Wasn't the P-51 the best escort fighter of the war?

[Kevin J]

IIRC half the Mustangs produced never left the continental USA to reach any combat zone, so the Mustang must have been more expensive as two Mustangs cost more than one Lightning, and required 2 pilots.

 

[grampi]

Don't know where to start. How about the myth that the P-38 was twice as costly as the Mustang. I would argue that you have to add in the costs of ...
1. cost of retooling for P-51 parts
2. cost of building new factories
3. engineering costs to solve the problem of the tails falling off or the wrong engine etc.
4. cost of training workers to run the new machinery used to build the parts
5. cost of new warehousing
6. cost of training new pilots to replace the ones that didn't come home due to their engine being damaged
7. cost to the morale of those remaining pilots at losing their friends
8. cost to the families who lost sons, brothers, fathers needlessly

Just a few stories and facts from this source... The P-38 (C.C. Jordan; MakinKid; CDB100620)

"During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a
Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few the
P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was
able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
Spitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning
circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
angle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. After that the
Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. This contest was
witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground."

"In a mock dogfight between the Mustang and the Lightning, the skilled P-38
driver would fight in the vertical, taking advantage of his superior climb
speed and aerobatic ability. The skilled Mustang pilot would attempt to extend
away and come back unobserved. Once either locked onto the tail of the other,
it would be very difficult to shake. The P-38 driver in such a situation would
want to work the speed of the engagement down into the stall area where the
Mustang couldn't follow him. He could also split-S, dive and zoom, probably
losing the P-51. The Mustang pilot with a P-38 on his tail had fewer options.
At high altitude, he could point the nose at the ground and keep it there till
the the Lightning dwindled, then zoom climb into a fast, shallow climb to
extend away.
Interesting that the twin-engine fighter would have the advantage in a slow
turning contest, or in the vertical--loops, split-Ses.
What would typically happen if a Mustang bounced a Lightning would be that the
P-38 would split-S, the Mustang would follow through the roll but keep on
diving for some distance before pulling out, then circle around for another try
at a bounce. The Lightning pilot would continue the split-S up into a loop and
scan the sky for the Mustang. Typically, he would spot him some distance below
beginning a pull out. The Lightning driver would finish the loop and fall on
the climbing Mustang, locking onto his tail. The smart Mustang pilot would
reduce the chance of this by rolling out of h is escape dive into a climb in a
different direction. He might do a corkscrew climb. The "winner" of the
dogfight would be the pilot who better kept sight of his foe, who better
anticipated what his foe would do next, and who knew what to do with his own
airplane to counter that anticipated move; in other words, the better pilot
won--not the airplane."


"The P-38 was the best climber in active USAAF inventory and could easily
leave a P-51 choking on its heel dust. It also had brute acceleration the P-51
could not match (although the P-51 could accelerate very well indeed, the P-38
was better). The best accelerating P-38 was the H. Later models were
heavier, although the L got some more beans to play with.
The turbo really came into its own on the P-38 in the climb, providing sea
level horsepower to very high altitudes, so climb was smooth and consistent,
with 100 percent power being available at all altitudes. In earlier models,
inadequate intercooling limited the effectiveness of the turbos at high
altitude. This was corrected from the J. The P-51's two-stage, two-speed
mechanical supercharger caused it to lurch upstairs in a series of steps, HP
beginning to fall off immediately after a "gear change." The switch from the
first stage to the second stage of the supercharger occurred at about 17,000
ft. Just before the shift, the P-51 had performance about on par with a P-40N
at the same altitude. Then when the second stage kicked in, it became a tiger."

"Re climb and altitude performance of the P-38 vs. the P-51:
It has been stated in this thread that the performance of the P-38 declined
rapidly above 20,000 ft. This is not true.
The pre-J models could maintain sea-level power up to 25,000 ft., where
intercooler limitations began to reduce power. The J/L models could maintain
sea level power up to 30,000 ft., where turbo impeller speed limitations began
to reduce power. In neither case was power reduction sudden or dramatic.
(Incidentally, the turbocharged P-47 could also maintain sea level horsepower
up to 30,000 ft.)
This means the P-38H would have close to 2500 horsepower (military power)
available at 25,000 ft and the J almost 2900 horsepower (military) at 30,000
ft. (The P-47 would have 2000 hp [military] at 30,000 ft.) The use of War
Emergency Power would boost those figures.
No WWII fighter--bar none--had as much available horsepower at altitudes of
25,000 ft and above as the P-38.
The P-51D with its multi-stage mechanical supercharger saw horsepower
(military) peak at a bit less than 1700 at 8500 ft. At 13,500 ft., it was a
bit over 1300 hp, then it jumped to about 1375 or so at 21,500 ft., after which
it declined steadily. At 25,000 ft. it was down to 1200 hp and at 30,000 ft.
power was only a little over 700 hp.
(This engine performance deterioration was typical for any mechanically
supercharged aircraft engine, whether the P-51, Spitfire or Me 109.)
The P-51D had only about a third the horsepower available to the P-38H at
30,000 ft. and only about a fourth of that available to the J. Of course, the
P-51 was a lot lighter than the P-38, but still, at a normal gross weight of
17,700 lbs or so for the P-38J/L (about 1,000 lbs less for the H) and 10,200
lbs for the P-51D, the power loading for the P-38J at 30,000 ft. was 6.2
lbs/hp. (For the P-38H it would be a bit less than 6.7 lbs./hp.) For the P-51D
it was 10.6 lbs/hp. Even at 20,000 ft., where the P-51D was at its performance
peak, power loading for the P-51D was about 7.5 lbs per hp, while the J was
still 6.2 lbs./hp [6.7 for the H] (because the turbocharged power was operating
at sea-level efficiency.)
(P-47D power loading (military)at a gross wt. of about 14,500 lbs was 7.2
lbs./hp at all altitudes up to 30,000 ft.)
This means that at 20,000 ft. the P-38--early or late model--could walk away
from the P-51 and at 25,000 ft. and above, it could run away from it.
Because of this power advantage, the P-38, whatever the model, could easily
outclimb the Merlin P-51, hands down, no contest. At military power, the P-38J
could beat the P-51 to 10,000 ft. by about 2 minutes and to 30,000 ft. by about
four minutes. The P-38H figures would be somewhat less but still superior.
In fact, in fun and games stateside, it was not uncommon for a P-38 driver to
challenge a P-51 jockey to a dogfight to begin at brake-release on the runway,
the airplanes side by side. The Lightning would be wheels up before the
Mustang had left the ground. It would climb to 20,000 ft., the Mustang puffing
along farther and farther behind, whereupon the P-38 driver would commence a
relentless series of bounces from above, booming and zooming the Mustang until
he got bored, the Mustang driver never having a chance to do little more than
dodge--if he could spot the Lightning coming out of the sun. The higher up the
fight took place, the greater the advantage to the P-38.
The P-38 could also easily out-accelerate the P-51, thanks to the brute
horsepower it possessed, leaving it behind in a throttle-up contest. At
mid-altitude mid-speed contests, the P-51 would do best against the P-38. But
even then, roll and turn rates would be about the same for the two airplanes,
with the Lightning having the advantage in acceleration, climb and initial
dive. At lower or higher speeds, the P-38 could out-do the P-51, using manuever
flap setting at low speeds, and having greater control authority at high
speeds. Of course, at any time, the P-38 driver could push the contest
into--and through--the accelerated stall, which the P-51 driver dared not do:
the P-51 would depart controlled flight suddenly and violently, while an
accelerated stall in a P-38 was scarcely noticeable--a little mushing and the
nose dropping a bit.

The bottom line is that the P-38 was one hell of a fine airplane. It was
complex for its day, and required the pilot to spend some time with it before
he was fully qualified to take advantage of its capabilities. But once he
understood the airplane and how to use it, there was no other fighter in the
air that could match the P-38."

I understand you had to use the P-51D for your comparison to make your point, but the P-51H would have bested ANY version of the P-38 in every performance category...

 

[DarrenW]

Huge plane with no endurance, climb or maneuverability

As far as endurance is concerned you must be referring to early Thunderbolts without adequate external tanks, to which I mostly agree. Same with climb but that increased markedly with water injection and improved propellers. Maneuverability low down was never the T-bolt's strong point but way up high in the thinning air it's turbo allowed it to maintain handling where most other fighters of the time became sluggish and unresponsive.

 

[P-39 Expert]

As far as endurance is concerned you must be referring to early Thunderbolts without adequate external tanks, to which I mostly agree. Same with climb but that increased markedly with water injection and improved propellers. Maneuverability low down was never the T-bolt's strong point but way up high in the thinning air it's turbo allowed it to maintain handling where most other fighters of the time became sluggish and unresponsive.

Thunderbolts didn't have ANY external tanks from the time they got into combat in May '43 until August and those were only single 75 gallon belly tanks. Burning 190 gallons per hour at normal power meant that 75 gallon tank added about 20 minutes and maybe 50 miles of combat radius.

The wide blade propellers were added to the D-25 I think? Those got into combat right around D-Day, a little late to help win air superiority over Europe. That happened in the first half of '44. During the time when air superiority was still being contested the P-47 was a short range plane with a very average rate of climb.

And during that first half of '44 the P-38J engines were blowing up and the dive flaps were not in service yet. And they were still freezing their pilots.

 

[Navalwarrior]

I understand you had to use the P-51D for your comparison to make your point, but the P-51H would have bested ANY version of the P-38 in every performance category...

Resp:
The P-51H point is moot, as their only participation in WWII was on the flight deck of a carrier enroute to SWP when the war ended.

 

[Navalwarrior]

Thunderbolts didn't have ANY external tanks from the time they got into combat in May '43 until August and those were only single 75 gallon belly tanks. Burning 190 gallons per hour at normal power meant that 75 gallon tank added about 20 minutes and maybe 50 miles of combat radius.

The wide blade propellers were added to the D-25 I think? Those got into combat right around D-Day, a little late to help win air superiority over Europe. That happened in the first half of '44. During the time when air superiority was still being contested the P-47 was a short range plane with a very average rate of climb.

And during that first half of '44 the P-38J engines were blowing up and the dive flaps were not in service yet. And they were still freezing their pilots.

Reap:
Where were the Merlin Mustangs? Many of those P-47 pilots faced very experienced pilots. Certainly by the end of 1944 and 1945 the Luftwaffe had fewer skilled pilots.

 

[Barrett]

Sidebar: I cannot prove it but strongly suspect that the F6F had the best escort record in terms of bomber losses to enemy aircraft, whether numerically or proportionately. And yes, youbetcha--separate universe from the ETO/MTO. Just sayin'...

 

[DarrenW]

Thunderbolts didn't have ANY external tanks from the time they got into combat in May '43 until August and those were only single 75 gallon belly tanks.

Not a P-47 expert here but didn't they experiment with ferry tanks early on??? And IIRC didn't 5th Air Force P-47s utilize specially designed 200 gal. centerline tanks during the summer of 1943?

The wide blade propellers were added to the D-25 I think? Those got into combat right around D-Day, a little late to help win air superiority over Europe. That happened in the first half of '44. During the time when air superiority was still being contested the P-47 was a short range plane with a very average rate of climb.

From what I gather the improved Curtis and Hamilton Standard propellers began reaching squadrons by the end of 1943. I believe the P-47D-22 were the first production variants to leave the factory with the new propellers but I'll need to check this to make sure.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_Propellers-30nov43.pdf

 

[P-39 Expert]

Don't know where to start. How about the myth that the P-38 was twice as costly as the Mustang. I would argue that you have to add in the costs of ...
1. cost of retooling for P-51 parts
2. cost of building new factories
3. engineering costs to solve the problem of the tails falling off or the wrong engine etc.
4. cost of training workers to run the new machinery used to build the parts
5. cost of new warehousing
6. cost of training new pilots to replace the ones that didn't come home due to their engine being damaged
7. cost to the morale of those remaining pilots at losing their friends
8. cost to the families who lost sons, brothers, fathers needlessly

Just a few stories and facts from this source... The P-38 (C.C. Jordan; MakinKid; CDB100620)

"During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a
Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few the
P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was
able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
Spitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning
circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
angle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. After that the
Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. This contest was
witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground."

"In a mock dogfight between the Mustang and the Lightning, the skilled P-38
driver would fight in the vertical, taking advantage of his superior climb
speed and aerobatic ability. The skilled Mustang pilot would attempt to extend
away and come back unobserved. Once either locked onto the tail of the other,
it would be very difficult to shake. The P-38 driver in such a situation would
want to work the speed of the engagement down into the stall area where the
Mustang couldn't follow him. He could also split-S, dive and zoom, probably
losing the P-51. The Mustang pilot with a P-38 on his tail had fewer options.
At high altitude, he could point the nose at the ground and keep it there till
the the Lightning dwindled, then zoom climb into a fast, shallow climb to
extend away.
Interesting that the twin-engine fighter would have the advantage in a slow
turning contest, or in the vertical--loops, split-Ses.
What would typically happen if a Mustang bounced a Lightning would be that the
P-38 would split-S, the Mustang would follow through the roll but keep on
diving for some distance before pulling out, then circle around for another try
at a bounce. The Lightning pilot would continue the split-S up into a loop and
scan the sky for the Mustang. Typically, he would spot him some distance below
beginning a pull out. The Lightning driver would finish the loop and fall on
the climbing Mustang, locking onto his tail. The smart Mustang pilot would
reduce the chance of this by rolling out of h is escape dive into a climb in a
different direction. He might do a corkscrew climb. The "winner" of the
dogfight would be the pilot who better kept sight of his foe, who better
anticipated what his foe would do next, and who knew what to do with his own
airplane to counter that anticipated move; in other words, the better pilot
won--not the airplane."


"The P-38 was the best climber in active USAAF inventory and could easily
leave a P-51 choking on its heel dust. It also had brute acceleration the P-51
could not match (although the P-51 could accelerate very well indeed, the P-38
was better). The best accelerating P-38 was the H. Later models were
heavier, although the L got some more beans to play with.
The turbo really came into its own on the P-38 in the climb, providing sea
level horsepower to very high altitudes, so climb was smooth and consistent,
with 100 percent power being available at all altitudes. In earlier models,
inadequate intercooling limited the effectiveness of the turbos at high
altitude. This was corrected from the J. The P-51's two-stage, two-speed
mechanical supercharger caused it to lurch upstairs in a series of steps, HP
beginning to fall off immediately after a "gear change." The switch from the
first stage to the second stage of the supercharger occurred at about 17,000
ft. Just before the shift, the P-51 had performance about on par with a P-40N
at the same altitude. Then when the second stage kicked in, it became a tiger."

"Re climb and altitude performance of the P-38 vs. the P-51:
It has been stated in this thread that the performance of the P-38 declined
rapidly above 20,000 ft. This is not true.
The pre-J models could maintain sea-level power up to 25,000 ft., where
intercooler limitations began to reduce power. The J/L models could maintain
sea level power up to 30,000 ft., where turbo impeller speed limitations began
to reduce power. In neither case was power reduction sudden or dramatic.
(Incidentally, the turbocharged P-47 could also maintain sea level horsepower
up to 30,000 ft.)
This means the P-38H would have close to 2500 horsepower (military power)
available at 25,000 ft and the J almost 2900 horsepower (military) at 30,000
ft. (The P-47 would have 2000 hp [military] at 30,000 ft.) The use of War
Emergency Power would boost those figures.
No WWII fighter--bar none--had as much available horsepower at altitudes of
25,000 ft and above as the P-38.
The P-51D with its multi-stage mechanical supercharger saw horsepower
(military) peak at a bit less than 1700 at 8500 ft. At 13,500 ft., it was a
bit over 1300 hp, then it jumped to about 1375 or so at 21,500 ft., after which
it declined steadily. At 25,000 ft. it was down to 1200 hp and at 30,000 ft.
power was only a little over 700 hp.
(This engine performance deterioration was typical for any mechanically
supercharged aircraft engine, whether the P-51, Spitfire or Me 109.)
The P-51D had only about a third the horsepower available to the P-38H at
30,000 ft. and only about a fourth of that available to the J. Of course, the
P-51 was a lot lighter than the P-38, but still, at a normal gross weight of
17,700 lbs or so for the P-38J/L (about 1,000 lbs less for the H) and 10,200
lbs for the P-51D, the power loading for the P-38J at 30,000 ft. was 6.2
lbs/hp. (For the P-38H it would be a bit less than 6.7 lbs./hp.) For the P-51D
it was 10.6 lbs/hp. Even at 20,000 ft., where the P-51D was at its performance
peak, power loading for the P-51D was about 7.5 lbs per hp, while the J was
still 6.2 lbs./hp [6.7 for the H] (because the turbocharged power was operating
at sea-level efficiency.)
(P-47D power loading (military)at a gross wt. of about 14,500 lbs was 7.2
lbs./hp at all altitudes up to 30,000 ft.)
This means that at 20,000 ft. the P-38--early or late model--could walk away
from the P-51 and at 25,000 ft. and above, it could run away from it.
Because of this power advantage, the P-38, whatever the model, could easily
outclimb the Merlin P-51, hands down, no contest. At military power, the P-38J
could beat the P-51 to 10,000 ft. by about 2 minutes and to 30,000 ft. by about
four minutes. The P-38H figures would be somewhat less but still superior.
In fact, in fun and games stateside, it was not uncommon for a P-38 driver to
challenge a P-51 jockey to a dogfight to begin at brake-release on the runway,
the airplanes side by side. The Lightning would be wheels up before the
Mustang had left the ground. It would climb to 20,000 ft., the Mustang puffing
along farther and farther behind, whereupon the P-38 driver would commence a
relentless series of bounces from above, booming and zooming the Mustang until
he got bored, the Mustang driver never having a chance to do little more than
dodge--if he could spot the Lightning coming out of the sun. The higher up the
fight took place, the greater the advantage to the P-38.
The P-38 could also easily out-accelerate the P-51, thanks to the brute
horsepower it possessed, leaving it behind in a throttle-up contest. At
mid-altitude mid-speed contests, the P-51 would do best against the P-38. But
even then, roll and turn rates would be about the same for the two airplanes,
with the Lightning having the advantage in acceleration, climb and initial
dive. At lower or higher speeds, the P-38 could out-do the P-51, using manuever
flap setting at low speeds, and having greater control authority at high
speeds. Of course, at any time, the P-38 driver could push the contest
into--and through--the accelerated stall, which the P-51 driver dared not do:
the P-51 would depart controlled flight suddenly and violently, while an
accelerated stall in a P-38 was scarcely noticeable--a little mushing and the
nose dropping a bit.

The bottom line is that the P-38 was one hell of a fine airplane. It was
complex for its day, and required the pilot to spend some time with it before
he was fully qualified to take advantage of its capabilities. But once he
understood the airplane and how to use it, there was no other fighter in the
air that could match the P-38."

The P-38 did cost twice as much as the P-51. More than twice as much. Not including over twice the maintenance.

That Griffon Spitfire has a listed top speed of 447mph in wwiiaircraft. The top speed of a P-38H was 403mph. All that turning is wasted when the Griffon Spitfire just leaves and the P-38H can't catch it.

Regarding the Mustang vs Lightning dogfight you better check your climb figures for a P-51B. It will substantially outclimb all but the very latest P-38J/L. And those weren't available until after D-day when air superiority had already been won in Europe. By the time the P-38J-25 and L were in combat they had been relegated to ground attack in the ETO.

If the Lightning (and Thunderbolt) were so great why were they displaced in the escort role by the P-51?

 

[Darnold]

I've followed this forum for a number of years, weekly getting forum updates. I've even posted a few times, nothing spectacular or controversial, but I've been silent for the last 4yrs. For some reason I couldn't log on to post this so I had to register...again. With that all written...

I am still amazed at the bias that goes on here. That bias is especially strong against the P51. It has started to become nauseating to see people pull selective data, or even worst, inaccurate data to make virtually every other WWII fighter from 1942 onwards better than the Mustang. I laugh at the constantly purported concept that wing loading alone determined turning ability, only for those people to then use the gross weight of one plane and compare it to the empty weight of another. Another one that's frequently bantered is stall speed as THE definitive indicator of turning capability throughout the entire performance envelope of all altitudes, speeds, loadings, and configurations. Or another crazy comparison happens when people use the service date, or design date, or even the genealogical order to compare fighters so that they can move one marquee with a decided advantage into play against another and declare their favorite the winner.
The funny thing though is that every human has bias, the key is to admit it, and then be open to being inaccurate, or only having a part of the picture so that we can learn from each other. There's no problem with healthy debate, but it seems like it's long past being healthy debate around here.
It's gotten to the point that the forum seems to only have a small percentage (20-30% to me) of very Sage contributors who are a delight to read and learn from, and a somewhat large percentage of very biased posters who turn most comparisons into a "who's group yelled/posted for their belief and logic algorithm format the most" exercise. All done to enable their bias to be deemed as the "Truth". I've come close to cancelling being here for a few years, but the Sage ones keep me coming back refreshing me with their data, real world experiences, and deeper insights.
In the end let's all remember that no one plane was THE best at everything.
There was no one plane that was THE best dogfighter at every altitude and performance envelope strata, no one plane was THE best fighter-bomber (couldn't all of them carry some bomb payload ), or THE best for the entire, or rest of , our beyond the war.
They all had mission profiles that they were designed to, and some were better at it than others. And with that in mind no one that is knowledgeable would say that the Mustang was the best at everything, that's for sure.
What I've gathered from my own literature reviews, and what I've gleaned from most of the Sage people on the forum is that the Mustang was overall the best from 43' - 45' at what it wound up being enabled to do with a better engine than it was originally given: long range escort. It turned tight enough to turn with its enemy (better at many of the altitudes it faced them at), had enough maneuverability to react and engage its enemy throughout its performance envelope, with enough firepower to down them. And it was pretty much the only fighter that had the range to escort the heavies to their deepest targets, fight over and coming back from those targets, and land at home. That's why it's typically been referred to as the best escort fighter of the war. That doesn't mean it was the best at everything, all of the time, and in every situation. To say that this isn't accurate is problematic at the least. The Jug was the most rugged fighter with enough maneuverability to really mix it up with the event and provide cover for the distances it could travel. The Fork Tail Devil could hammer in a turn long enough to shoot down a zero at lower altitudes, and the Corsair in my opinion was the "Mustang" of the Pacific theater and it's lower operating altitudes. The Hellcat was a dream to fly and really matched the zero, and it could do it from the deck, while the Spit was a pilot's plane that Badger and Johnson said you literally write the wings on your back. The Messerschmidt was beautiful and deadly, a German "pre-type Mustang " for me, and the Butcher Bird was a wonderfully elastic plane that was extremely adaptable and capable.
They were all great.

 

[tomo pauk]

Stick around, I've also learned from the Sage contributors a lot.

 

[pbehn]

I've followed this forum for a number of years, weekly getting forum updates. I've even posted a few times, nothing spectacular or controversial, but I've been silent for the last 4yrs. For some reason I couldn't log on to post this so I had to register...again. With that all written...

I am still amazed at the bias that goes on here. That bias is especially strong against the P51. It has started to become nauseating to see people pull selective data, or even worst, inaccurate data to make virtually every other WWII fighter from 1942 onwards better than the Mustang. I laugh at the constantly purported concept that wing loading alone determined turning ability, only for those people to then use the gross weight of one plane and compare it to the empty weight of another. Another one that's frequently bantered is stall speed as THE definitive indicator of turning capability throughout the entire performance envelope of all altitudes, speeds, loadings, and configurations. Or another crazy comparison happens when people use the service date, or design date, or even the genealogical order to compare fighters so that they can move one marquee with a decided advantage into play against another and declare their favorite the winner.
The funny thing though is that every human has bias, the key is to admit it, and then be open to being inaccurate, or only having a part of the picture so that we can learn from each other. There's no problem with healthy debate, but it seems like it's long past being healthy debate around here.
It's gotten to the point that the forum seems to only have a small percentage (20-30% to me) of very Sage contributors who are a delight to read and learn from, and a somewhat large percentage of very biased posters who turn most comparisons into a "who's group yelled/posted for their belief and logic algorithm format the most" exercise. All done to enable their bias to be deemed as the "Truth". I've come close to cancelling being here for a few years, but the Sage ones keep me coming back refreshing me with their data, real world experiences, and deeper insights.
In the end let's all remember that no one plane was THE best at everything.
There was no one plane that was THE best dogfighter at every altitude and performance envelope strata, no one plane was THE best fighter-bomber (couldn't all of them carry some bomb payload ), or THE best for the entire, or rest of , our beyond the war.
They all had mission profiles that they were designed to, and some were better at it than others. And with that in mind no one that is knowledgeable would say that the Mustang was the best at everything, that's for sure.
What I've gathered from my own literature reviews, and what I've gleaned from most of the Sage people on the forum is that the Mustang was overall the best from 43' - 45' at what it wound up being enabled to do with a better engine than it was originally given: long range escort. It turned tight enough to turn with its enemy (better at many of the altitudes it faced them at), had enough maneuverability to react and engage its enemy throughout its performance envelope, with enough firepower to down them. And it was pretty much the only fighter that had the range to escort the heavies to their deepest targets, fight over and coming back from those targets, and land at home. That's why it's typically been referred to as the best escort fighter of the war. That doesn't mean it was the best at everything, all of the time, and in every situation. To say that this isn't accurate is problematic at the least. The Jug was the most rugged fighter with enough maneuverability to really mix it up with the event and provide cover for the distances it could travel. The Fork Tail Devil could hammer in a turn long enough to shoot down a zero at lower altitudes, and the Corsair in my opinion was the "Mustang" of the Pacific theater and it's lower operating altitudes. The Hellcat was a dream to fly and really matched the zero, and it could do it from the deck, while the Spit was a pilot's plane that Badger and Johnson said you literally write the wings on your back. The Messerschmidt was beautiful and deadly, a German "pre-type Mustang " for me, and the Butcher Bird was a wonderfully elastic plane that was extremely adaptable and capable.
They were all great.

In two separate polls the P-51 was voted both the most over rated and under rated aircraft of WW2. Maybe it is the most talked about. As a Brit, all USA types outperformed the Hurricane, but they didnt in the summer of 1940. They all did their "bit" in the conflict, it is a matter of opinion whose was the most significant and sometimes looks sways opinion in what should be a factual discussion.

 

[Conslaw]

I understand you had to use the P-51D for your comparison to make your point, but the P-51H would have bested ANY version of the P-38 in every performance category...

P-51H would have bested the P-38 in every category except for the category of being ready when it was needed the most. Even the P-38 wasn't perfect in that category. P51H was more a contemporary of the P80.

 

[pbehn]

P-51H would have bested the P-38 in every category except for the category of being ready when it was needed the most. Even the P-38 wasn't perfect in that category. P51H was more a contemporary of the P80.

The humble Hurricane knocks them all into a cocked hat when it comes to performance in 1939/40 for the same reason, that was when the island that the long range missions came from was secured.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The P-38 should never have been produced in that volume. Maybe 500-1000 total as recon planes. This is all hindsight, but the P-38 was twice as expensive as a P-51 but it wasn't twice as capable. Not even AS capable when you throw in more than twice the maintenance, twice the fuel, low mach number, low maneuverability, complexity and need for extra pilot training. I love the P-38, but it never made that much sense to me. Same with the P-47 really. Huge plane with no endurance, climb or maneuverability. Develop the P-51 and maybe one other single engine plane as a backup. Hindsight.

And in hindsight, the P-38 was the only aircraft available in numbers and on a rolling production line to fulfill a mission that the P-40 AND (drumroll) the P-39 couldn't. For a huge plane with "no endurance, climb or maneuverability" it sure made an impact (same with the P-47).

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And during that first half of '44 the P-38J engines were blowing up and the dive flaps were not in service yet. And they were still freezing their pilots.

In the South West Pacific?!?!? People tend to forget "that other war." And even with the P-38's less than stellar performance in the ETO, it was still a valued weapon and served on front line squadrons until the end of the European airwar.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

P-51H would have bested the P-38 in every category except for the category of being ready when it was needed the most. Even the P-38 wasn't perfect in that category. P51H was more a contemporary of the P80.

Maybe an early block P-80A. Maybe. Not even close to the F-80C.

 

[pbehn]

And in hindsight, the P-38 was the only aircraft available in numbers and on a rolling production line to fulfill a mission that the P-40 AND (drumroll) the P-39 couldn't. For a huge plane with "no endurance, climb or maneuverability" it sure made an impact (same with the P-47).

Who authorised the purchase of all these crap planes? !0,000 of them just using much needed fuel for years?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Who authorised the purchase of all these crap planes? !0,000 of them just using much needed fuel for years?

At least one guy with hindsight and deep pockets.

 

[pbehn]

At least one guy with hindsight and deep pockets.

View attachment 571749

Hindsight or foresight? As a Brit I cant tell everyone by photo?