Corsair vs Lightning

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by P38 Pilot

Agreed. With that Two engine design, they could keep on going even after they took some damage.

It was really not vs. damage that those pilots were usually talking about. It was vs. mechanical failure.

The odds that after taking hits the P-38 was going to go down were much higher than for a corsair or hellcat. The fuel tanks are comparitavely exposed and the engines are no where near as robust vs. combat damage. An R2800 could take signifcant damage and still get the pilot home, where an inline would fail after almost any hit due to coolant loss. Even with two engines the liquid cooling aspect plus the fuel tank vulnerability made it less able to survive combat damage and get the pilot home.

=S=

Lunatic

[syscom3]

But what happens when you are flying 1300 miles from base, and one engine fails for any reason. Is that Hellcat or Corsair going to glide all those miles?

Another plus for the 2 engine design is it was great for the morale of the P38 pilots. Knowing you could come home after losing an engine made the flying the vast distances in the SW pacific far more bareable.

The 475th FG pilot I talked to at Chino 2004, told me having a second engine brought home many pilots who otherwise would have parachuted way out over the ocean or into the jungles.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Lunatic

The odds that after taking hits the P-38 was going to go down were much higher than for a corsair or hellcat. The fuel tanks are comparitavely exposed and the engines are no where near as robust vs. combat damage. An R2800 could take signifcant damage and still get the pilot home, where an inline would fail after almost any hit due to coolant loss. Even with two engines the liquid cooling aspect plus the fuel tank vulnerability made it less able to survive combat damage and get the pilot home.

While I agree with the robustness of a radial engine the area around the P-38s fuel tanks (along with a good portion of the wings) were made from corrugations riveted to structure and then the corrugations riveted to the skin - the same system found on B-17 wings - this is extremely strong and I would compare it to the structure of the Corsair or the Hellcat any day....

Bottom line I rather have one feathered and one running Allison engine than one R-2800 with 3 jugs missing....

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Lunatic

It was really not vs. damage that those pilots were usually talking about. It was vs. mechanical failure.

The odds that after taking hits the P-38 was going to go down were much higher than for a corsair or hellcat. The fuel tanks are comparitavely exposed and the engines are no where near as robust vs. combat damage. An R2800 could take signifcant damage and still get the pilot home, where an inline would fail after almost any hit due to coolant loss. Even with two engines the liquid cooling aspect plus the fuel tank vulnerability made it less able to survive combat damage and get the pilot home.

=S=

Lunatic

One thing that is rarley noted is that the P-38 is also spread out. It's outside dimensions are large but the individual parts are not, making the liklyhood that a single burst is going to take it out very unlikely.

The Corsair fuel is more concentrated but it's also at the point an enemy aircraft will be aiming at. The P-38s is more spread out but is self sealing (to) and is also able to be cross fed to ether engine - lose a tank you can at a minimum work your way closer to home. Try that in a Corsair with an empty tank!

All in all I think the two aircraft are extreamly close in capability and 1:1 combat it would probably come down to who exploited/made the first mistake. As for which plane is best, it would come down to mission and each one only has a couple of areas that it is unique in.

IMHO, these are the pinacle in piston engine fighter aircraft though its easily arguable that the Spit and the Fw-190 series should be included even if they can't do everything these two can.

wmaxt

[syscom3]

The PTO had its own unique requirements for a successfull fighter. Range was definatley one of the most important considerations.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The PTO had its own unique requirements for a successfull fighter. Range was definatley one of the most important considerations.

True, but escorting in the MTO/ETO missions with a 500+ mile radius were common.

I do think, though, that any "Best" aircraft must include the 'You got to get to the fight' condition - the best fighter that ever flew is worth nothing if it can't get to where it's needed.

wmaxt

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

I do think, though, that any "Best" aircraft must include the 'You got to get to the fight' condition - the best fighter that ever flew is worth nothing if it can't get to where it's needed.
wmaxt

Well summarized.

In regards to the ETO/MTO, my intent of this thread was their performance in the PTO. There they fought the same opponents, in the same theater and had to contend with the same operational problems.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

I do think, though, that any "Best" aircraft must include the 'You got to get to the fight' condition - the best fighter that ever flew is worth nothing if it can't get to where it's needed

although in the case of interceptors where it was needed was baisically straight up, not miles away over enemy teritory, i know this is nothing to do with the discussion i just didn't want people thinking that planes like the spitfire and EE Lightening were bad fighters because of their range, it's ok for a plane to have short range of it was designed to.........

[cheddar cheese]

Agreed on both counts lanc and wmaxt.

[Gnomey]

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

Agreed on both counts lanc and wmaxt.

Me too. Good points.

[syscom3]

One of the unique problems for both the Japanese and Allied forces in the PTO was the vast distances involved. If you cannot send your fighters out to where your opponant is, youre strictly on defense. In the PTO that meant your opponant could take islands or jungle just out of reach of your aircraft and build strips to cutoff your sealane supply.

What made the P38 and Corsair so great was they could fly practically anywhere the bombers went and cover them. A Spitfire in the PTO would be of quite limited use since it would be tied closely to its base and couldnt fly to where the action was.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by syscom3

What made the P38 and Corsair so great was they could fly practically anywhere the bombers went and cover them. A Spitfire in the PTO would be of quite limited use since it would be tied closely to its base and couldnt fly to where the action was.

Thats part of my point, I don't feel range is make or break as to a planes capability as a fighter but one must considier it as an advantage/bonus point when comparing fighters.

The P-51 wasn't much better than average but its range makes it a serious contender.

The BoB was lost as much by the short range Bf-109 as it was won/lost by any other factors.

Air superority over Europe was won by P-38s and P-51s and later P-47s and range was a prime reason they were able to do it.

That doesn't make the Spit a poor fighter but it is less effective strategicly and should be a factor in any comparison.

wmaxt

[syscom3]

Exactly. I couldnt have summed it up any better.

[P38 Pilot]

What also made the P-38 very useful was its bomb and rocket load if you ask me. Carry either 2 500lb bombs or two 600lb bombs along with a rocket load of 8,6 in rockets. Very useful when strafing trains or bringing down an armor column.

[cheddar cheese]

I believe the norm would probably be to carry 10 5in rockets, plus just one 1600lb bomb so that the other space can be used for a droptank on long range missions. If its short range though, shove a couple of 1600lb on