Supreme long range escort of the war - P-38L or P-47N?

wmaxt · Nov 11, 2005

The P-37L

The maneuverability of the L model was very good even at altitude. I don't have any good info on the N to compare with the P-38. Art Heiden considered the L a good bit better than the P-51 and he flew both. Art had two quotes pertinent here, the first is that the P-38 was more comfortable in a fight down low or for that matter anywhere else. Second, There isn't anything a P-51 can do that a P-38L can't do better. Again I don't have good info to compare the N to the Mustang. The speed brakes added another tool to aid maneuvering to the L model.

I learned recently that P-38s did B-29 escort to, first in Jeff Ethels P-38 Lightning at War then I saw a P-38 escort with B-29s as they were over Japan, in a B-29 Documentry. Jeff mentioned the P-38s were pretty war weary and were eventualy replaced at least in part with P-47s.

wmaxt

delcyros · Nov 12, 2005

While I like the P-47 N more, both are probably about equal in this task.
My question: What is the critical / limiting Mach figure of both planes?
Since we are talking about late war, high altitude, long range escorts any advantage in this field will play a major role. Esspeccially if the plane is forced to dive away or trying to intercept a possible jet interceptor at high altitudes.

wmaxt · Nov 12, 2005

delcyros said:
While I like the P-47 N more, both are probably about equal in this task.
My question: What is the critical / limiting Mach figure of both planes?
Since we are talking about late war, high altitude, long range escorts any advantage in this field will play a major role. Esspeccially if the plane is forced to dive away or trying to intercept a possible jet interceptor at high altitudes.

First, your not going to out run a jet even in a dive - 262 was almost at criticle Mach of the P-47 in level flight.

The P-47 Critical Mach number is around .8, the P-38 is .68/.7.

The two planes are very close. A lot of the time we forget/ignore the fact that the capabilities of propellar driven aircraft was peaked out and the difference was in which plane was better in what catagory. The P-38 even the L is not the hands down winner in all the catagories but is very high in almost all. No matter what mission the P-38 was given it was competitive with/if not the best in that area.

I know if I were going to fly a long range escort I would want the P-38L with the:
range
Accurate firepower out to 1,000yrds
two engines
crossfeed fuel system
tricycle gear, for a safe landing when I'm exausted, even in a strong crosswind.
tail warning radar

None of which the P-47N could match. The P-47N didn't have anything significant over the P-38L (the difference in top speed was 25mph) which could also carry sigificantly more ordanance if required. The P-47N even used the P-38s 165 gallon drop tanks.

wmaxt

the lancaster kicks ass · Nov 13, 2005

how many P-38s had tail warning radar? and remember two engines meant twice the work for the pilot and the P-38 was not an easy aircraft to fly.............

P38 Pilot · Nov 13, 2005

P38L was inmy opinion long range material. Twin engines really came in handy....

syscom3 · Nov 13, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
how many P-38s had tail warning radar? and remember two engines meant twice the work for the pilot and the P-38 was not an easy aircraft to fly.............

The P38's in late 1944 and throughout 1945 were going on 3200 mile flights with no engine control problems for the pilot to be concerned about.

The P38 was an easy plane to fly, once a rookie pilot had enough time on it.

cheddar cheese · Nov 13, 2005

Its more of a myth it was difficult to fly...as sys said, all the problem was was insufficient training...

lesofprimus · Nov 13, 2005

That I'll have to disagree with.... It was never easy to fly, except in extreme circumstances where the pilot was beyond adept... Even Hub Zemke said that it wasnt an easy craft to fly...

FLYBOYJ · Nov 13, 2005

syscom3 said:
the lancaster kicks ass said:

how many P-38s had tail warning radar? and remember two engines meant twice the work for the pilot and the P-38 was not an easy aircraft to fly.............

Click to expand...

The P38's in late 1944 and throughout 1945 were going on 3200 mile flights with no engine control problems for the pilot to be concerned about.

The P38 was an easy plane to fly, once a rookie pilot had enough time on it.

Rookie pilot? 2, 3 or maybe 400 hours - and that being multi engine time. The -38 was no harder than any other aircraft once the pilot was adequately trained on multi engined aircraft. In the beginning of the war green pilots with sometimes 5 or 10 hours multi engine time were "thrown" into a P-38. If they had an engine failure on takeoff (which wasn't that uncommon) it usually meant certain death.

syscom3 · Nov 13, 2005

Pilot training was certeinly deficient in the first part of the war. Look at how bad the B26 was untill training was improved.

One thing we tend to overlook is the performance of all the aircraft was increasing by leaps and bounds and the training was lagging. I think some generals accepted larger than normal pilot training loss's, just as long as enough pilots who could fly the thing could reach the squadron.

Sal Monella · Nov 13, 2005

wmaxt, how do you figure that the P-47N was only 15mph faster than than the P-38L? That would put the top speed of the P-38L at 452mph.

Specification of the P-38L:

14,100 lbs empty, 17,500 lbs combat loaded. Maximum speed was 360 mph at 5000 feet, 390 mph at 15,000 feet, 414 mph at 25,000 feet.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_15.html

cheddar cheese · Nov 13, 2005

442mph with WEP. I think he just made a typo.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Nov 13, 2005

syscom3 said:
Pilot training was certeinly deficient in the first part of the war. Look at how bad the B26 was untill training was improved.

Thats because they did not have flight sims or PC's.

syscom3 · Nov 13, 2005

They had link trainers for instrument training.

the lancaster kicks ass · Nov 13, 2005

wmaxt · Nov 13, 2005

Sal Monella said:
wmaxt, how do you figure that the P-47N was only 15mph faster than than the P-38L? That would put the top speed of the P-38L at 452mph.

Specification of the P-38L:

14,100 lbs empty, 17,500 lbs combat loaded. Maximum speed was 360 mph at 5000 feet, 390 mph at 15,000 feet, 414 mph at 25,000 feet.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_15.html

It was a typo. The P-38 is 442/443 depending on source, while the P-47N is 467.

The 414 often cited is Military power 1425hp @ 54in/hg. the P-38L-O5 is 440+, 1,725hp @ 64in/hg.

wmaxt

wmaxt · Nov 13, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
how many P-38s had tail warning radar? and remember two engines meant twice the work for the pilot and the P-38 was not an easy aircraft to fly.............

Lanc, check out this sit and the article by Jeff Ethel in Fitgh Journal Magazine on flying the P-38. http://www.flightjournal.com/

Training losses per 100,000 flight hours for WWII are as follows:
P-38 - 1,403
P-39 - 1,934
P-40 - 3,569
P-47 - 3,049
P-51 - 824

It was more work, syncronizing engines, Props, managing fuel, etc. but not quite as bad as the publicity would lead us to belive. Zemke was also using early incorrect operating procedures with early P-38s which did not have some of the improved systems the later Js and Ls had. Art Heiden also thought the P-38 was a busier plane than a P-51.

Tail radar went in on the P-38L-O5 model.

wmaxt

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Nov 13, 2005

I am actually surprised the P-47 is so high.

delcyros · Nov 13, 2005

I will go for the P-47N, since there seems to be a considerable gap
in crit Mach figures of both planes. Don´t take me wrong, but jets may be a serious thread but with 0.67 crit Mach, even a N1K1 or Ki-61 may dive AND maneuvre at speeds, at which the Lightning cannot perform (The P-47N otherwise could). Same goes for Fw-190 (longnose) and Bf-109G10 and later ones. High altitude sorties would make this even more problematic because the Mach stage is higher there at similar TAS compared to lower altitudes.
The armement of eight 0.50 M3 is also quite a striking arguement for the P-47N.

syscom3 · Nov 13, 2005

WMAXT,

Did that article break down the training loss's per year?

I wouldnt be surprised to see a very high rate in 1941 and 1942, followed by a sharp decline beginning in 1943.

The low rate of the P51 might be due to it coming on line in 1943, after the AAF figured out how to train large numbers of students without getting them killed in the process.

Supreme long range escort of the war - P-38L or P-47N?

Staff Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Pacific Historian

Major General

Brigadier General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

Airman 1st Class

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Pacific Historian

Major General

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Tech Sergeant

Pacific Historian

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads