Best possible fighter

Originally Posted by wmaxt

Your points are well taken one thing I've read time and again is that the P-38 also had the ability to magnify the rool by differential throttle to add tourque effect in the desired direction, something only conter rotating props can add. That's not shown in the graphs and I don't know how to quantify it because not all pilots were good enough to use it. The P-38 also had a wheel to maximize the pilots ability to control the aircraft. Twin engine training was for crap and often pilots with as little as 20 hours in high performance fighters and no time in twins were put in P-38s. This was particurlary bad in the ETO.

The "Lockheed Stomp" is generally considered to be a myth. It was tried some by test pilots, but I've never seen an account of a pilot actually utilizing this in combat. And all such techniques are only useful in low speed combat. Any 1944 pilot who was enaging in low speed combat was a fool.

Yes, training in the P-38 was minimal in Europe. As I've previously posted, the control layout was also poor, requiring about 8 steps to go from cruise condition with drop tanks to combat condition (this was finally largely solved by the L model).

The F4U was a much better ground attack plane than the P-38. The P-38 was quite susceptable to ground fire, the F4U was quite resistant.

=S=

Lunatic

[R Pope]

If you're talking roll rate at low speed, the much-maligned Oscar beats all other modern monoplanes, with the possible exception of the Polikarpov I-16.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

The "Lockheed Stomp" is generally considered to be a myth. It was tried some by test pilots, but I've never seen an account of a pilot actually utilizing this in combat. And all such techniques are only useful in low speed combat. Any 1944 pilot who was enaging in low speed combat was a fool.

Yes, training in the P-38 was minimal in Europe. As I've previously posted, the control layout was also poor, requiring about 8 steps to go from cruise condition with drop tanks to combat condition (this was finally largely solved by the L model).

The F4U was a much better ground attack plane than the P-38. The P-38 was quite susceptable to ground fire, the F4U was quite resistant.

=S=

Lunatic

You should check out the web page "P-38(C.C.Jorden...)" He has extensivly reaserched these issues And interviewed various WWII p-lots like Ilfrey, Heiden and others. Your also right about early P-38s having issues with complicated cocpit. The P-38 has a very good record of ground attack and coming home with battle damage including mid air collisions. The airplane most suscetable to groung fire was the P-51.

Oh I've thoroughly read Jordan's pages. Still, I don't believe the lockheed stomp was used in combat, if it was, only by a handful of pilots. It was known that doing this in testing bent the frame.

Where the P-38 stood out in low speed combat was in its extrodinary low end accelaration. You can watch the film at http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P38.html and they have a scene where the P-38 (D I believe) is next to a chase plane doing 95 knots, and then it pours on the gas and pulls away like a dragster - and the pilot does not nose down, it climbs pretty much too.

A good pilot could stay on the six of a better turning plane by lifting the nose, tilting the plane just so, and then letting it stall onto the new track, and then using the acceleration to regain speed/energy. There is a famous instance of a P-38L mock dogfight with a Spit XIV where the P-38 got on the Spit's six and the Spit could not shake it.

Yes the P-38 was certainly better than the P-51 for ground attacks, espeically the P-51B which had no armor protecting the radiator. But it does not compare to the P-47 or the F4U for this role, since its liquid cooled engines make it highly vulnerable to ground fire. Any hit to the engine or the radiator or the pulumbing is a lost engine, even from rifel cailber rounds.

=S=

Lunatic

[wmaxt]

The video is cool, thanks!

Originally Posted by wmaxt

The video is cool, thanks!

The one on the P-51 is pretty good too. Most are early level training films, often very focused on checklists and takeoff and landing proceedures, but some have some other tid-bits in them as well.

=S=

Lunatic

[dinos7]

i believe the f4u corsair, spitfire, hawker hurricane the p-51 mustang and the fw109 were the best fighters.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by dinos7

and the fw109 were the best fighters.

Do you mean Bf-109 (Me-109) or the Fw-190?

[cheddar cheese]

He better mean Fw-190

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well I agree somewhat but I still think the 109 was one of the best aircraft but she was not the best possible fighter.

Out of his list I would go with the 190 if that is what he means. Deffinatly not a 109 or a Hurricane.

[dinos7]

i meant the fw-190

[wmaxt]

I'll stick with these P-38, Spitfire, fw-190/Ta-152 and F4U.

The P-51 was a good aircraft but I would choose the planes mentioned above first. The only advantage the P-51 has over the last 3 is range, and it doesn't even have that over the P-38.

wmaxt

[the lancaster kicks ass]

remember guys (if you'd read the first pages) that the idea of this thread isn't to find the best fighters, it's to design you're own single engined fighter taking characteristics from different fighters..........

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Hmmm lets see then. You know I dont know because I dont think with what was operational in WW2 you could get something better then a Ta-152.

[cheddar cheese]

If the Italians had continued plane development we could have seen some rivals for the Ta-152.