- Thread starter
- #61
cheddar cheese
Major General
nice pic 8)
P-38 or Mosquito?
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
That appears to be an F-5G model. They were all conversions of P-38L-5-LOs and were perhaps the best photo-recon aircraft of the war (the Mossie being the other contender). I haven't seen much info on the F-5G but reportedly it could fly missions up to 3,750 miles in length which must have been killer on the pilot.
- Thread starter
- #63
cheddar cheese
Major General
3,750 miles!!! ha, wait until i tell the lanc this 
Erich
the old Sage
will have to check my data but Gordon was a very youthful looking pilot. He is hand signing a pic of him in his flight kit next time we meet. He has suffered a major stroke and his memory is going and he is quite aware of past eveents lost somewhere from his mind...............this is so sad. he did say on two occassions while flying this a/c he pulled away from zero's that tried to bounce him. this particular bird and ones like this in his squadron were un armored and un-armed. Very fast buggers. In this banking pic with the glorious Fujiama in the background you can see the camera setup underneath the fuselage.
blue skies guyz !
E ~
blue skies guyz !
E ~
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
I've never see a top speed listed for a F-5G but the P-38L was supposed to be able to top 440mph. Seeing as how the recon models were considerably lighter I am sure their speed must have been incredible.
- Thread starter
- #66
cheddar cheese
Major General
i dont distrust you L.G, but where do you get your info on the P-38 from?
I am quite aware of the Lightning's performance in Europe against the Luftwaffe, and quite certain that it was outclassed as a fighter. Quite apart from whather it was better than the Mosquito, it most certainly ws not better in air-air combat than a Focke Wulf Fw 190. Here's one statement I remember (can't remember where I read it though, annoyingly):
'During the North African campaign, the American P-38 Lightning had achieved a fearsome reputation as a powerful, fast twin-engined fighter that could severely punish the Axis pilot who treated it as his inferior whilst flying a single-engined type. However, once the later mark Focke Wulfs and '109s arrived on the scene - types that could outrun, out-climb and out-turn the Lightning, the nickname 'Fork-tailed Devil' began to seem a bit out of place. Whenever I encountered P-38s over France, the engagement, without exception, switched by default to a defensive action by the Lightnings, even if they started with a slight altitude advantage. Their first priority became survival, whereas we were the aggressors.'
'During the North African campaign, the American P-38 Lightning had achieved a fearsome reputation as a powerful, fast twin-engined fighter that could severely punish the Axis pilot who treated it as his inferior whilst flying a single-engined type. However, once the later mark Focke Wulfs and '109s arrived on the scene - types that could outrun, out-climb and out-turn the Lightning, the nickname 'Fork-tailed Devil' began to seem a bit out of place. Whenever I encountered P-38s over France, the engagement, without exception, switched by default to a defensive action by the Lightnings, even if they started with a slight altitude advantage. Their first priority became survival, whereas we were the aggressors.'
- Thread starter
- #71
cheddar cheese
Major General
it was the P-38 
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
I imagine that would be ferry but still phenomenal for a single-seat fighter of the era. I've got several books on the Lightning, the info on the F-5G comes from P-38 Lightning by Warren Bodie.
Huckebein, interesting post but I can give you several quotes from German pilots who felt the Lighting could out-turn, out-climb, and out-run them. You have to remember that the full-up versions of the Lightning were not deployed to Europe (at least not in numbers anyway) and yet the Lightning still gave better than it got despite being almost always outnumbered. I have not seen direct tests between a P-38 and Fw-190 but test showed the P-38 turned as well or better than a P-51 and the P-51 could always turn inside a 190.
Huckebein, interesting post but I can give you several quotes from German pilots who felt the Lighting could out-turn, out-climb, and out-run them. You have to remember that the full-up versions of the Lightning were not deployed to Europe (at least not in numbers anyway) and yet the Lightning still gave better than it got despite being almost always outnumbered. I have not seen direct tests between a P-38 and Fw-190 but test showed the P-38 turned as well or better than a P-51 and the P-51 could always turn inside a 190.
Not really that amazing, as it is a twin-engined plane. Without armament or armour, it greatly reduces fuel consumption, and the consumption lowers even more when more fuel is used. This also allows more space for fuel.
The Spitfire PR. XI had a ferry range well over 2000 miles, and this was a single engined plane.
The Spitfire PR. XI had a ferry range well over 2000 miles, and this was a single engined plane.
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
Well, carrying two engines means twice the fuel consumption of a single-engined aircraft so the extra fuel is required. Specifically I was refering to the fact that it was amazing to the pilot to pull that off as were are talking about missions of nearly 14 hours in length, in a bucket seat.
The more engines you have the longer range you'll have, so saying single seat is hiding the fact its a twin-engined plane. And I hope you all realise the more engines the more range, in most circumstances.
More engines gives you power which allows you to carry more fuel. Which in most cases is more than what is required to give you the same range of a single engined plane. 3,750 miles for a late war twin-engined plane isn't impressive when the single engined PR.XI was doing over 2000 miles on one engine.
You have to find a compromise obviously on amount of engines, size and design of plane, and fuel carried. But in WW2 mostly, more engines more range. So it's not surprising the F-5G could do almost double a single engined plane.
B-17 4 engines, 4 times consumption of the Mk.I Spitfire but it out-ranged it...why? Simple really.
More engines gives you power which allows you to carry more fuel. Which in most cases is more than what is required to give you the same range of a single engined plane. 3,750 miles for a late war twin-engined plane isn't impressive when the single engined PR.XI was doing over 2000 miles on one engine.
You have to find a compromise obviously on amount of engines, size and design of plane, and fuel carried. But in WW2 mostly, more engines more range. So it's not surprising the F-5G could do almost double a single engined plane.
B-17 4 engines, 4 times consumption of the Mk.I Spitfire but it out-ranged it...why? Simple really.
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
You still haven't addressed what I was getting at Plan_D. 14 hours is a long time for one person to sit in a bucket seat without anyway to move around. The Pr. XI could hack that. I was meaning to place more emphasis on the endurance rather than the range.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i don't think he realised it was the ferry range, recon mossies after the war could go up to 3,500miles, that's combat raduis, not ferry range............
