P-38 vs P-47

[daveT]

What are the main differences between these two fighters P-38 vs P-47.
besides the fact the P-38 has two engines and the P-47 one.
I'm looking for the big differences for example: range, firepower, maneuverability etc...
I'm giving a presentation to a P-38 group about the P-47 and I want to highlight the differences

 

[Todd Secrest]

What are the main differences between these two fighters P-38 vs P-47.
besides the fact the P-38 has two engines and the P-47 one.
I'm looking for the big differences for example: range, firepower, maneuverability etc...
I'm giving a presentation to a P-38 group about the P-47 and I want to highlight the differences

So P-38 Lighting vs P-47 Thunderbolt.
The P-38 had two liquid cooled V-12 engines, the P-47 had one air-cooled radial engine.
The P-47 had 4 .50 caliber machine guns, in each wing (8 guns in total), the P-47 had four .50 caliber machine guns and one 20mm cannon, all in the front nose of the plane.
I would assume the P-47 was the tougher of the two, harder to shoot down.
But as the P-38 had two engines, if one was non-function, it could still fly back to base, on one engine.

 

[Kevin J]

They were both designed as interceptors except the P-47 couldn't climb and the P-38 couldn't dive. Instead of being used as interceptors, they were used as escorts and fighter-bombers. They were replaced by a fighter that wasn't designed to fight, the P-51, which was designed to fly, further, faster, shoot some photos and then return safely home.

 

[GrauGeist]

They were both designed as interceptors except the P-47 couldn't climb and the P-38 couldn't dive. Instead of being used as interceptors, they were used as escorts and fighter-bombers. They were replaced by a fighter that wasn't designed to fight, the P-51, which was designed to fly, further, faster, shoot some photos and then return safely home.

What are you talking about??
The P-47 had a RoC of 3,180 ft./min. which was comparable to the P-51's 3,200 ft./min. - the P-47 was not a slouch.

 

[Zipper730]

Don't quote me on this without corroboration, but basically from what I could readily gather on the two aircraft would be the following advantages and disadvantages

1. P-38
   • Advantages
     • It was available earlier (late 1941 versus some point during 1942).
     • It had a superior rate of climb and level acceleration off the bat, which remained until water injection and paddle-props were added to the P-47
     • It had a superior rate of turn with our without maneuvering flaps once stabilized in the turn
     • The gun armament, all centered in the nose, basically meant that it could hit more reliably at greater distances
     • The presence of a nose-gear provided greatly improved landing characteristics, likely improved takeoff acceleration, and probably improved forward visibility while taxiing.
     • The shape of the nose, nose-gear, and canopy probably also improved forward visibility
     • It had the provision for drop-tanks fairly early on, which allowed the range to be better extended.
     • Once the P-38J/L came around, it would appear that the use of powered ailerons might have given it a superior roll-rate under some conditions (probably high speed, and lower angle of attack).
   • Disadvantages
     • It could not dive as good as the P-47: While it might very well have been able to accelerate faster in a dive (unsure about that), it was limited by Mach number. The P-38E and on would start running into compressibility at around M=0.68, and by M=0.74 controllability would be lost.
     • Human-factors resulted in a cockpit which required a more experienced pilot to maximize the effectiveness of the aircraft (Many aces even claimed that their early achievements, at the very least, were in spite of the plane, rather than because of it): Part of this had to do with the fact that some levers and switches weren't in positions that were easy to reach; the fuel control system was also overly complicated.
     • The lower critical Mach-number also discouraged higher boost-levels, even if the intercoolers could tolerate it (P-38 variants up to the -J couldn't), something which most other V-1710-equipped aircraft could do (The Allison V-1710 were tough engines). This was particularly noteworthy in the case of the P-38J, as the aircraft would be very close to (or actually within) transonic range, and you'd be only a shallow-dive away from Mach-tuck.
     • Roll-control seemed to be slower than the P-47 under most conditions, and because of that: Even though it could turn faster, it took longer to get stabilized in the turn, and all that time meant that the P-47 would usually be able to do, either a 180 or 360 (Something that is now known as torsional agility, though I think it only goes to 90-degrees), faster. When maneuvering-flaps out, this might have changed.
     • The aircraft seemed to have a lower critical-altitude than the P-47 in level-flight (Ironically, it sometimes seemed higher in the climb-phase: The P-38's critical-altitude, under these conditions, seemed to be around 14000-15000'; the P-47's was all over the place from around 10000-12000', to 23400-25000' with the P-47B/C/D).
     • Though the P-38J/L had powered ailerons: They didn't seem to have much variation (all or nothing), and the time from initiation of the roll to full roll-speed was probably slower than P-47's.
     • The earlier P-38's had intercoolers in the wings, which proved to be prone to battle-damage; the later versions had them under the engine with the carburetor and oil-cooler. In that case it did a little too good a job at cooling things off, sometimes the oil would turn into sludge and the turbo would run-away, and you'd get backfiring and stuff. They had to restrict airflow to the coolers and possibly the engine, and use some special high-octane fuel for it.
     • While it might have been able to carry a heavier air-to-ground load, it might not have been as survivable, despite having two-engines.
2. P-47
   • Advantages
     • It was faster in earlier variants: I don't think a single variant of the P-47 had a maximum speed under 400 mph; the earliest operational P-38's were doing around 390 mph (still respectable).
     • It could dive to higher Mach- numbers: The airspeed limitations at higher altitudes basically correlate to a placard-limit Mach number of 0.745. There were cases where M=0.78 was reached on the P-47C. The later versions would see M=0.82 or so come up, potentially requiring dive-recovery flaps.
     • It had a superior roll-rate under a number of conditions: Particularly at higher AoA. At around 300 mph, the P-47 and Hawker Tempest (which had one of the best roll-rates of its time) were similar, with the Tempest taking over above that.
     • The aircraft seemed able to absorb an unusually massive amount of damage: Part of it had to do with the radial-engine, but part of it also had to do with the solid engineering.
     • The engine and supercharger controls appeared to be better arranged and easier to use.
     • The cockpit seemed to not be quite as cold as the P-38 owing to the engine and superior air conditioning system: Not that I'd expect it to be toasty.
     • It proved greatly more effective in the air-to-ground role, despite being designed as a high-altitude fighter, mostly owing to its overall rugged design, and radial-engine.
     • While not representative of the earlier P-47: The P-47N had a positively absurd combat radius (1175 mi to 1310 nm) and range (2350 mi to 2620 nm). Not that the P-38 was bad, but this might have even put the P-51 to shame, though I'm not sure by how much. It had a higher critical altitude, so I could easily see an advantage for escort work (even for a B-29 you could stay 2000-5000' above the bomber).
   • Disadvantages
     • Rate of climb was rather poor initially, somewhere between 2500 and 3000 feet a minute. As time would go on, the increase in engine power, bigger propellers, and water-methanol injection would bump the climb rate somewhat over 3000 feet a minute. While the P47M might have bested the P-38J's, it seemed to be a rare variant.
     • Rate of turn appeared to be inferior to the Lightning, particularly when the maneuvering flaps were hung out.
     • Visibility ahead was inferior to the P-38 owing to the radial engine and lack of nose-gear; the visibility to the rear was inferior until the late P-47D's came around.
     • The range of the aircraft might have been inferior to the P-38 under some conditions: It was not as quickly adapted to carry effective drop-tanks; while it could carry a ferry tank, it could not be jettisoned, and could not work above 10,000-14,000' AMSL.

There might be a few errors in that, but I think that's a decent summary, though you'd probably want more experienced members here.

 

[wuzak]

What are you talking about??
The P-47 had a RoC of 3,180 ft./min. which was comparable to the P-51's 3,200 ft./min. - the P-47 was not a slouch.

What are you talking about?

Later model P-47Ds may have had an initial rate of climb of 3,200, but earlier ones had RoC less than 2,500fpm. Early P-51Bs with teh V-1650-3 had an initial climb rate as much as 3,600fpm, and with the -7 was better again.

In any case, the P-47 was slow climbing compared to contemporary P-38s.

 

[Kevin J]

I'd say that if you wanted a fighter for the ETO, then the Thunderbolt was best in terms of altitude capability, top speed, dive speed and roll rate. It could handle the Bf 109G bomber interceptor versions if they had under slung cannons or rocket launchers, but had a fight on its hands against the pure fighter version. It outclassed the Fw 190a at normal operating altitudes. The Lightning was more suited to the PTO and MTO where its twin engines added to its prospects of survival. It had excellent speed, roll rate, climb and dive characteristics compared to it its Japanese opponents. In the ETO decent Lightnings with all their problems sorted out didn't arrive until Spring 1944. Both fighters were overshadowed by the much cheaper to build and operate Mustang. Its a shame the P-38K version was never built for operation in the PTO.

 

[pbehn]

Some things that I cant see mentioned are cost, ease of maintainance and training required. Both planes were developed rapidly so performance changes, with the P-38 a big advantage was it was there when others weren't with high altitude long range performance. There is no bigger difference than not being there at all.

 

[tomo pauk]

My take:
1941-42: P-38 (P-47 is either not available, or it is trying to mimick Typhoon's probems in US airspace due to engine- and airframe-related problems)
1st half of 1943: still P-38 being better
2nd half of 1943: P-47 can do everything better bar climb and long-range missions, problems are evident with P-38's blind spots, dive, roll, being much more susceptible to pilot's quality, hard to master cockpit (especially fuel & engine management), insufficient heating, tricky new powerplant that required from pilots to 'unlearn' what they've learned before
1st half of 1944: P-47 is still a bit faster, better diver, difference in climb and range decreases
2nd half of 1944 + 1st half of 1945: P-47 gets another boost in range, P-38 has some of issues rectified (heating, dive problems, roll rate), some are hard-baked into design; development of P-38 is stopped already in 1944
2nd half of 1945: P-47N can do anything P-38 can, and can do many things better

 

[Todd Secrest]

I believe early on the P-38 lighting had dive issues, at a very high dive speed it's controls surfaces did not function as well, I believe dive brakes were added on to help fix that issue.

 

[ssmith996]

A friend of mine's father flew both in combat. He preferred the 47.

 

[Todd Secrest]

A friend of mine's father flew both in combat. He preferred the 47.

I would assume, the P-47 with it's big radial engine, just in front of the pilot, some of that engine heat would/should have helped keep the cockpit warm.
Or at least warmer then the cockpit in a P-38

 

[pbehn]

They were both designed as interceptors except the P-47 couldn't climb and the P-38 couldn't dive. Instead of being used as interceptors, they were used as escorts and fighter-bombers. They were replaced by a fighter that wasn't designed to fight, the P-51, which was designed to fly, further, faster, shoot some photos and then return safely home.

The Mustang was designed to be a better plane than the P-40 which was a fighter, where was taking photos in the design brief.

 

[Shortround6]

Hmmmm, four .50 cal guns and four .30/.303 guns as designed in 1940, yep, sounds like a photo-recon plane to me
The Curtiss P-46 which used the same engine had two .50s and up to eight .30/303 guns. P-40 D using the same engine had only four .50s.

 

[Kevin J]

The Mustang was designed to be a better plane than the P-40 which was a fighter, where was taking photos in the design brief.

The Warhawk was a better dogfighter than the Mustang. The Mustang was designed to fly fast, take photos and run for home, maybe doing a bit of strafing on its way, and hopefully able to defend itself if caught, but it was designed to run away in order to fight another day. After a few iterations and you get to the P-51D/K and all the negative issues it had are resolved. Remember the Mustang was designed to a British requirement for a tactical reconnaissance fighter to operate in an extremely hostile environment. Think of another comparison. K-45 Toryu (fighter) vs Ki-46 Dinah (unarmed reconnaissance). The Toryu was slower but more manoeuvrable, the Dinah relied on its speed to escape.

 

[pbehn]

The Warhawk was a better dogfighter than the Mustang. The Mustang was designed to fly fast, take photos and run for home, maybe doing a bit of strafing on its way, and hopefully able to defend itself if caught, but it was designed to run away in order to fight another day. After a few iterations and you get to the P-51D/K and all the negative issues it had are resolved. Remember the Mustang was designed to a British requirement for a tactical reconnaissance fighter to operate in an extremely hostile environment. Think of another comparison. K-45 Toryu (fighter) vs Ki-46 Dinah (unarmed reconnaissance). The Toryu was slower but more manoeuvrable, the Dinah relied on its speed to escape.

Any evidence for that? It was designed as a fighter to be better than the P-40. Its lack of altitude performance meant it was used by the RAF in tactical recon, that doesn't mean it was designed for it. If the p-40 was a better fighter why wasn't it used as an escort? The B/C iteration is the one that largely swept the LW from the skies.

 

[Kevin J]

Any evidence for that? It was designed as a fighter to be better than the P-40. Its lack of altitude performance meant it was used by the RAF in tactical recon, that doesn't mean it was designed for it. If the p-40 was a better fighter why wasn't it used as an escort? The B/C iteration is the one that largely swept the LW from the skies.

The RAF were about to use the P-40 Tomahawk as a tactical recce fighter in Northern Europe and North American offered them something better. The Mustang I/Ia had an Allison engine and were used for tactical reconnaissance. The A-36A derivative as a dive bomber. The P-51A as a fighter bomber. In the CBI they used the P-40N as their fighter and used the P-51A for counter air as the P-40N was the better dogfighter. You only get a true air superiority fighter when you get the Merlin powered P-51B/C/D/K versions which had mods to improve its manoeuvrability.

 

[pbehn]

The RAF were about to use the P-40 Tomahawk as a tactical recce fighter in Northern Europe and North American offered them something better. The Mustang I/Ia had an Allison engine and were used for tactical reconnaissance. The A-36A derivative as a dive bomber. The P-51A as a fighter bomber. In the CBI they used the P-40N as their fighter and used the P-51A for counter air as the P-40N was the better dogfighter. You only get a true air superiority fighter when you get the Merlin powered P-51B/C/D/K versions which had mods to improve its manoeuvrability.

The RAF did use the P-40 from Feb 1941 but it only did 29 sorties, the Mustang was ordered in 1940. There is no point in crossing 100 miles of water to dogfight if you don't have the speed to break off and get back, you end up fighting until you run out of fuel. The Mustang MkI was used on some escort missions but altitude performance was against it. The 4 squadrons of Mustang MIs at Dieppe were not taking pictures.

 

[Kevin J]

The RAF did use the P-40 from Feb 1941 but it only did 29 sorties, the Mustang was ordered in 1940. There is no point in crossing 100 miles of water to dogfight if you don't have the speed to break off and get back, you end up fighting until you run out of fuel. The Mustang MkI was used on some escort missions but altitude performance was against it. The 4 squadrons of Mustang MIs at Dieppe were not taking pictures.

The RAF equipped one squadron of Tomahawks and used them as fighters, yes 29 sorties. The other 12 went to army co-operation squadrons. All those early Mustang I's went to army co-operation squadrons. So yes you can use them for strafing too, but they weren't suitable for fighter combat as over the English Channel this usually started at 20000 feet. Hurricanes were used at Dieppe as fighter bombers, Sptifires and Typhoons as fighters. You could use Mustangs as escorts for fighter-bombers and bombers but they still need a top cover. Bet you they didn't score a single aerial victory over Dieppe though.

 

[wuzak]

The Warhawk was a better dogfighter than the Mustang. The Mustang was designed to fly fast, take photos and run for home, maybe doing a bit of strafing on its way, and hopefully able to defend itself if caught, but it was designed to run away in order to fight another day. After a few iterations and you get to the P-51D/K and all the negative issues it had are resolved. Remember the Mustang was designed to a British requirement for a tactical reconnaissance fighter to operate in an extremely hostile environment. Think of another comparison. K-45 Toryu (fighter) vs Ki-46 Dinah (unarmed reconnaissance). The Toryu was slower but more manoeuvrable, the Dinah relied on its speed to escape.

Any evidence for that? It was designed as a fighter to be better than the P-40. Its lack of altitude performance meant it was used by the RAF in tactical recon, that doesn't mean it was designed for it. If the p-40 was a better fighter why wasn't it used as an escort? The B/C iteration is the one that largely swept the LW from the skies.

The RAF were about to use the P-40 Tomahawk as a tactical recce fighter in Northern Europe and North American offered them something better. The Mustang I/Ia had an Allison engine and were used for tactical reconnaissance. The A-36A derivative as a dive bomber. The P-51A as a fighter bomber. In the CBI they used the P-40N as their fighter and used the P-51A for counter air as the P-40N was the better dogfighter. You only get a true air superiority fighter when you get the Merlin powered P-51B/C/D/K versions which had mods to improve its manoeuvrability.

In 1940 the RAF wanted every aircraft it could lay its hand on, especially fighters. So they bought a bunch of P-40s for Curtiss, but they wanted more. So they contacted NAA to see if they would build the P-40 under licence. NAA said they had something better, and they could have a prototype flying in a short time frame.

From what I understand, the first Mustang I did not have cameras, but subsequent production models did. The first Mustang I was used for trial fitting of equipment, and its performance tested. As Pbehn says, the lack of altitude performance saw its roe changed to tactical reconnaissance.

The A-36 was reconfigured as a dive bomber in order to attract funds for production, the funds for fighters having been allocated. It added the dive brakes and bomb racks. The bomb racks were retained for the P-51A. While used as a fighter-bomber, the P-51A was also used as a bomber escort.