are no where near as robust vs. combat damage. An R2800 could take signifcant damage and still get the pilot home, where an inline would fail after almost any hit due to coolant loss. Even with two engines the liquid cooling aspect plus the fuel tank vulnerability made it less able to survive combat damage and get the pilot home.
=S=
Lunatic
- Thread starter
- #47
syscom3
Pacific Historian
But what happens when you are flying 1300 miles from base, and one engine fails for any reason. Is that Hellcat or Corsair going to glide all those miles?
Another plus for the 2 engine design is it was great for the morale of the P38 pilots. Knowing you could come home after losing an engine made the flying the vast distances in the SW pacific far more bareable.
The 475th FG pilot I talked to at Chino 2004, told me having a second engine brought home many pilots who otherwise would have parachuted way out over the ocean or into the jungles.
Another plus for the 2 engine design is it was great for the morale of the P38 pilots. Knowing you could come home after losing an engine made the flying the vast distances in the SW pacific far more bareable.
The 475th FG pilot I talked to at Chino 2004, told me having a second engine brought home many pilots who otherwise would have parachuted way out over the ocean or into the jungles.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Lunatic said:
While I agree with the robustness of a radial engine the area around the P-38s fuel tanks (along with a good portion of the wings) were made from corrugations riveted to structure and then the corrugations riveted to the skin - the same system found on B-17 wings - this is extremely strong and I would compare it to the structure of the Corsair or the Hellcat any day....
Bottom line I rather have one feathered and one running Allison engine than one R-2800 with 3 jugs missing....
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Lunatic said:
One thing that is rarley noted is that the P-38 is also spread out. It's outside dimensions are large but the individual parts are not, making the liklyhood that a single burst is going to take it out very unlikely.
The Corsair fuel is more concentrated but it's also at the point an enemy aircraft will be aiming at. The P-38s is more spread out but is self sealing (to) and is also able to be cross fed to ether engine - lose a tank you can at a minimum work your way closer to home. Try that in a Corsair with an empty tank!
All in all I think the two aircraft are extreamly close in capability and 1:1 combat it would probably come down to who exploited/made the first mistake. As for which plane is best, it would come down to mission and each one only has a couple of areas that it is unique in.
IMHO, these are the pinacle in piston engine fighter aircraft though its easily arguable that the Spit and the Fw-190 series should be included even if they can't do everything these two can.
wmaxt
- Thread starter
- #50
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The PTO had its own unique requirements for a successfull fighter. Range was definatley one of the most important considerations.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
syscom3 said:
True, but escorting in the MTO/ETO missions with a 500+ mile radius were common.
I do think, though, that any "Best" aircraft must include the 'You got to get to the fight' condition - the best fighter that ever flew is worth nothing if it can't get to where it's needed.
wmaxt
- Thread starter
- #52
syscom3
Pacific Historian
wmaxt said:
Well summarized.
In regards to the ETO/MTO, my intent of this thread was their performance in the PTO. There they fought the same opponents, in the same theater and had to contend with the same operational problems.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
although in the case of interceptors where it was needed was baisically straight up, not miles away over enemy teritory, i know this is nothing to do with the discussion i just didn't want people thinking that planes like the spitfire and EE Lightening were bad fighters because of their range, it's ok for a plane to have short range of it was designed to.........
cheddar cheese
Major General
Agreed on both counts lanc and wmaxt.
Me too. Good points.cheddar cheese said:
- Thread starter
- #56
syscom3
Pacific Historian
One of the unique problems for both the Japanese and Allied forces in the PTO was the vast distances involved. If you cannot send your fighters out to where your opponant is, youre strictly on defense. In the PTO that meant your opponant could take islands or jungle just out of reach of your aircraft and build strips to cutoff your sealane supply.
What made the P38 and Corsair so great was they could fly practically anywhere the bombers went and cover them. A Spitfire in the PTO would be of quite limited use since it would be tied closely to its base and couldnt fly to where the action was.
What made the P38 and Corsair so great was they could fly practically anywhere the bombers went and cover them. A Spitfire in the PTO would be of quite limited use since it would be tied closely to its base and couldnt fly to where the action was.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
syscom3 said:
Thats part of my point, I don't feel range is make or break as to a planes capability as a fighter but one must considier it as an advantage/bonus point when comparing fighters.
The P-51 wasn't much better than average but its range makes it a serious contender.
The BoB was lost as much by the short range Bf-109 as it was won/lost by any other factors.
Air superority over Europe was won by P-38s and P-51s and later P-47s and range was a prime reason they were able to do it.
That doesn't make the Spit a poor fighter but it is less effective strategicly and should be a factor in any comparison.
wmaxt
- Thread starter
- #58
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Exactly. I couldnt have summed it up any better.
P38 Pilot
Tech Sergeant
What also made the P-38 very useful was its bomb and rocket load if you ask me. Carry either 2 500lb bombs or two 600lb bombs along with a rocket load of 8,6 in rockets. Very useful when strafing trains or bringing down an armor column.
cheddar cheese
Major General
I believe the norm would probably be to carry 10 5in rockets, plus just one 1600lb bomb so that the other space can be used for a droptank on long range missions. If its short range though, shove a couple of 1600lb on 8)
