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

[Tony Williams]

I think that the P-38 would have been improved by a cockpit/armament layout like that of the later DH Hornet or Vampire - with the cockpit in the nose, the gun actions and magazines behind, and the gun barrels running underneath and to each side of the cockpit. That would have provided better visibility for the pilot, taken the gun muzzles out of his sight line so he wouldn't be blinded by muzzle flash at night, put the ammo supply over the CG so the trim didn't change as it was used up, and (for the same reason) made it easier to fit different armaments.

My take on the P-38 is that it was a good all-rounder, capable of being used for many roles, but it didn't really excel in any of them except the long-range interception of unescorted bombers or transports - the Yamamoto interception was its finest hour.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Jank]

Thanks Les. That's a horrible rate.

Agreed that the P-38 was better than the P-51. I'm still trying to understand Erich's point that the P-47 could take on the later Luftwaffe planes better than the P-38.

Why?

[FLYBOYJ]

For the benefit of the newer guys, I'll repeat an earlier post.

I had a former neighbor named Mike Alba. He flew P-38s and P-51 in the ETO during WW2 with the 338th FS, 55th FG. He perfered the P-38 despite the heating and other reported problems. He said the P-38 was far more stable as an aircraft and gun platform when compared to the P-51, but the P-51 was a lot more maneuverable. Later in the war his squadron took on many ground sorties and they suffered many losses, he told me that they wished at that point they kept their P-38s....

He scored 3 kills, all in the P-51.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Tony Williams

.....My take on the P-38 is that it was a good all-rounder, capable of being used for many roles, but it didn't really excel in any of them except the long-range interception of unescorted bombers or transports - the Yamamoto interception was its finest hour.

The fact it was the only fighter able to engage any fighters 1600 miles from base and defeat them makes it the premier long range fighter of WW2

[Jank]

Huh, how do you figure it could fly 1,600 miles, engage enemy planes for about 10 minutes, often at WEP, defeat them, and fly 1,600 miles back?

The P-47N had a maximum range of about 2,350 miles. You're talking about 1,000 miles further. I didn't know the P-38 could fly coast to coast across the U.S.

Can someone explain why a late model P-47D was better able to take on late model German fighters than a P-38?

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Jank

Huh, how do you figure it could fly 1,600 miles, engage enemy planes for about 10 minutes, often at WEP, defeat them, and fly 1,600 miles back?

The P-47N had a maximum range of about 2,350 miles. You're talking about 1,000 miles further. I didn't know the P-38 could fly coast to coast across the U.S.

Can someone explain why a late model P-47D was better able to take on late model German fighters than a P-38?

FEAF P38's flew 1600 mile missions from Biak to Balikpapin and Palawan to Singapore. And that was one way milage.

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

He said the P-38 was far more stable as an aircraft and gun platform when compared to the P-51, but the P-51 was a lot more maneuverable.

The two tend to go together. To be a steady gun platform, an aircraft needs strong longitudinal stability. But for agility - which basically means the speed of response to the controls - a plane needs weak stability. You can't have it both ways!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Are you sure the P-51 was more maneuverable than the P-38. I have allways heard it was the other way around.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Are you sure the P-51 was more maneuverable than the P-38. I have allways heard it was the other way around.

That's what Mike Alba told me. He also confirmed the center tank/ CG problem on the P-51 as well. He flew P-51Bs and "Cs" that were converted from "Bs." He said the P-51 C without the small fin in front of the vertical stabilizer made the aircraft real unstable, maybe the basis for his comment on maneuverability. Overall he said the P-38 was a finer combat aircraft and it made him feel comfortable in combat because of the 2 engines.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Are you sure the P-51 was more maneuverable than the P-38. I have allways heard it was the other way around.

You have to define the envelope, the P-51 had an edge in turning at high speeds, above 300mph. Below 300mph or the use of yo-yos the P-38s esp the P-38Ls could deal with it. Often the P-38 jock would challenge a P-51 to a fight starting on the ground. Using climb, boom & zoom and yo-yos the P-38 could get multiple passes on the P-51 before they ever even got to altitude. In the maneuvering tactics the pilots in Europe didn't like Fighters, twin-engine fighters esp and it was never supported fully and never exploited the advantages of throttle differentiation etc like they did in the Pacific. The L models saw little action in Europe and many pilots like Art Heiden felt it was better in all regimes except in some cases top speed, and ease of training.

Flyboy, The 474th FG went to the top brass of the 8th/9th AF to keep their aircraft.

wmaxt

[Twitch]

As Erich had pointed out this thread is in no man's land. The original topic was regarding the best USAF INTERCEPTOR, not escort, not fighter-bomber, not stunt plane.

I'd feel the best at taking off to intercept bombers where range is not a paramount concern and maneverability is not the life deciding factor there is only one plane- the P-47. Heb Zemke once told me long ago that any D block production with the improved prop could hit 30,000 feet in 13 minutes instead of 20 before. Ns were better yet. So we have a plane that can climb adequately.

8 fifties with 3,400 rounds of API would have dealt with anything they met. As a gun platform it was never criticized by those who flew it at high or low altitude. At 750 RPM ROF this translates out to 34 seconds of fire

The Ds could top 40-42,000 feet in ceiling so unless it was a very late war Uberplane any bomber could be reached.

At 30,000 feet the Ds hit 426-433 MPH and the N 460 MPH.

[delcyros]

The P-47, esspecially the late war models would be great in this role. Stable gunplatform, excellent climb and hi alt behavior, rugged. I would wonder, how the F4U would compare against it in this role.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

Flyboy, The 474th FG went to the top brass of the 8th/9th AF to keep their aircraft.

wmaxt

Thanks!

[Erich]

Twitch confirms my opinion.......drop this please as it is another "my craft is better than yours comparisons". My data comes right from the vetrs themselves gents as I have often repeated. Again the P-38 when it was flown by US ETO vets have said nothing could compare to it in the ground attack role except for the Bubble top P-47 models. The P-51 was the supreme high altitude escort fighter plus having the range. the stats during war and after and by test pilots that never served in combat may say otherwise but I have to bow out to the veteran memories and take their word(s) for it. the simple fact is they were there and none of us were and the closest we have gotten to compare manueverabiltiy and firepower over and to a Bf 109G or Fw 190A is through combat reports, fighter group histories and if we are lucky enough to interview at some length still living veterans.

The 474th fg primary role was ground attack and some escoprt duties if they were lucky enough to be able to provide, not going after railroad and MT stock.

113 air kills and 93 a/c ground kills does not say much for the aerial feats of the P-38 unit. I will not even compare what they accomplished to the Pioneer Mustang group the 354th fg with over 700 air kills the top scorere in the ETO. The roles in the 9th were quite diverse in nature.

again the result will be the same as already mentioned through previous topics

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by Twitch

8 fifties with 3,400 rounds of API would have dealt with anything they met.

True - but they never met heavy bombers, which is what they would be facing in this scenario. The Germans and the Japanese both discovered that not even 20mm cannon were really adequate for that, they needed 30mm guns. I think that point still gives the advantage to the P-63...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum