P-38 vs P-47

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The RAF converted Spitfire Is for Photo Recon as soon as the war started.
Photo Reconnaissance Spitfires
It was not converted because it was a poor fighter, as a fighter it was obviously state of the art in 1939, however the demand for Spitfires as fighters was extremely high so not a lot could be spared for conversion. This is why aircraft such as Blenheims and Marylands continued to be used. Eventually enough Spitfires were produced such that they and the Mosquito served all of the RAF strategic PR needs. The Blenheim was short lived (literally) in the PR role and the Maryland was phased out by the end of 1941.
As to the TAC R role the Mustang was ideal as it had quite a long range and yet could retain its armament, as well as the fact that it was very fast down low. The RAF coverted Hurricanes in the Med for the TAC R role as expedient. The idea that inferior fighter should be used in the recon role is ludicrous, there is no point in sending them out if they don't come back.
The Americans tried to use P-39s in the TAC R role without success. Read the attached USAAF Historical Study
 

Attachments

  • Observation.pdf
    2.6 MB · Views: 196
wuzak said:
From that link:



So the Spitfires took car of the 109s and the P-40s took on the mighty Ju 52s!

Kill counts do not tell the full story of a fighter's quality.
Click to expand...
Most of the 109s shot down in the Palm Sunday Massacre which is what I presume we are talking about here where shot down by p40s. Including Franz Stigler by the way.
That being said of course the Spitfire was a better overall fighter but that doesn't mean the p40 hasn't been sorely underrated.
The p40 certainly had certain niches where it excelled.
 
Those stats are truly eye opening. I've always felt the p40 was badly underrated but that it had a number of victories per units produced that were only surpassed by the p51 and F6F and even then not by that much certainly flies in the face of much if not most of what has been written about it.
Thanks for posting that.
 
Australian spits ran 12 psi take off, 9 psi continuous as per Clive Caldwells book, ETO MkV's were cleared for 16 psi by '42, I would assume the spit in this comparison was running the lower boost considering it's performance.
 
PAT303 said:
Australian spits ran 12 psi take off, 9 psi continuous as per Clive Caldwells book, ETO MkV's were cleared for 16 psi by '42, I would assume the spit in this comparison was running the lower boost considering it's performance.
Click to expand...
Could verry well be but I believe allowable boost on p40s Alisons was also jacked up as time went on so it should still be a fair comparison.
 
Some Australian MK Vs used the Merlin 46, which was better over 20,000ft than the Merlin 45 but around 100hp less at take-off and low altitudes

AS pointed out before the even with raised boost pressure on the Allison the Allison is only competitive with or better than the Merlin 45 at altitudes of around 5,000ft or less. The Allison supercharge simply won't supply enough boost at 10,000ft and up. In Fact anything over 5-6,000ft sees the boost of the Allison falling. with the 8.80 gears.

SEE /Spitfire_V_Level_Speed_RAE.jpg

For the alitudes that a NON-tropical MK V could hold 12 and 16lb boost. 54 and 62in (?)



From S
 
All the RAAF Spitfire Vc Trop's had Merlin 46's which didn't have that extra boost. Don't know why, maybe because they were designed for use above 20 thou feet?
 
michael rauls said:
Most of the 109s shot down in the Palm Sunday Massacre which is what I presume we are talking about here where shot down by p40s. Including Franz Stigler by the way.
Click to expand...

'Most of the 109s shot down' = how many? What is your source for Stigler being shot down ?




Not really a useful stat imo; the number served compared to the number of victories is going to have variables as to where and when they served, thus oppurtunity to score is a major factor.
Btw, the Me 109 is going to look mighty good in a production/ victories comparison.
 
Stig1207 said:
'Most of the 109s shot down' = how many? What is your source for Stigler being shot down ?
Click to expand...

"Stigler quickly released the seat straps. Franz had forgotten to open the canopy before hitting the water. Now free in his seat the pressure of the water was holding down the canopy. With water filling the cabin from bullet holes, Franz opened a side panel that freed the canopy. Franz was underwater when he inflated his life vest. It filled with air and lifted Franz upward, quickly. Franz said that he broke free of his sinking aircraft when it was about fifty feet under water."

Palm Sunday Massacre
 

There is no mention of Stigler or this account in MAW III? It does get more and more confusing, doesn't it.
 
If memory serves me, the '47 was late to the party in terms of gaining effective range with drop tanks. Does anyone have data on when larger drop tanks were fitted to and approved for the '47, and what the effective range was at those times.

The Thunderbolt did not participate in "operation Bolero" (flying from the US mainland to Britain in mid-42) due to lack of range. Thunderbolts were not flown from Britain to N. Africa to support Torch (and in spite of range, might not have been available that early). General Kenney had some in the SWPA but wanted P-38s due to the 'Bolt being ineffective due to range (and the slow climb rate of early models meant it wasn't well suited as an interceptor as well). In N. Africa it was the '38 that had the range to intercept and disrupt the transport "convoys" supplying Rommel. I seem to recall reading in Bob Johnson's book that the 'Bolts had to turn back from bomber escort missions, with the '38s carrying the ball.

Now, the N model was an entirely different animal and arguably the best fighter of the war. But it arrived too late to really make a meaningful contribution. IIRC it was used for a few escort missions over Japan. Did N-models ever fly in the 8th?
 
FLYBOYJ said:
The link I posted was from an interview with him prior to his passing.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a bit of a mystery though why the researchers for MAW missed it.

The 16.4.43 entry in Luftwaffe Career Summaries highlighted by Fubar in his post is the last mention of Stigler in MAW III, a claim for a P-38, and the entry after that, 15.5.43 is the first mention of Stigler in MAW IV, WIA, but no details.
 

Hard to say. His career summary had an interesting comment in there!
 
michael rauls said:
Could verry well be but I believe allowable boost on p40s Alisons was also jacked up as time went on so it should still be a fair comparison.
Click to expand...

Not really, the RAAF ran back to back tests against an A6M also and found the MkV to have similar performance, the lower boost rating cost the MkV about 40 mph which is why both the P40 and Zero could stay with it. It's well known that the RAAF boosted Allisons above what was allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
13K
Thumpalumpacus
M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
1K
Snautzer01
T
P-47 roll rate - a bit of new (to me) info
Replies
1
Views
629
Shortround6
S
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
CHen10
Menu
Log in
Register