FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
That 11 year old comment was more cynical than anything else BUT
If that P-51H was flown by a "SAF regular" the outcome would have possibly been the same!!!
MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter DAVIDICUS
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If that P-51H was flown by a "SAF regular" the outcome would have possibly been the same!!!
I doubt it...the "H" model Mustang was so superior to any model Corsair, even in the hands of a bad pilot, it still would probably come out on top...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I'll call BS on that - an old neighbor Col Mike Alba trained the HAF Corsair pilots including Colonel Fernando Soto. He set up a dedicated air combat school similar to what was found in the US with emphasis on aerial and ground gunnery. When the shooting started it was quickly discovered the SAF was poorly trained and eventually sought mercenaries to fly their aircraft. The war ended before El Salvador could counter the losses of 3 mustangs.
El Salvador could of had F-86s - if you didn't have the trained pilots to fly them they become a non event
Then I guess I don't understand the original point...if the SAF's pilots were that bad, then Soto could've shot down their Mustangs with a Buffalo Brewster...it had nothing to do with the Corsair being better than the Mustang...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And I'll refer you back to my original statement - "That 11 year old comment was more cynical than anything else."
Brian Cox - NZ Corsair Pilot over in the Japanese occupation force, says that the NZ pilots would 'engage' Australian pilots over Japan in mock dogfights, but not the Americans.
The key difference was the pilots experience - the US pilots were battle-hardened, but the Aussie pilots weren't.
The key difference was the pilots experience - the US pilots were battle-hardened, but the Aussie pilots weren't.
Whether a P51H would or would not beat a F4U Corsair has no bearing on whether they should have been cancelled. World history would not change one iota without a P51H taking to the air. Obviously a different story for the B/C and D models. As a carrier or land based SE fighter bomber the Corsair has its place in history, as does the land based escort fighter P51. Neither should have been cancelled except for the P51H which (in hindsight) did not justify the money spent purely because the war was over.
I think you're thinking of another discussion...this isn't the "Which plane should've been canceled" topic....
Here is where I offend everyone ....the P-38 what a heap of badly built and expensive junk. Lockheed practicing for the F-35.....
Poor quality control in manufacturing with leaks in the turbo piping being being common at manufacture, let alone after front line use, absurdities like ever more powerful engines.. that couldn't be utlised because of a terrible intercooler design.
Draggy, horrible mach limit (worse operating restrictions on diving than a Lancaster). Did I mention unrealiable, hard to maintain. Horrible pilot work load, too busy just trying to fy the thing to actually fight.
So-so guns crippled by a low ammo load (I mean 50 rounds for its 20mm cannon).
Oh and that mach limit, top level speed of a later model barely under its 'lawn dart' speed.
Expensive...the list goes on and on and on....... In reality the Me-110 was a better plane, at least it made a great night fghter.
The USAAF dumped them as fast as they could, even preferred Spits and Mossies for recon planes....
On the plus side at least it wasn't as bad as a Me-210 or a Do-335......
Poor quality control in manufacturing with leaks in the turbo piping being being common at manufacture, let alone after front line use, absurdities like ever more powerful engines.. that couldn't be utlised because of a terrible intercooler design.
Draggy, horrible mach limit (worse operating restrictions on diving than a Lancaster). Did I mention unrealiable, hard to maintain. Horrible pilot work load, too busy just trying to fy the thing to actually fight.
So-so guns crippled by a low ammo load (I mean 50 rounds for its 20mm cannon).
Oh and that mach limit, top level speed of a later model barely under its 'lawn dart' speed.
Expensive...the list goes on and on and on....... In reality the Me-110 was a better plane, at least it made a great night fghter.
The USAAF dumped them as fast as they could, even preferred Spits and Mossies for recon planes....
On the plus side at least it wasn't as bad as a Me-210 or a Do-335......
No matter how bad it was, it's still bad ass looking.
What an achievement it was for the pilots to achieve what they did then, in what amounts to a piece of junk.
drgondog
Major
LisaM - That would be a harsh judgment on the P-38. It was designed as an interceptor and would have been superb in that role. It did what was asked of it as an air superiority fighter in the MTO and PTO and CBI and Aleutians. It was extremely versatile in roles ranging from Recon, escort, fighter bomber. It was in high demand in every theatre including ETO and only achieved marginal results as a long range escort.
"Draggy, horrible mach limit (worse operating restrictions on diving than a Lancaster). Did I mention unrealiable, hard to maintain. Horrible pilot work load, too busy just trying to fy the thing to actually fight.
So-so guns crippled by a low ammo load (I mean 50 rounds for its 20mm cannon).
Oh and that mach limit, top level speed of a later model barely under its 'lawn dart' speed.
True - it was draggy but still faster than say an F6F and about the same as the F4U-1D, had the best acceleration of all of our fighters from medium range airspeeds, out climbed most of the fighters we built, had a smaller 3G turning radius than P-47D and F4U-1D.
IIRC the 20mm ammo load was 125 (or 150) rounds - but I could be wrong. That said, it was deemed a better gun platform than either the P-51 or P-47 and the centerline armament was much more effective than any wing mount scheme. Compared to six 50 caliber armament, it was more powerful with the 20mm.
Mods such as the dive flap made control in a dive much better, the boosted ailerons made it roll much better - on par with both the P-51, P-47, Bf 109, F4U.
As far as limit dive speeds, it couldn't hang with the 109 or 190, but neither could the F4U, F6F, P63, P40, or P-39.
Expensive...the list goes on and on and on....... In reality the Me-110 was a better plane, at least it made a great night fghter.
The USAAF dumped them as fast as they could, even preferred Spits and Mossies for recon planes...."
The 8th AF dumped them - but the 15th AF P-38 Fighter Groups remained intact and fought through VE Day. The P-38s were never converted in MTO and PTO combat leaders begged for them. Your remarks above apply to 8th AF only, including Recon and Fighter Bomber role.
Talking to guys that fought (successfully) in both the P-51 and P-38 would lend a different perspective to the relative merits. Robin Olds had to be pressed pretty hard to favor the P-51D (and did) but he also loved the P-38 and was an ace in both airplanes.
"Draggy, horrible mach limit (worse operating restrictions on diving than a Lancaster). Did I mention unrealiable, hard to maintain. Horrible pilot work load, too busy just trying to fy the thing to actually fight.
So-so guns crippled by a low ammo load (I mean 50 rounds for its 20mm cannon).
Oh and that mach limit, top level speed of a later model barely under its 'lawn dart' speed.
True - it was draggy but still faster than say an F6F and about the same as the F4U-1D, had the best acceleration of all of our fighters from medium range airspeeds, out climbed most of the fighters we built, had a smaller 3G turning radius than P-47D and F4U-1D.
IIRC the 20mm ammo load was 125 (or 150) rounds - but I could be wrong. That said, it was deemed a better gun platform than either the P-51 or P-47 and the centerline armament was much more effective than any wing mount scheme. Compared to six 50 caliber armament, it was more powerful with the 20mm.
Mods such as the dive flap made control in a dive much better, the boosted ailerons made it roll much better - on par with both the P-51, P-47, Bf 109, F4U.
As far as limit dive speeds, it couldn't hang with the 109 or 190, but neither could the F4U, F6F, P63, P40, or P-39.
Expensive...the list goes on and on and on....... In reality the Me-110 was a better plane, at least it made a great night fghter.
The USAAF dumped them as fast as they could, even preferred Spits and Mossies for recon planes...."
The 8th AF dumped them - but the 15th AF P-38 Fighter Groups remained intact and fought through VE Day. The P-38s were never converted in MTO and PTO combat leaders begged for them. Your remarks above apply to 8th AF only, including Recon and Fighter Bomber role.
Talking to guys that fought (successfully) in both the P-51 and P-38 would lend a different perspective to the relative merits. Robin Olds had to be pressed pretty hard to favor the P-51D (and did) but he also loved the P-38 and was an ace in both airplanes.
Shortround6
Major General
It does help when criticizing an aircraft to get the majority of your facts right. Especially the easy to check ones.
IF ANY P-38s went into action with only 50 rounds for the cannon it was because of an ammo shortage, not because of a limitation on the gun feed system. Not sure if any P-38s were built with a drum feed (D's or E's?) but the drum held 60 rounds. The belt feed used on the F's and later planes held 150 rounds.
Edit< BTW the .50 cal guns were provided with space for 500 rounds per gun. I don't know if they always filled the ammo bins or traded ammo weight for bombs/fuel, 2000 rounds of linked .50 cal being about 620lbs.
Most turbo-charged aircraft were maintenance hogs. With leaks in both the exhaust pipes/ducts and air ducts. (Some mechanical two stage engines had trouble with air leaks in the air/intercooling ducting). Any twin is going to be more maintenance than a single. Nose wheel landing gear needs more maintenance than tailwheel gear (makes up for with fewer accidents) .
Good to know that those 1325HP engines used in the F's and G's couldn't actually be used to get the plane of the ground with the increased load of drop tanks or bombs compared to the older planes with 1150 hp engines.
You also have the problem of what were you going to use instead? The First combat Mission of a Lightning (F-4 recon) was 19 months before the first combat mission of Merlin powered P-51.
P-39s and P-40s aren't going to cut it.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
You didn't offend me Lisa, you just showed me you haven't a clue what you're talking about with regards to your comments about the P-38 AND F-35, and I'm being kind with regards to this critique. Are you getting your information from Osprey books or are you drawing your conclusions from armchair generals who never worked on or flew aircraft? If the P-38 was so bad, I guess the 100 pilots in the PTO who became aces must have been super human to fly such an piece of junk and destroy over 1,800 aircraft.
If you want to discuss your view of "quality issues" on this aircraft or any other, I'll be more than glad to school you since not only did I work at Lockheed's Burbank facility, but I worked with people who built and flew P-38s
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I think the only person that would agree with LisaM's assessment of the P-38 would be Admiral Yamamoto! 
What was so terrible about the Do-335?
I also don't think the P-38 was as bad as it is made out to be by Lisa here.
I also don't think the P-38 was as bad as it is made out to be by Lisa here.
I'll come back to the P38 later,but I always see the Do-335 as one of those ideas you have with workmates over too many drinks on a Friday...then you come back sober on Monday and then realise how stupid it was.
The probem was to 'solve'a prpblem (drag) it made a whole new bunch of other complex problems The contemporary DH Hornet was just as fast (475mph, 490 in some tests, and outclimbed a Spt XIV. 1,500 miie range on internal fuel) was superior in every other way and it was a conventional twin design. Just that DH paid careful attemtion to reducing drag where it mattered, the end result was a plane with astonishing performance, easier to make (maintain, etc) and almost certainly cheaper as well.
There are more ways to skin a cat. The conventional layout of the Hornet has it's advantages - no new, unknown tech, easy installation of armament, in most of the cases easy additon of second crew meber, can be much lighter than twin boom - too bad Lockheed did not came out with P-38 in calssic layout.
The push-pull has it's advantages, that grew lesser with increase in engine power and approaching the 450-500 mph speed range, though they avoid the venturi effect that plagued P-38. What P-38 have had against Hornet and Do 335 was that it really was there when mattered, timing being a major thing for a wepon of war.
We can also recall that Hornet did it's job on next-gen aircraft engines, while Do 335 used 'legacy' engines for same turn of speed.
As a what-if, too bad Dornier did not went out earlier with such a concept, employing two Jumo 211 or DB 601/605 engines.
Re. 20 mm cannon ammo count for the P-38 - it was 60 rd drum up until -G, while the -H (1st delivery March 1943) got belt-fed cannons, 150 rpg.
The push-pull has it's advantages, that grew lesser with increase in engine power and approaching the 450-500 mph speed range, though they avoid the venturi effect that plagued P-38. What P-38 have had against Hornet and Do 335 was that it really was there when mattered, timing being a major thing for a wepon of war.
We can also recall that Hornet did it's job on next-gen aircraft engines, while Do 335 used 'legacy' engines for same turn of speed.
As a what-if, too bad Dornier did not went out earlier with such a concept, employing two Jumo 211 or DB 601/605 engines.
Re. 20 mm cannon ammo count for the P-38 - it was 60 rd drum up until -G, while the -H (1st delivery March 1943) got belt-fed cannons, 150 rpg.
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Fwiw please see, TACTICAL SUITABILITY OF THE P-38F TYPE AIRPLANE, 6 March 1943:- page 1
Also from AFDU P-38F Tactical Trials, November 21, 1942
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Problem for the P-38 in "classic" layout is that once you stick on the turbos and stick the radiators way back you have really long nacelles anyway. Please remember that they did sketch out many alternatives.
Hornet used very late model Merlins that offered (using 20lbs of boost) 70hp more than the DB603A 700ft lower (1690hp/18,000ft vs 1620hp/18,700ft) but were 300lbs lighter dry weight and a bit smaller. You don't get a 44 liter V-12 for the same frontal area as a 27 liter V-12.
Erection manuals for the P-38 show the 150 round feed at least as early as the P-38F-5 model. It may be even earlier.
