...searching for the best USAAF interceptor...

[Jank]

How was the Bearcat at 30,000ft. and higher altitudes? I thought she wasn't designed for high performance up there (oxygen poor environment).

For instance, the P-51 was a better dogfighter than the P-47D in 1944. That was the case until you got to 25,000ft where the P-47 could pretty well match the P-51. By the time you were at 30,000ft. the Thunderbolt could wax the Mustang.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

How about a Hellcat?

Nah, I myself would go for something better like the P-38 too.

[Jabberwocky]

P-38 for two reasons:

1. Rate of climb.

The P-38 was the hardest climbing US fighter of the war. It could get to 25,000 feet while the P-40, P-39, P-47 and P-51A were still lagging far below.

2. Armament.

Heavy, nose mounted and with a large revior of ammunition. .50 cal would light up fuel tanks and punch through armour. The 20mm would do the same and then add 10g of HE to the mix.

The P-38G was the standard for early 1943, capable of about 400 mph at 25,000 feet and able to get there in about 7 min 40 seconds. The H was introduced into service around May 1943 and was just a smidge faster, clocked at about 405 mph at 25,000 feet. The J was introduced late in the year (September) with the redesigned 'beard' nacels, and was significantly faster, clocking about 422 mph at 25,000 feet and could get there in just a smidge over 7 minutes.

[delcyros]

One thing to put less importance to are range issues for interceptions. No long range fighter sweeps or escorts, pure interceptions. Another issue I have with the P-38 is vulnarability. It seems to me that the combination of large target size and the liquid cooled engines can take less battledamage but I might be wrong here.
It undoubtly is the most stable gunplatform the USAAF had and it´s excelled everything in the climb figure...

[Hop]

Best USAAF interceptor in mid 1943? Spitfire VIII, hands down. (you didn't specify it had to be US made).

[lesofprimus]

That was just plain stoopid...

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

P-38 for two reasons:

1. Rate of climb.

The P-38 was the hardest climbing US fighter of the war. It could get to 25,000 feet while the P-40, P-39, P-47 and P-51A were still lagging far below.

2. Armament.

Heavy, nose mounted and with a large revior of ammunition. .50 cal would light up fuel tanks and punch through armour. The 20mm would do the same and then add 10g of HE to the mix.

The P-38G was the standard for early 1943, capable of about 400 mph at 25,000 feet and able to get there in about 7 min 40 seconds. The H was introduced into service around May 1943 and was just a smidge faster, clocked at about 405 mph at 25,000 feet. The J was introduced late in the year (September) with the redesigned 'beard' nacels, and was significantly faster, clocking about 422 mph at 25,000 feet and could get there in just a smidge over 7 minutes.

My data shows that the P-38G is "only" capable of getting to 20,000 ft in
8.5 minutes. Of course, we don't know load. I'm sure that there are P-38 lovers that know all the data.

As a sneaky entry, how about the P-80A. With time to climb to 20,000 ft. in 5.5 minutes and a service ceiling of 45,000 ft. it would be the best performing interceptor of the war, excluding the Me-163. Couldn't get good data on the Meteor Mk III, which might be in contention.

[lesofprimus]

We're talking 1943....

[wmaxt]

The P-38 could get to 20,000ft as follows

P-38F - 5min 28sec British test
P-38 J-10 - 5min 37sec
P-38L is in the same area but with 64" a lockheed test puts it at 5min flat and one AAF test was at 4.91min but I no longer have that test and cannot confirm conditions.

In '44 104/150 fuel became available with it the AAF raised the highest available MAP to 75" for the P-38J (Documentation is at spitfireperformance.com ) The 8th AF raised aircraft in the war zone to 65" MAP giving the P-38J/L another 500-800fpm. At 75" the estimate climb rate for a P-38J is 4640 at sl

The real killer climber would be the P-38K with 1875hp engines and paddle props. The mule achieved 45,000ft max speed a critical alt was 432Military 450 was expected in WEP. From a standing start it could reach 20,000ft in 5min flat with a military power climb of 4800ft min initially. More on this can be found at
The P38K
Theres a wealth of info about the P-38, Republic, Flying Tigers and others at this site. The P-38K was killed because the WPB did not want to accept a 2 week delay in production.

wmaxt

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

2 weeks.......too bad.

The bombing "Droop Snoop" was an idea that rivaled the B-17 for long range bomber use into Germany.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

2 weeks.......too bad.

Especialy when the AAF evaluatioin of the 1st production (hand fitted cowlings) was tested it was termed "Vastly superior in ALL catagories of measured performance" to the P-47D and P-51B (the best performing P-51 other than the H model). Its initial climb rate at sea level METO power was 4800gt/min and over 5,000ft/min was projected at WEP. AND all this was early '43 before 104/150 fuel!!!

What if a K was built and a second factory was started in '43? Not even the TA-152 exceeded those numbers - and remember this was an actual plane not a design concept!!

wmaxt

[wmaxt]

The P-38s only real performance lack was in high speed turning. The majority of dogfights were between 250 and 350 mph and there the P-38 was disadvantaged large planform/high wing loading. Once the maneuver flaps deployed that changed it into a very competitive turner even able to take on the zero on occasion.

As an overall fighter I feel its the best the AF had. The P-38 had the best range, load capacity, climb, low speed handling (J/L could power up and hang on their props at as little as 65mph. No snap stalls anywhere, firepower was great 40sec+ .50 ammo and 120/150 20mm ammo and a punch better than the six .50s of the P-51 and less than the P-47 but still lethal at a thousand yards!

wmaxt

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by delcyros

One thing to put less importance to are range issues for interceptions. No long range fighter sweeps or escorts, pure interceptions. Another issue I have with the P-38 is vulnarability. It seems to me that the combination of large target size and the liquid cooled engines can take less battledamage but I might be wrong here.
It undoubtly is the most stable gunplatform the USAAF had and it´s excelled everything in the climb figure...

Del this site has a good article compairing size and shape
P-38 Profile
I've seen pictures where a P-47 could be identified BEHIND a P-38.

The components of a P-38 are also spread out and redundant, two of everything and the fuel could be cross fed to either engine. The booms and engines were far enough apart it would be unlikely a single burst would damage both and the P-38 could and did fly on one engine very nicely at speeds up to 295mph and could still fly for over 9hrs (not together fuel consumption would be to high) both of which are on the record. Overall a very rugged aircraft.

wmaxt

[wmaxt]

Something that almost never comes up is relative effectiveness of an aircraft.

The P-38 flew and fought with inexperianced crews (both air and ground) in every theater the AAF flew. They were always out numbered often by up to 10:1 by more experienced Axis aircrews. They never were pushed back with an air to air score of 4:1 in Europe, 5:1 in the Med and 8:1 in the Pacific. Lets look at something else. there were
10,039 - P-38s built
-3,000 - in the states (depots, training, testing, etc)
-1,400 - PR F4/5s
_______
5,600 - Aircraft delivered to the war effort. Mission Profile ~half escort ~half ground attack

Results
3744 - enemy aircraft in the air
2,000+ - ground
Ships - I'm counting but not all info is in I have at least 15 now
Tanks - unknown count over 50 at this time
Trains - unknown count over 75 so far

P-51
14,857 - P-51s built
-3,000 - States (training etc)
-~500 - PR rolls
_____
11,357 - delivered to war

Mission primarily escort ~85% Used in the ETO and Pacific

Results
5,246 - E/A air to air, escort being target rich and all but296 the the ETO
4,131 ground claims

P-47
15,702 - built
-3000 - in states (Training etc)
_____
12,702 - Delivered to the war effort

Mission escort and Ground attack ~70% escort, 30% ground attack. Used in the ETO and the Pacific.

Results
4,449 - E/A in air to air
3,985 - ground targets

Or to put it another way the 5,600 P-38s got 3744 E/A for a 66% effectiveness.
The P-47s 12,702 hit 4449 E/A for 35% effectiveness, 84% of which was ETO
The P-51s 11,357 hit 5,246 a 46% effectiveness, 99% of which was in the ETO.

On top of that Ariel control if not supremacy was established by the P-38 in each theater prior to the arrival of either of the others, except over Germany where the P-51 entered combat 3 months after the P-38s. The E/A met the P-51 in Europe and it still wasn't as effective plane for plane as the P-38 which flew with the odd against it!

wmaxt

[Erich]

wmaxt:

wasn't as effective as the P-38 ? are you basing this entirely on your acct of the P-38 numbers given to total kills ?

~ Man, asking the 8th AF fighter pilots that I have been honoured to interview, they all thought the Stang was superior to the P-38 except in ground attack work

thanks for putting up the comparitive totals, indeed, where was your reference(s) for these please ?



E ♫