Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
MP-Willow said:Nice numbers for the P-47. Now though how dose it compair to the P-38? I still think that the P-28 would have an edge, maybe not a big one but one.
R988 said:Something that hasn't really been mentioned but I would think important if I was a pilot in battle is survivability. I'd back the P-47s legendary ability to take punishment over the more fragile P-38 anyday.
wmaxt said:The P-38 was more spread out and had an extra of everything. If it was ground attack missions over land I'd think about the P-47, if it over long stretches of water I'd choose the P-38. When a cylinder was shot out it meant extra oil was being lost, most of the time when a P-47 came home with that kind of damage it was 150mi or less, the reason radials had so much oil on board was the high usage of the engines. Oil consumption is a major factor in limitations of range in big radial engines even if there in perfect running condition.
BTW, The max roll rate of a P-47N is just over 100deg/sec at 250mph and goes down from there. At 250mph thats 30deg/sec more than the P-38 but about equal by 350mph.
wmaxt
Sal Monella said:"most of the time when a P-47 came home with that kind of damage it was 150mi or less,"
Where did this little gem of data come from?
At any rate, see the below excerpt from the Joint Fighter Conference posted on another thread by Magister:
Sal Monela said:P. 87
Colonel Garman: "I can speak only for the African theatre and only for a particular type of operation. The P-38 was used at low altitude on many occasions and we found that it was quite vulnerable to ground fire - any type of ground fire, even small arms fire. But other planes also experienced that same ground fore and the radial engines brought the planes home. You can't lay down any hard and fast rule and say the in-line engine is no good at low altitude as far as ground fire is concerned, It all depends on the operation entirely."
Lietenant Colonel Tyler: "We have data which shows that in the entire European theatre the P-47 is much better able to take punishment and return after any sort of mission - either ground attack or any mission which incurs damage. That may be due to the P-47 airplane or due to the air-cooled feature. We don't know which, but it certainly can take it better than other types."
R988 said:And coolant is a major factor in the P38, the cooling system in most water cooler types was very vunerable to small arms fire, also the turbo plumbing is very vunerable as well. Wont get very far with the cooling system damaged any more than a radial losing oil. Though if you are lucky at least one engine might survive damage and be able to get you home. Unless you're carrying Sturmovik levels of armour, inline engines are generally regarded as more vunerable to small arms fire than radials.
Sal Monella said:Having two engines also means that there's twice as many engines for mechanical failure to strike. If there is a problem with one of the engines, the pilot will wish he had a plane with one reliable engine working at full capacity. A single engine fighter at full capacity is better than a twin engine fighter with one engine at 80% capacity.
Jank said:Remember when Yamamoto was killed? That particular mission, flown by the 339th, was labeled "SQUADRON 339 P-38 MUST AT ALL COSTS REACH AND DESTROY. PRESIDENT ATTACHES EXTREME IMPORTANCE TO MISSION." The planes were in tip top condition to be able to carry out this critically important mission. Even so, they had more than 10% of their flight turn back due to "engine problems."
Until the J model the problems were pretty bad.
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html
Many of the P-38's assigned to escort missions were forced to abort and return to base. Most of the aborts were related to engines coming apart in flight. The intercoolers that chilled the fuel/air mixture too much. Radiators that could lower engine temps below normal operating minimums. Oil coolers that could congeal the oil to sludge. These problems could have been fixed at the squadron level. Yet, they were not. It took the P-38J-25-LO and L model to eliminate these headaches.
http://bob.hentges.lu/articles/en/p38.html
The Allison engines of the Lightnings proved to be somewhat temperamental, with engine failures actually causing more problems than enemy action. It is estimated that every Lightning in England changed its engines at least once.
jank said:The powerplant problems were not entirely the Allison engine's fault. Many of the reliability problems were actually due to the inadequate cooling system, in particular the cumbersome plumbing of the turbosupercharger intercooler ducting which directed air all way from the supercharger out to the wingtips and back. In addition, the lack of cowl flaps were a problem. In the European theatre of operation, temperatures at altitude were often less than 40 degrees below zero and the Lightning's engines would never get warmed up enough for the oil to be able to flow adequately. Octane and lead would separate out of the fuel at these low temperatures, causing the Allisons to eat valves with regularity, to backfire through the intercooler ducts, and to throw rods, sometimes causing the engine to catch fire.
These problems bedeviled the Lightnings until the advent of the J version with its simplified intercooler ducting and the relocation of the oil cooler to a chin position underneath the propeller spinner. When the P-38J reached the field, the Allison engine was finally able to attain its full rated power at altitude, and the engine failure rate began to go down.
wmaxt said:Yep, If you check I said that if I was going to do ground attack Id at least consider the P-47 (depending on mission/target).
If I'm air to air below 30,000ft I want the P-38, especially if I'm over water. If I'm doing ground attack against a hardened target, or ships or similar target, I want the P-38, but if that target is spread out like troops etc. the P-47 would probably be a better choice.
wmaxt