Supreme long range escort of the war - P-38L or P-47N?

[Sal Monella]

wmaxt, how do you figure that the P-47N was only 15mph faster than than the P-38L? That would put the top speed of the P-38L at 452mph.

Specification of the P-38L:

14,100 lbs empty, 17,500 lbs combat loaded. Maximum speed was 360 mph at 5000 feet, 390 mph at 15,000 feet, 414 mph at 25,000 feet.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_15.html

[cheddar cheese]

442mph with WEP. I think he just made a typo.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Pilot training was certeinly deficient in the first part of the war. Look at how bad the B26 was untill training was improved.

Thats because they did not have flight sims or PC's.

[syscom3]

They had link trainers for instrument training.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Sal Monella

wmaxt, how do you figure that the P-47N was only 15mph faster than than the P-38L? That would put the top speed of the P-38L at 452mph.

Specification of the P-38L:

14,100 lbs empty, 17,500 lbs combat loaded. Maximum speed was 360 mph at 5000 feet, 390 mph at 15,000 feet, 414 mph at 25,000 feet.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_15.html

It was a typo. The P-38 is 442/443 depending on source, while the P-47N is 467.

The 414 often cited is Military power 1425hp @ 54in/hg. the P-38L-O5 is 440+, 1,725hp @ 64in/hg.

wmaxt

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

how many P-38s had tail warning radar? and remember two engines meant twice the work for the pilot and the P-38 was not an easy aircraft to fly.............

Lanc, check out this sit and the article by Jeff Ethel in Fitgh Journal Magazine on flying the P-38. http://www.flightjournal.com/

Training losses per 100,000 flight hours for WWII are as follows:
P-38 - 1,403
P-39 - 1,934
P-40 - 3,569
P-47 - 3,049
P-51 - 824

It was more work, syncronizing engines, Props, managing fuel, etc. but not quite as bad as the publicity would lead us to belive. Zemke was also using early incorrect operating procedures with early P-38s which did not have some of the improved systems the later Js and Ls had. Art Heiden also thought the P-38 was a busier plane than a P-51.

Tail radar went in on the P-38L-O5 model.

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am actually surprised the P-47 is so high.

[delcyros]

I will go for the P-47N, since there seems to be a considerable gap
in crit Mach figures of both planes. Don´t take me wrong, but jets may be a serious thread but with 0.67 crit Mach, even a N1K1 or Ki-61 may dive AND maneuvre at speeds, at which the Lightning cannot perform (The P-47N otherwise could). Same goes for Fw-190 (longnose) and Bf-109G10 and later ones. High altitude sorties would make this even more problematic because the Mach stage is higher there at similar TAS compared to lower altitudes.
The armement of eight 0.50 M3 is also quite a striking arguement for the P-47N.

[syscom3]

WMAXT,

Did that article break down the training loss's per year?

I wouldnt be surprised to see a very high rate in 1941 and 1942, followed by a sharp decline beginning in 1943.

The low rate of the P51 might be due to it coming on line in 1943, after the AAF figured out how to train large numbers of students without getting them killed in the process.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That would be a good assessment. Maybe we can find the info on that.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by delcyros

I will go for the P-47N, since there seems to be a considerable gap
in crit Mach figures of both planes. Don´t take me wrong, but jets may be a serious thread but with 0.67 crit Mach, even a N1K1 or Ki-61 may dive AND maneuvre at speeds, at which the Lightning cannot perform (The P-47N otherwise could). Same goes for Fw-190 (longnose) and Bf-109G10 and later ones. High altitude sorties would make this even more problematic because the Mach stage is higher there at similar TAS compared to lower altitudes.
The armement of eight 0.50 M3 is also quite a striking arguement for the P-47N.

The P38L's had dive brakes as to allow them to dive without going out of control.

The four centerline .50's of the P38 were just as deadly as the eight .50's of the P47. The P38's didnt have a convergence issue and could deliver more "lead" on target

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The P38L's had dive brakes as to allow them to dive without going out of control.

The four centerline .50's of the P38 were just as deadly as the eight .50's of the P47. The P38's didnt have a convergence issue and could deliver more "lead" on target

I've read the guns on a P-38 were good at a 1,000 yards as in the Yamamoto shoot down.

The dive brakes were also worth 10 to 15 degrees "kick" in the angle of attack of the P-38. Not well known but on early P-38s to avoid compressability all you had to do was retard the throttles and swerve a bit to keep things in control. The problems in the P-38 were blown out of proportion by rumor and the 8th AF brass.

wmaxt

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by syscom3

WMAXT,

Did that article break down the training loss's per year?

I wouldnt be surprised to see a very high rate in 1941 and 1942, followed by a sharp decline beginning in 1943.

The low rate of the P51 might be due to it coming on line in 1943, after the AAF figured out how to train large numbers of students without getting them killed in the process.

You are correct, the highest number was for '43 @ 503 and the lowest was in '45 @ 186. From everything I've heard including Art Heiden is that special training was given to the P-51 pilots.

The site is the US Army Airforce Statistical Digest - WWII at Maxwel field. Another site on general training hours is the 8th AF Losses page.

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Cool good info there.