Sal Monella
Airman 1st Class
I can see strong points for each. What do you think?
Supreme long range escort of the war - P-38L or P-47N?
- Thread starter Sal Monella
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
syscom3
Pacific Historian
P38L for very long range missions. Just having two engines is better for morale of the pilot when flying over long stretches of water.
book1182
Airman
I agree, the P-38L has the twin engines for reliability and the great armament of 4x.50cal and 1x20mm. I love the hitting power of a 20mm.
Here's my but...
P-47N 8x.50cal??? Pretty good armament also. The P-47N would have better maneuverability over the P-38. You would lose the reliability of the twin engines but, you have a big radial engine in front of you that can take a punishment.
Winner P-47N: I think you need the ability to maneuver with the enemy to be able to keep them away from the bombers
Here's my but...
P-47N 8x.50cal??? Pretty good armament also. The P-47N would have better maneuverability over the P-38. You would lose the reliability of the twin engines but, you have a big radial engine in front of you that can take a punishment.
Winner P-47N: I think you need the ability to maneuver with the enemy to be able to keep them away from the bombers
syscom3
Pacific Historian
But when you have to fly 800 miles over water back to your airbase, Id take the two engines over the single one.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
The P-47N was a big steep up for the whole Thunderbolt family.
It added a new wing and more fuel to the uprated R-2800 that came in on the P-47M. It was actually a better dogfighter than the P-47D as well, rolling better and turning better than the previous models.
As for VLR escorts, well the P-51B/C, P-51D, P-38L, late build P-47D models and the P-47N all fit well into the category. It is really swings and round-abouts as to which was better or "the best". Do you take the speed of the P-47N, the twin engined reliability of the P-38L or the better dogfighting capability of the P-51?
The USA was really the only nation to build an effective long range escort fighter, with the only other contender being the A6M. Most other long range fighters were two man twin engined planes, that had real trouble competing against single seaters.
It added a new wing and more fuel to the uprated R-2800 that came in on the P-47M. It was actually a better dogfighter than the P-47D as well, rolling better and turning better than the previous models.
As for VLR escorts, well the P-51B/C, P-51D, P-38L, late build P-47D models and the P-47N all fit well into the category. It is really swings and round-abouts as to which was better or "the best". Do you take the speed of the P-47N, the twin engined reliability of the P-38L or the better dogfighting capability of the P-51?
The USA was really the only nation to build an effective long range escort fighter, with the only other contender being the A6M. Most other long range fighters were two man twin engined planes, that had real trouble competing against single seaters.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Im not overly impressed with the whole "dual engine safety" thing... The performance issues weigh heavier in my opinion.... And u gotta love having that badass radial infront of u....
Talk about a HUGE moral booster....
Talk about a HUGE moral booster....
- Thread starter
- #9
Sal Monella
Airman 1st Class
Now that's a burly ass kicker. No pansy ass tea and crumpet eating "Tiffy" lad behind the stick of this machine.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Sal Monella said:
RAGMAN
Airman
the P47 is better in my view,radial engine for damage,speed.Agility is not bad either,it won't be confused for a Spitfire MK 1 but it could hold its own.8 machine guns is not too shabby either. 8) Did the P47 ever have 20 mm cannons installed? 
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The center located MG's on the Lightning were just as effective as the eight fifty's on the -47. So I would say its a draw.
Although the radial engine was was one tough machine, it to could be damaged in a multitude of ways. Think of this. Could the -2800 suffer significant damage and still bring the plane home to an airbase 600 miles away? Remember, if the engine fails, the pilot is going into the sea.
The P38 and its twin engines proved time and time again in the PTO, that in some instances, 2 engines are definatly better than 1
Although the radial engine was was one tough machine, it to could be damaged in a multitude of ways. Think of this. Could the -2800 suffer significant damage and still bring the plane home to an airbase 600 miles away? Remember, if the engine fails, the pilot is going into the sea.
The P38 and its twin engines proved time and time again in the PTO, that in some instances, 2 engines are definatly better than 1
Agreed.syscom3 said:
So would I.syscom3 said:
Good points I agree with them.book1182 said:
This is what is boils down to for me.syscom3 said:
For extreme range missions I would take the P-38L as well as for long missions over water. I would then use the P-47N for slightly shorter missions over land/small stretches of water. They are both pretty equal in my view, but for long range escort 2 engines are better than 1 even if that one can take a fair amount of battle damage.
RAGMAN
Airman
From what I have read on this site, I thought that the Allison Engine,being a liquid cooled engine was more prone to gunfire than a radial engine.But that being said, I can see the benefits of two engines than one.But the 2800 engine was legendary for bringing pilots(in Europe I know) back to Allied land at great distances. On one of the stories I have read here,(in another thread)a pilot was raked by gunfire from a German(FW190?) plane and he crouched in his armour plated seat and lived to fight another day. 
I go for the Jug. Both aircraft are great and 2 of the best of all times but I have always loved the Jug. Something about how rugged she is and I love the radial engine.
We all do know that the P-51D though was the escort fighter of choice for the USAAF. I am not a fan of the P-51D and I do not think that it was that it was cracked up to be but it was the aircraft that took the fight to the Germans.
We all do know that the P-51D though was the escort fighter of choice for the USAAF. I am not a fan of the P-51D and I do not think that it was that it was cracked up to be but it was the aircraft that took the fight to the Germans.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
In the PTO, for short range missions, Id take the P47N.
But for anything over water for more than a couple of hours, Id go for the P38L
But for anything over water for more than a couple of hours, Id go for the P38L
They did fine in the Pacific on long range flights with Corsairs and they were single engines.
cheddar cheese
Major General
P-38L, for the twin engines and superior range. The big tough radial is good, but I'd rather one failing engine and one working engine, that one engine thats had a few hits. If it fails, youre down and out - on the P-38 if the knackered engine fails you can make it back on the good one.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
But Corsairs didnt fly on the 1600 mile trips between Balikpapen and Biak.
Nor fly from Guam to Iwo Jima.
When it came to long long range flights, it was the P38.
Yes that is true.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
