P-38 vs. F4U vs. Japanese Empire

In the Summer of 1942, and Winter of 1943, two aircraft were delivered to the American forces in the South Pacific that helped swing the momentum of the war in the Pacific, the P-38 Lightening and the F4U-1 Corsair. Both of these aircraft have characteristics that allowed them to be particularly effective. Here is a comparison of the two great aircraft,

.......................... F4U-1 – P-38G
Availability 2/12/43 - 8/22/42
Weight, Empty,lbs 8982 - 12,200
Weight, Gross 12,039 - 15,800
Weight, Max TO 14,000 - 19,800
Lift weight (max minus empty) 5,018 - 7600
HP available max 2000 - 2650 (two engines, 2x1325)
Power loading SL, gross, lbs/hp 6 - 5.9
Power loading, 20k ft.. 7.5 - 5.9
Wing area sqft 314 - 328
Wing loading. Lb/sqft, gross 38 - 44
Service Ceiling, ft. 37,000 - 39,000
Armament 6x50 cal, wing mounted - 4x50 cal, 1x20mm, nose mounted
Airspeed vs altitude
F4U-1 P-38G
SL 348 - 330
5k 344 - 345
10k 361 - 358
15k 378 - 383
20k 388 - 388
25k 392 - 403
climb (ft/min) vs. altitude
F4U-1 P-38G
SL 2900 - 3300
5k 2400 - 2850
10k 2300 - 2600
15k 2300 - 2600
20k 1700 - 2300
25k 1420 - 2000

The Zero could out turn either aircraft at all operational altitudes

The Zero could out climb the F4U at all altitudes

The F4U-1 could out turn the P-38 at all operational altitudes

The P-38G could out climb the F4U-1 at all operational altitudes

The P-38G and F4U-1 had similar airspeeds up to about 25k and easily surpassed the Zero.

Above 25k the F4U-1 airspeed and altitude starts to drop off rapidly relative to the P-38G.

With internal unprotected tanks, the F4U-1 had a considerable range advantage with internal fuel. There is a question of whether these tanks were used for combat.

Armament is similar, with the P-38 holding the edge due to center line mount and the additional 20 mm., which counted for 2 and ½ 50 cals per Navy estimate.

P-38 would require more pilot training/experience to understand the operational complexities and unique flying qualities of a twin engine aircraft.

Both of these aircraft were surprisingly similar in performance. They were both fast and had very good range than most enemy aircraft with the F4U-1 turning better and the P-38 climbing better. The P-38 does have better performance capability at the higher altitudes.

When operated with knowledgeable pilots, both aircraft were Japanese aircraft eating machines with both having good air-to-ground capability, with the P-38 having over a ton of additional lifting power. Both were powerful tools that helped push back the Japanese at the right time and right places.

Japanese aircraft shot down (didn't validate the source.)
F4U 2140
P-38 1857
Warbirds and Airshows- WWII US Aircraft Victories

Data taken from "wwiiaircraftperformance.org", "American Combat Planes" by Ray Wagner, "America's Hundred Thousand" by Dean, and "Report of Joint Fighter Conference" 1944. Oh, and some hair brained guesstimation on my part.

Knowledgeable corrections or opinions are appreciated.

P-38G was supposed to be outfitted with drop tanks. Main advantage of the P-38 was that it was available earlier, at least theoretically. Neither fighter was easy for novice pilots, P-38 due to having a complicated cockpit that was further being complicated since it was the twin, thus there was another group of controls and gauges to oversee. F4U due to the bad visibility over the nose during the landing, and habit of dropping a wing at low speeds. (Hellcat being the opposite of the two, with it's favorable low-speed characteristics and tidy cockpit).
With all said and done, either of the two was a far better choice than the two main types the Japanese had in quantity - the Ki-43 (not sure that Army fighters were used against AAF and USN until much later in the war) and Zero.

Can't help myself.

The P-38G had a serious problem with being unable to dive after enemy aircraft at the higher altitudes due to compressibility. This was less of a problem in the Pacific than in the ETO since the Japanese had virtually no two-stage supercharged fighters at that point in the war, nor did they ever have a significant number.

The P-38 suffered from poor visibility of the ground due to the two engine nacelles and the very close proximity of its broad center section wing to the cockpit. For most missions this was not much of a problem but it was something the recon Lightnings had to deal with. By the way, it is "Lightning" not "Lightening"

Complexity of the P-38 was certainly a concern. My friend Ward Duncan, maint chief for the 9th PRS, could regale you for hours on end on problems brought by his pilots not understanding basic operation of the airplane, even crashing because they did not understand the fuel system.

On the other, hand control of the supercharging on the P-38 was all automatic. Other than making sure both turbos were on line before releasing the brakes, there was not much to do about the supercharger. In contrast the F4U pilot had to remember to switch from low speed supercharger to high speed while ascending and vice versa while descending. In the heat of combat this could cause problems; the F4F's similar arrangement did on occasion.

But on the P-38 the hydraulic pump had to be turned on and off in order to operate the gear and flaps. Well trained P-38 pilots did not seem to have a problem with this but on one occasion Jimmy Stewart did.

A dogfight between Joe Foss in a F4U and Tony Levier in a P-38 was pretty much a draw; they had a mid-air.

MIflyer said:

The P-38 suffered from poor visibility of the ground due to the two engine nacelles and the very close proximity of its broad center section wing to the cockpit. For most missions this was not much of a problem but it was something the recon Lightnings had to deal with.

Click to expand...

Visibility on the ground was excellent for the P-38, at least to the front to where it is going, since it was a tricycle, the cockpit was close to the nose, and there was no big honking R-2800 in the nose.

MIflyer said:

The P-38G had a serious problem with being unable to dive after enemy aircraft at the higher altitudes due to compressibility. This was less of a problem in the Pacific than in the ETO since the Japanese had virtually no two-stage supercharged fighters at that point in the war, nor did they ever have a significant number.

The P-38 suffered from poor visibility of the ground due to the two engine nacelles and the very close proximity of its broad center section wing to the cockpit. For most missions this was not much of a problem but it was something the recon Lightnings had to deal with. By the way, it is "Lightning" not "Lightening"

Complexity of the P-38 was certainly a concern. My friend Ward Duncan, maint chief for the 9th PRS, could regale you for hours on end on problems brought by his pilots not understanding basic operation of the airplane, even crashing because they did not understand the fuel system.

On the other, hand control of the supercharging on the P-38 was all automatic. Other than making sure both turbos were on line before releasing the brakes, there was not much to do about the supercharger. In contrast the F4U pilot had to remember to switch from low speed supercharger to high speed while ascending and vice versa while descending. In the heat of combat this could cause problems; the F4F's similar arrangement did on occasion.

But on the P-38 the hydraulic pump had to be turned on and off in order to operate the gear and flaps. Well trained P-38 pilots did not seem to have a problem with this but on one occasion Jimmy Stewart did.

A dogfight between Joe Foss in a F4U and Tony Levier in a P-38 was pretty much a draw; they had a mid-air.

Click to expand...

Training - that was the key. It was a twin engine fighter, something new to the AAF when it went into service (along with compressibility). The P-38's detractors didn't want to accept this along with the additional training required to fully exploit the P-38's capabilities.

FLYBOYJ said:

Training - that was the key

Click to expand...

Yes, but the other thing is that even with proper training, not every pilot had what it took to fly a P-38 successfully. Our excessively egalitarian view of everyone being the same all too often puts the wrong people in the job.

I wonder how it compared with the A-20 which was also a twin engine single pilot aircraft. The A-20 weighed empty only 3000 lbs heavier but had more power available. Empty, it weighed 30% more than the P-38 and had 20% more power, so they were similar. Operational workload was was different but similarly complex. Training for for general piloting should be similar.

davparlr said:

I wonder how it compared with the A-20 which was also a twin engine single pilot aircraft. The A-20 weighed empty only 3000 lbs heavier but had more power available. Empty, it weighed 30% more than the P-38 and had 20% more power, so they were similar. Operational workload was was different but similarly complex. Training for for general piloting should be similar.

Click to expand...

P-38 driver I've spoken to like to train in either the B-25 or A-20

The B-25 became the USAAF twin engined trainer during WWII, resulting in phasing out all the AT-9 and AT-11 and so forth and remained as a trainer until around 1960 or in some cases later.

P-39 Expert said:

Can't help myself.

Click to expand...

Where is the legend that tells you what the numbers 1-5 represent?

Conslaw said:

Where is the legend that tells you what the numbers 1-5 represent?

Click to expand...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/F6F-3_1-Oct-45.pdf

The numbers correspond to to loads and power settings on the first two pages of the document. The chart is page 4.
For example condition 5 is with full ammo, one 1000lb bomb and one 50 gallon drop tank and using "normal" power. Normal power is specified in the document and is the same as maximum continuous power. 2550rpm instead of the 2700 rpm of full Military power and a slightly lower manifold pressure.

The early pages also detail the condition of the aircraft and this is a general performance chart that could be used for tactical planning or at least initial planning. .

In other words, while the numbers are based on flight tests the numbers are the Navies estimate on what an average F6F will do. The are NOT the numbers recorded from the test of one specific airframe. It has been pointed out that the F6F numbers for conditions 1 and 2 are with three bomb/tank racks with sway braces present. Vmax for a clean F6F was supposed to be 12mph faster (384mph at 18,000ft) than the chart shows.

Here are some observations on the P-38 performance as well as a comparison between the P-38F and P-38G that I found at WWII Aircraft Perfoemance.