Rising Sun warbirds

wmaxt · 09-28-2005, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

I could understand the Corsair. But I consider the P-47 inferior. P-38 would out-turn, out-range, out-climb, dive with, and out run every P-47 except the M.

I concur more or less.

The Corsair -4 was almost equal with a P-38L. The P-38 could still out accelerate, out range and fly higher. The corsair had an extra hard point (they had the same 4,000lb rating but the F4U was easier to cheat with) and could land on a carrier, in every other catagory they were essentialy equal. Had more performance been needed in WWII the P-38K was available for production.

I would trade a P-38 for a Corsair only if I were going Navy.

wmaxt

Lightning Guy · 09-28-2005, 05:47 PM

P-38 would also out-gun, out-dive, and out-turn the Corsair. Top speed and climb between the F4U-4 and the P-38L were practically a dead heat.

carpenoctem1689 · 10-04-2005, 12:35 AM

Also witht the P-38, you get the reliability of two engines. id feel much more secure flying with two, even though they were inline, and the radial of the corsair could take more punishment from battle damage.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-04-2005, 05:38 AM

Ill agree with you but of the 3 aircraft I just happen to like the P-47 better. I like the way it looks so stubby and mean. Mostly though I like the fact that it was just a great all around aircraft. So were the P-38 and the Corsair. All three obviously had there areas where they would out do the other and all three are top notch aircraft.

carpenoctem1689 · 10-04-2005, 08:57 PM

Agreed. Though the P-47 has alot going for it. Rugged as can be, eight 12.7mm machine guns in the wings, and with the bubble canopy it really came into its own. The P-38 had four 12.7mm machine guns, but they were clustered around a 20mm cannon, and were centralized in the nose, and with that firepower, could saw through and enemy aircraft. The corsaid had six 12.7mm machine guns in the wings, giving adequate firepower, and the P-38 and corsair could aslo take punishment. But the P-38 requires you to be a good shot, and isnt as manouverable, and the corair has only six, compared to eight wing guns.

syscom3 · 10-04-2005, 09:49 PM

The P38 simplified gunnery as you didnt have convergence issues.

carpenoctem1689 · 10-04-2005, 11:03 PM

Yeah, simplified for the ground crew, but what about the pilots? you needed to be a much better shot. Same arguement for the 109s, when the armament was concentrated in the nose, made it hardy for rookies to hit what they wanted.

FLYBOYJ · 10-04-2005, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carpenoctem1689

Yeah, simplified for the ground crew, but what about the pilots? you needed to be a much better shot. Same arguement for the 109s, when the armament was concentrated in the nose, made it hardy for rookies to hit what they wanted.

Nope, like anything else it was a matter of training and natural ability. You had P-38 pilots like Tom Lynch, Gerald Johnson, Jack Jones, Bob Westbrook and Robert DeHaven who flew P-39s and P-40s with success and then continued with the P-38. If anything their gunnery skills got better when they started flying the P-38. I had a neighbor, Col. Mike Alba, who flew P-38s and P-51s in Europe and he said the -38 was a way better gun platform.....

In 1944 when Dick Bong returned stateside he underwent gunnery training. By that time tactics were refined and in Bong's own words "my scored would of been double had I had this training in 1943." When he returned to the Pacific in late 1944 he was knocking down several planes at a time and retuning to base with ammunition left over.....

syscom3 · 10-04-2005, 11:35 PM

Having zero convergence meant that they had a concentrated stream of bullets going out several hundred yards. There was no issue of only a few hitting the target due to dispersal.

evangilder · 10-04-2005, 11:36 PM

Maybe so, but Richard Bong himself claimed that he had poor gunnery skills. His way to solve that? He got as close as possible before firing. He admits he was a poor shot, but he still managed to down 40 enemy airplanes, almost all of them with the P-38. Having the guns directly in front was proven to make it better for gunners. Wing guns make it more difficult as you have to worry about convergence.

FLYBOYJ · 10-04-2005, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Having zero convergence meant that they had a concentrated stream of bullets going out several hundred yards. There was no issue of only a few hitting the target due to dispersal.

And the guys noted, flying both aircraft with a convergence and zero convergence easily adapted, mainly by getting as close as possible to the target and blasting away. In the 38 some aces actually used the .50s as a "feeler" and when they started getting hits they let go with the 20mm....

evangilder · 10-04-2005, 11:47 PM

Yep. It's funny how three of us responded at darn near the same time!

FLYBOYJ · 10-05-2005, 12:12 AM

wmaxt · 10-05-2005, 04:35 PM

Two things,

1, I have only heard of P-38s in relation to Bong in fact its mentioned in many of the excerpts about him.

2, I've seen interviews of MaGuires an Linchs wing men telling about kills being made at ~1mile with that focused firepower.

wmaxt

FLYBOYJ · 10-05-2005, 06:33 PM

I've read that Lynch, if not killed, might of been the US ace of aces....