Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?

[plan_D]

Also nicknamed Hoover because it sounded like a vacuum cleaner when it was taxiing. "Hey, mate, you missed a bit"

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ive never actually seen one operationally.

[plan_D]

I haven't but my dad has. He said they used to joke about them hoovering the runway when ever they heard a F-104 taxiing.

[FLYBOYJ]

They scream when they take off!

[Glider]

Can I comit something close to sacrilage and ask if we are not over egging the P38.
If you read the trail we have a plane that can turn with anything in the sky, even a Zero and no doubt the Spit, both extreamely agile planes. All that metal and the forces that follow.
Match close to anything in a climb on one engine, I don't think so. I am sure that you have seen the shots of a Mossie doing a slow roll in a climb on one engine. Anyone seen a P38 doing the same?
Has the three times the firepower of any other fighter. Again those flying 190's Tempests, Spit 5C and even the humble Hurricane IIC would disagree. Four cannons each equal to 2.5 to 3 HMG's equals 10 - 12 HMG equivalent. These are more than equal to the 7 equivalent in the P38. Being on the centre line does make a large difference but it doesn't multiply things by a factor of 5.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the P38 was a fine plane that did a lot but we have to keep a sense of balance.

Now having lit the blue touchpaper, I will retire.

[mosquitoman]

Is it okay if I chuck some petrol on that touchpaper of yours Glider?

A single engined plane naturally has a smaller wingspan than a twin engined plane (unless it is a la Do 335 but that's still big) simply because the wings have to house the engines. These longer wings would reduce rate of roll, reducing it's manouverability

[plan_D]

Doesn't bother me, I'd rather be in the Spitfire. The only way the Lightning would be able to beat a Spitfire is if the Lighting has a seasoned pilot.

It's all well and good having an awesome plane but what's the point if no one is capable of flying it to it's extreme?

[mosquitoman]

When it comes down to it, it's the pilot in the plane and who's got the height/sun etc...

[wmaxt]

Many pilots complained of going from single engined aircraft into combat with only 20hrs cockpit time in the P-38. This seemed to occur in thr ETO much more than in the Pacific. I've read that in the MTO they figured if you made it through 6 missions you would make it through your tour. If you add a new more complicated aircraft and new to combat you have big problems.

Rings Doc researce site has a comparison between a P-38F and a Fw-190.

I've read that it was both easier and harder to fly than the P-51 so I don't know on that score. With an experianced pilot it was exceptional in the roles it was used especialy the J/L models.

The controls were simplified in later models to make it easier to go from cruise to combat.

A favorite tactic when bounced was to turn into the attacker where the concentrated fire of the P-38 was its most effective.

wmaxt

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

Many pilots complained of going from single engined aircraft into combat with only 20hrs cocpit time in the P-38. This seemed to occur in thr ETO much more than in the Pacific. I've read that in the MTO they figured if you made it through 6 missions you would make it through your tour. If you add a new more complicated aircraft and new to combat you have big problems.

I've read that it was both easier and harder to fly than the P-51 so I don't know on that score. With an experianced pilot it was exceptional in the roles it was used especialy the J/L models.

The controls were simplified in later models to make it easier to go from cruise to combat.

A favorite tactic when bounced was to turn into the attacker where the concentrated fire of the P-38 was its most effective.

wmaxt

I had a neighbor who flew P-38s and P-51 in the ETO. He liked the 38 better but said the heating system was poor. He said the mustang was faster more maneuverable but less stable. He flew P-51 C models that were field converted from "Bs". These did not have the ventral in front of the V stab making the aircraft a little unstable.

[FLYBOYJ]

The controls were simplified in later models to make it easier to go from cruise to combat.

Lanc mention this earlier, someone explain to me if they read this somewhere in the Pilot's Manual or something?!?!

Has anyone come up with any information on this? I went through My P-38 manual and I could not find anything on cruise to combat configuration (It makes me think of a Star Wars X-wing fighter spreading its wings). In flying high performance aircraft, going to a high speed mode you go full throttle, high propeller pitch, mabe full rich on the mixture (if you're not too high above sea level) monitor temps (oil and coolant) and if you have a supercharger you may have a tach for impeller speed. I can't think of any other thing that the P-38 would do different. Comments?

[wmaxt]

[quote="FLYBOYJ"]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

I had a neighbor who flew P-38s and P-51 in the ETO. He liked the 38 better but said the heating system was poor. He said the mustang was faster more maneuverable but less stable. He flew P-51 C models that were field converted from "Bs". These did not have the ventral in front of the V stab making the aircraft a little unstable.

That could/probably be true of the early P-38s. When the B/Cs were in service the P-38s were Gs and Hs with a very few early Js. By the late J and L models the P-38 was a better below 15,000ft and at least as good above. In Art Hiedens words " There wasn't anything a P-51 could do a P-38L couldn't do better" of course the P-51B/C was as fast as even the L model P-38 the P-51 also cruised about 65mph faster with better visability. Art flew both in combat and prefered the P-38. The hydralic alerons and extra horse power in the Ls made a lot of difference.

Check out the "Planes and Pilots" web site it has a really good article in 3 chapters about the P-38 in the ETO. http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html

Heat was a problem not completely fixed until the L model and in the tropics getting cool air in was always a problem.

wmaxt

[FLYBOYJ]

[quote="wmaxt"]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

That could/probably be true of the early P-38s. When the B/Cs were in service the P-38s were Gs and Hs with a very few early Js. By the late J and L models the P-38 was a better below 15,000ft and at least as good above. In Art Hiedens words " There wasn't anything a P-51 could do a P-38L couldn't do better" of course the P-51B/C was as fast as even the L model P-38 the P-51 also cruised about 65mph faster with better visability. Art flew both in combat and prefered the P-38. The hydralic alerons and extra horse power in the Ls made a lot of difference.

Check out the "Planes and Pilots" web site it has a really good article in 3 chapters about the P-38 in the ETO. http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html

Heat was a problem not completely fixed until the L model and in the tropics getting cool air in was always a problem.

wmaxt

My neighbor actually flew P-38J models. He had about 300 hours multi engine time before he even got into the P-38. His comment were similar as you posted!

[FLYBOYJ]

Did anyone find info on "Cruise to Combat Configuration?"

[cheddar cheese]

I havent found anything yet. Ill keep looking though.