ADS NOT DISPLAYED TO REGISTERED USERS.
Corsair vs Lightning
| Aviation Discuss Corsair vs Lightning in the World War II - Aviation forums; Originally Posted by P38 Pilot
Agreed. With that Two engine design, they could keep on going even after they took ... |
-
Banned

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
-
Pacific Historian
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.
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"
-
IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO