New thread F7F Tigercat vs P38 Lightning vs deHaviland Hornet vs P82 Twin Mustang
- Thread starter pinsog
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
P-38 is toast, but then it is a much older design with much lower powered engines. about 20% less power than the others. Roughly tied for worst fire power with the P-82.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
P-38 is poorest performer but is also the oldest design
F7F is rather slow (435mph) but has the best climb (4500 ft/min, 500 ft/min better than the next best) and best armament (4x20mm, 4x.50)
Hornet has best power to weight, wing loading (tied with F7F), top speed (472mph), and range (3000), but worst in ceiling, (35k).
P-82, depending on engine has good speed (460-470), comparable climb (4000 ft/min), ceiling (40k). and is second best in range (2504)
Dive performance is probably unobtainable.
My ranking, best being first
Hornet (Poor ceiling is an issue)
P-82 (a note here is that the P-82 has the lowest power but is roughly tied with top speed, and is tied in climb with the P-38 and Hornet)
F7F (ranked here only because it is 25 to 35 mph slower than the P-82.)
P-38
F7F is rather slow (435mph) but has the best climb (4500 ft/min, 500 ft/min better than the next best) and best armament (4x20mm, 4x.50)
Hornet has best power to weight, wing loading (tied with F7F), top speed (472mph), and range (3000), but worst in ceiling, (35k).
P-82, depending on engine has good speed (460-470), comparable climb (4000 ft/min), ceiling (40k). and is second best in range (2504)
Dive performance is probably unobtainable.
My ranking, best being first
Hornet (Poor ceiling is an issue)
P-82 (a note here is that the P-82 has the lowest power but is roughly tied with top speed, and is tied in climb with the P-38 and Hornet)
F7F (ranked here only because it is 25 to 35 mph slower than the P-82.)
P-38
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I agree. The F7F and deHaviland Hornet should be superior to an aircraft designed several years earlier. And they were.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Had the P38 been fitted with the superb Merlin, things may have been different.
But, even with proper engines, the P38 would struggle against newer designs.
Cheers
John
But, even with proper engines, the P38 would struggle against newer designs.
Cheers
John
Merlins didn't make any real difference to the performance of the P-38, at least according to some study done by Lockheed.
Shortround6
Major General
Much as you like the Merlin this is one case where the Merlin will not help. late model Allisons in P-38s were good for 1600hp at over 27,000ft and good for 1425 hp at 29,000ft in level flight.
Allisons got better fuel consumption at cruising speeds and with proper flying technique turbo Allisons got anywhere from 8-30% more "milage" than a Merlin. Trading a minor improvement in performance at certain altitudes for lower performance at others and less range to boot doesn't improve the P-38 much.
Allisons got better fuel consumption at cruising speeds and with proper flying technique turbo Allisons got anywhere from 8-30% more "milage" than a Merlin. Trading a minor improvement in performance at certain altitudes for lower performance at others and less range to boot doesn't improve the P-38 much.
drgondog
Major
To Shortround's point - I got engaged in the P-38 debate on the warbirdsforum awhile ago and did some calculations. Without reproducing here, one of the top speed issues with the 38 was high drag when compared to P-51. The 38 had about 50% more CDo and was entering the 5% increase range at .63-.68 M. What that means is that even with the best Hp improvement the Merlins could give over the late war Allisons the P-38 could not increase top speed much over 425-430mph at critical altitude.
One of the primary reasons that the P-38 could not beat the P-51 in the Bendix Races post WWII.
One of the primary reasons that the P-38 could not beat the P-51 in the Bendix Races post WWII.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #10
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The only real improvements with the Merlin was in production where it didn't have the complicated turbocharger eqmt. to be fitted. Simplified assembly and maintenance (and reliability over the ETO).
What would have been a game changer for the P38 was having a four bladed prop attached. Time to climb specs would have been phenomenal, even considering the three bladed prop as was used, was already excellent.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
The F7F looks to have the best wing loading at worst case (Max Gross) = 55/sq ft, Hornet next at 58 and P-82 at 61/sq ft.
The P-82 figures are for the P-82 G the heaviest. The prototype P-82 was 2,000 pounds less and had 30% more hp with the Packard Merlin engines - all production versions after the first block had Allisons to keep it 'all american'..
The P-82 figures are for the P-82 G the heaviest. The prototype P-82 was 2,000 pounds less and had 30% more hp with the Packard Merlin engines - all production versions after the first block had Allisons to keep it 'all american'..
davebender
1st Lieutenant
18 November 1944.
Ki-83 first flight. 4 prototypes.
October 1943.
Do-335 first flight. 37 prototypes.
If we are going to open this discussion to the Ki-83 twin engine fighter then the Do-335 must also qualify. It flew a year earlier and a lot more prototypes were produced.
Ki-83 first flight. 4 prototypes.
October 1943.
Do-335 first flight. 37 prototypes.
If we are going to open this discussion to the Ki-83 twin engine fighter then the Do-335 must also qualify. It flew a year earlier and a lot more prototypes were produced.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
How about a five bladed Griffon then in a Lighting?
Surely more power is the always the answer....
I take your points about mpg and we have done the Merlin v Allison to death.
Cheers
John
Surely more power is the always the answer....
I take your points about mpg and we have done the Merlin v Allison to death.
Cheers
John
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Small correction:
The Hornet's RoC at sea level was anywhere from 4500-5400 ft/min, depending on the level of engine boost. The engines were cleared for +20 lbs and around 2070 hp with 100 octane, but typically run at + 18 lbs boost, giving 1960 hp. With 150 octane, the engine could be run at +25 lbs boost, giving about 2320 hp.
I find the Hornet the most beautiful piston engined fighter ( Germans included!) . Performance wise was the best of the four and i think that Eric Brown wrote that it had the best handling of any other piston engine fighter that he ever flew. Its only possible compentitor would be MW50 equiped Do335 or a DB 605DC equiped FW187. Ki 83 looks beautiful too and has more power but also more drug because of the radials. It left good impressions in America post war. However F7F is much more realistic approach for a conflict like Korea.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I'm not confident the relatively small Fw-187 airframe could handle 4,000 total hp. But the power to weight ratio would be awesome for a piston engine aircraft!
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Maybe Dave, guess we'll never know as it was rejected. The Germans never really got to grip with a true twin engined fighter.
Maybe they didn't see the need?
Cheers
John
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I think the Luftwaffe realized the value of both the Fw-187 and He-100. But DB601 engine production didn't catch up with demand until about 1942. Not much point in producing fighter airframes without engines to power them.
If the DB601 had been produced on the same scale as the Jumo211 engine early on the situation would be entirely changed. It's possible the Fw-190 might even have been powered by a DB601 / DB605 engine.
If the DB601 had been produced on the same scale as the Jumo211 engine early on the situation would be entirely changed. It's possible the Fw-190 might even have been powered by a DB601 / DB605 engine.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
