drgondog
Major
Best cruise for P-38 escort range was below B-29 cruise speed. For P-38s to cruise at 300mph TAS, the fuel consumption made it a poor second choice to the P-51 and P-47N (Joe -check me on this)
Wasn't the P-51 the best escort fighter of the war? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jank
- Start date
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Great info Bill - the OP's comment came across to me as if there were no P-38s going to the SWP and I think we all know by mid-1943 the P-38 was well establishing itself. The book quoted does state that the 9th and 39th were re-equipped with P-47s (this around October/ November 1943) but that would last 6 month. It seems around February or March 1944 is when the P-38J started to arrive in the SWP
Admiral Beez
Major
Make me wonder what the Soviets would use for a long range fighter escort, if they'd had the need. The post-war Lavochkin La-11 had a Mustang-like 2,235 km range....
....but the wartime Soviet fighters had terrible endurance.
....but the wartime Soviet fighters had terrible endurance.
Soviets were using long-range fighters in ww2. The Yak-9D sported extra fuel tankage vs. the stadard Yak-9 versions, and the Yak-9DD have had even more fuel inside. Since neither of them got any actual engine upgrade (VK-105 engines were well behind the curve already by mid-1941, apart from some prototypes and low-volume production types with reliability problems), performance was pittiful, especially on the DD version. Soviets also seldom used drop tanks.
Mustang was not sattisfied with km, he matched km with miles 1:1.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
Thanks for the info/clarification. Kenney was concerned enough to direct his engineers to make the arriving P-47s drop tank capable. 60 days after the engineers were informed, P-47s flew their 1st long range missions with the special flat drop tank on the centerline. Amazing!
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
Kenney also bypassed Materiel Command restrictions and used ferry (non self-sealing) tanks while MC diddled the development programs for combat tanks. The directive from Arnold came out of February 1942 Fighter Conference and the first 75, then 108/110 combat tanks followed in Fall 1943, then 165/150 in spring 1944. Kenney just wanted to fight the war and the bureaucrats at right Field were slowing him down.
You have much less of a chance of the enemy getting on your tail in a 51 compared to the other two...When I have a 20mm shell blow off 3 cylinder heads. I'd rather be flying a twin over an ocean any day of the week, let the taxpayer fund my survivability.
Still depends on mission and theater.
See above!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
If an enemy is on your tail in any of the three, more than likely you're already screwed, and forget all the dogfight stories you heard. So at the end of the day if a cannon round doesn't wipe out the cockpit area or torch a fuel tank, I'll settle on having an extra engine.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
An amazing feat indeed but I think Kenney had no choice as attrition forced him to take on P-47s for a brief period.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
But compare Kenney to Eaker, and there was a world of difference in their abilities. Arnold had so much trouble with getting Eaker to keep him informed, that he drew up a questionnaire (fill in the blanks) for him to complete on a regular basis. Eaker rarely completed these forms, so Arnold went long periods w/o feedback. Arnold fired his bomber commander, then shortly thereafter fired Hunter, his fighter commander. Eaker met early with British officials to get drop tanks made, but failed to follow up. The British said that they 'could' produce . . . but misunderstood Eaker's request. In the mean time Eaker canceled his drop tank production request in the US. His chief air planer asked Eaker for his help, but Eaker just said 'you handle it.' The new bomber commander started putting in written requests for fighter protection (escorts) because of losses and low morale. Eisenhower said that he would not work with Eaker, so Doolittle replaced him. Command ability does produce results.
True, but if you were flying a 51, it would be easier to avoid that situation...
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,306
- Jun 25, 2013
After which, you're in a crippled airplane in where there are active enemy fighters. I'm not sure that this is much of an improvement over no engine.
How so?
N/A cloaking device, you heard it here first.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
"One engine is better than no engine." At least there's a chance you may live to fight another day!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Perhaps. Many variables there. It's been well established that most fighter pilots shot down never saw their adversary. If an opponent got on your 6 without you knowing and started blasting lethal rounds into your aircraft, it's going to make little difference what aircraft you're in. My point is your chances of survivability is increased with a second engine.
In terms of the discussion, the P-51 may have been better than a P-38 and the P-38 may have been more expensive than the P-51, but that doesn't mean you don't buy P-38s. There were 10,000 + P-38s produced you cant magic an extra 10,000 P-51s out of the ether just because you want them.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
You are probably correct, but I think Most pilots would want to live as long as possible. Cloud cover, other aircraft doing battle and other distractions . . . just that they survive to limp away . . . to fight another day. Luck?
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
there were at least a few instances of P-38s in the South East Asia Theater making it home flying 600 miles on one engine. Granted Japanese Flak was pretty thin on the ground and Japanese fighters were also a bit rare along the route/s (and lacking radar control?) but that is about 580 miles further than a single engine plane was going to get 
