...searching for the best USAAF interceptor... (1 Viewer)

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

Jank said:
Huh, how do you figure it could fly 1,600 miles, engage enemy planes for about 10 minutes, often at WEP, defeat them, and fly 1,600 miles back?

The P-47N had a maximum range of about 2,350 miles. You're talking about 1,000 miles further. I didn't know the P-38 could fly coast to coast across the U.S.

Can someone explain why a late model P-47D was better able to take on late model German fighters than a P-38?

FEAF P38's flew 1600 mile missions from Biak to Balikpapin and Palawan to Singapore. And that was one way milage.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
He said the P-38 was far more stable as an aircraft and gun platform when compared to the P-51, but the P-51 was a lot more maneuverable.
The two tend to go together. To be a steady gun platform, an aircraft needs strong longitudinal stability. But for agility - which basically means the speed of response to the controls - a plane needs weak stability. You can't have it both ways!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Are you sure the P-51 was more maneuverable than the P-38. I have allways heard it was the other way around.
That's what Mike Alba told me. He also confirmed the center tank/ CG problem on the P-51 as well. He flew P-51Bs and "Cs" that were converted from "Bs." He said the P-51 C without the small fin in front of the vertical stabilizer made the aircraft real unstable, maybe the basis for his comment on maneuverability. Overall he said the P-38 was a finer combat aircraft and it made him feel comfortable in combat because of the 2 engines.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Are you sure the P-51 was more maneuverable than the P-38. I have allways heard it was the other way around.

You have to define the envelope, the P-51 had an edge in turning at high speeds, above 300mph. Below 300mph or the use of yo-yos the P-38s esp the P-38Ls could deal with it. Often the P-38 jock would challenge a P-51 to a fight starting on the ground. Using climb, boom zoom and yo-yos the P-38 could get multiple passes on the P-51 before they ever even got to altitude. In the maneuvering tactics the pilots in Europe didn't like Fighters, twin-engine fighters esp and it was never supported fully and never exploited the advantages of throttle differentiation etc like they did in the Pacific. The L models saw little action in Europe and many pilots like Art Heiden felt it was better in all regimes except in some cases top speed, and ease of training.

Flyboy, The 474th FG went to the top brass of the 8th/9th AF to keep their aircraft.

wmaxt
 
As Erich had pointed out this thread is in no man's land. The original topic was regarding the best USAF INTERCEPTOR, not escort, not fighter-bomber, not stunt plane.

I'd feel the best at taking off to intercept bombers where range is not a paramount concern and maneverability is not the life deciding factor there is only one plane- the P-47. Heb Zemke once told me long ago that any D block production with the improved prop could hit 30,000 feet in 13 minutes instead of 20 before. Ns were better yet. So we have a plane that can climb adequately.

8 fifties with 3,400 rounds of API would have dealt with anything they met. As a gun platform it was never criticized by those who flew it at high or low altitude. At 750 RPM ROF this translates out to 34 seconds of fire

The Ds could top 40-42,000 feet in ceiling so unless it was a very late war Uberplane any bomber could be reached.

At 30,000 feet the Ds hit 426-433 MPH and the N 460 MPH.
 
The P-47, esspecially the late war models would be great in this role. Stable gunplatform, excellent climb and hi alt behavior, rugged. I would wonder, how the F4U would compare against it in this role.
 
Twitch confirms my opinion.......drop this please as it is another "my craft is better than yours comparisons". My data comes right from the vetrs themselves gents as I have often repeated. Again the P-38 when it was flown by US ETO vets have said nothing could compare to it in the ground attack role except for the Bubble top P-47 models. The P-51 was the supreme high altitude escort fighter plus having the range. the stats during war and after and by test pilots that never served in combat may say otherwise but I have to bow out to the veteran memories and take their word(s) for it. the simple fact is they were there and none of us were and the closest we have gotten to compare manueverabiltiy and firepower over and to a Bf 109G or Fw 190A is through combat reports, fighter group histories and if we are lucky enough to interview at some length still living veterans.

The 474th fg primary role was ground attack and some escoprt duties if they were lucky enough to be able to provide, not going after railroad and MT stock.

113 air kills and 93 a/c ground kills does not say much for the aerial feats of the P-38 unit. I will not even compare what they accomplished to the Pioneer Mustang group the 354th fg with over 700 air kills the top scorere in the ETO. The roles in the 9th were quite diverse in nature.

again the result will be the same as already mentioned through previous topics
 
Twitch said:
8 fifties with 3,400 rounds of API would have dealt with anything they met.

True - but they never met heavy bombers, which is what they would be facing in this scenario. The Germans and the Japanese both discovered that not even 20mm cannon were really adequate for that, they needed 30mm guns. I think that point still gives the advantage to the P-63...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
 
Erich said:
My data comes right from the vetrs themselves gents as I have often repeated. Again the P-38 when it was flown by US ETO vets have said nothing could compare to it in the ground attack role except for the Bubble top P-47 models. The P-51 was the supreme high altitude escort fighter plus having the range. the stats during war and after and by test pilots that never served in combat may say otherwise but I have to bow out to the veteran memories and take their word(s) for it. the simple fact is they were there and none of us were and the closest we have gotten to compare manueverabiltiy and firepower over and to a Bf 109G or Fw 190A is through combat reports, fighter group histories and if we are lucky enough to interview at some length still living veterans.
Reports from combat vets are interesting and valuable, but should not be taken as gospel - for the simple reason that they frequently disagree with each other. If you ask vets 'which weapon was best' (whether army, air force, or whatever) you will get different responses, even from people who have used the same range of weapons.

People have different personal preferences for a variety of reasons. It may simply be that they have got used to one weapon, discovered how to make the most of its strengths and minimise its weaknesses, and then are not happy when given another one. I assume that is why some German Experten favoured the Bf 109 over the Fw 190 to the end - as any objective assessment would favour the Fw.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
 
Since the Bell FM-1 Airacuda didn't make it into production, I have to vote for the P-38!
 
Tony have never taken their word as gospel, but in this case you have veterans flying the machines we are talking about and none of us have flown these crates in combat. the first word is listen to the vets in association with this very thread.......and yes there will be a difference in opinion naturally
 
The firepower of 8 M-2s and the extreme amount of ammo would have been sufficient to kill any bomber the Japanese or Germans fielded or could have fielded. As it was Ju 88s, G3Ms, G4Ms, Do 17s, He 111s and other twins disintegrated into seething balls of wreckage when attacked. Quit arguing for the sake of it. Everyone here knows that 300 rounds of API from a 3 second P-47 burst at gun harmonized optimum distance would produce a 3 foot square zone of destruction on a Mavis, Emily, Condor or Ju 488 or anything else.
 
Marshall_Stack said:
I vote for the P-38, but it would have been interesting if the USAAF could have put turbocharged Allisons on this plane....

USAF Museum - McDonnell XP-67

All the P-38's DID have turbocharged Allison V-1710's, except for the model 322 'Castrated Lightning' that was supplied to the R.A.F., and later returned. They were used by the U.S.A.A.C. for training purposes.
 
Twitch said:
The firepower of 8 M-2s and the extreme amount of ammo would have been sufficient to kill any bomber the Japanese or Germans fielded or could have fielded. As it was Ju 88s, G3Ms, G4Ms, Do 17s, He 111s and other twins disintegrated into seething balls of wreckage when attacked. Quit arguing for the sake of it. Everyone here knows that 300 rounds of API from a 3 second P-47 burst at gun harmonized optimum distance would produce a 3 foot square zone of destruction on a Mavis, Emily, Condor or Ju 488 or anything else.
Given the fact that both the fighter and the target will be moving, affected by buffeting, aim wander etc, the idea of a "three foot square zone" is fantasy. Just look at gun camera footage of ground or sea strafing attacks - the projectile strikes are spread all over the place. A thirty-foot square zone, peppered with small holes, would be more like it. Please note that in the BoB German bombers (small and lightly protected by later standards) still got back to base with hundreds of bullets holes in them.

The Luftwaffe discovered that the concentrated destruction achieved by one big HE shell hit was more effective than the dispersed damage caused by a large number of small hits. That's why they were working on 55mm aircraft guns in 1945.

Isn't "arguing for the sake of it" what these forums are all about? :D

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
 
The concentrated firepower of twin 37mm cannons and a host of .30 and .50 machine guns would have made the FM-1 a most formidable intercepter, despite the fact that it was slow and difficult to fly. Of course, it's slow speed and poor climb may have been factors but nonetheless the FM-1 was probably the intercepter by which others were judged. Did I mention it was ugly, too?
 
V-1710 said:
All the P-38's DID have turbocharged Allison V-1710's, except for the model 322 'Castrated Lightning' that was supplied to the R.A.F., and later returned. They were used by the U.S.A.A.C. for training purposes.


I meant the XP-67 having turbocharged Allisons whould have been nice.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back