Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

If you look at speed, climb and time to height the P-40 was never really competitive. Still, it could outroll anything short of a 190 or a clipped Spitfire and was decently manouevrable below 15,000 feet. It also had a good reputation as a fighter bomber, begause it was rugged and nice to fly at low altitudes.

I think the P-40 was only competative if it's pilot fully understood it's limitations (had some P-40 cheer on another thread). In the PTO it did better than actually assumed, in the ETO and MTO it had a tougher time and was definrtly outperformed by the -190. A P-40 pilot in Europe better hope to dive and split-s as much as he could!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree with both of your assumptions especially on the P-51 in ground attack roles.

[CurzonDax]

Still if I remember the Lightnings, even after they had been moved to North Africa, still had problems.

:{)

[CurzonDax]

Wadda ya mean cutting down the P-40 like that. Ya mean it can't fly around hangars like a SW Pod-Racer! Wadda ya mean that it can't turn inside a Zero at high altitude. Ya mean hollywood has it wrong!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by CurzonDax

Still if I remember the Lightnings, even after they had been moved to North Africa, still had problems.

:{)

You name me an aircraf that does not have problems in the desert. I dont care how good an aircraft is they all have problems in the unforgiven wasteland. Trust me I know, I have experience with it.

[MacArther]

Owwwww.... Did I start all the mudslides headed toward me or what?!

[lesofprimus]

and those mudslides happen in WW2 Land??? Is that next to Slovokia or Turkey???

[MacArther]

Mudslides refering to mud slinging (aka, I REALLY got nailed). As for WW2 land, it refers to my near obsession with researching WW2, and predicting possible out comes of the scenarios if battles had been fought differently.

[Marshall_Stack]

The P-38 was the best. It had the greatest range, two engine reliability, speed, high ceiling, and concentrated firepower. It could have been better if it used the 100 octane fuel that was avilable in the U.S. but not the U.K. The pilots that flew them were also green.

The range for a Spitfire was too limited.

[CurzonDax]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

[quote

]

I have to research it but the P-38 had other problems in North Africa besides the sand and dust. Must find my copy of "Fork Tailed Devil". But now really thinknig about it it was not an environmental problem but a design one with the sonic compresability on the wings in a dive. It seems, and someone more knowledgable on the P-38 and aerodynamics than I am can confirm or correct, that when the early Lightnings went into a power dive, air would pass over the wings at sonic speeds. Therefore there were a series of incidents where the wing was ripped off. It was corrected by installing a tab or a spoiler of some sort. Am I correct or wrong?

:{)

[/quote]

[syscom3]

You are correct about the sonic airflow over the wing. At high altitudes, the mach number was lower, and coupled with the speed of the airflow over the wings, it didnt take too much more airspeed in a dive to get into problems. If the buffeting from the turbulent air didnt rip apart the tail, then the pilot could begin to pull out of the dive at lower altitudes..... if he could.

This was a serious problem for Lockheed to figure out at first. It might have even caused the early termination of production. Eventually someone figured out what was happening, and an electrically operated dive brake was designed and installed.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by syscom3

You are correct about the sonic airflow over the wing. At high altitudes, the mach number was lower, and coupled with the speed of the airflow over the wings, it didnt take too much more airspeed in a dive to get into problems. If the buffeting from the turbulent air didnt rip apart the tail, then the pilot could begin to pull out of the dive at lower altitudes..... if he could.

This was a serious problem for Lockheed to figure out at first. It might have even caused the early termination of production. Eventually someone figured out what was happening, and an electrically operated dive brake was designed and installed.

This is true as far as it goes though the air resistance is lower to so planes get closer to it sooner. The criticle altitude was 20,000ft above that you could get into compressability, below that you were safe - in N. Africa over 20,000ft was rare. One thing that is usualy left out is that if the engines were throttled back and with a weave or two on the way down you could stay out of compressability with a 38.

With the exceptions of cold cockpits (even part of that) and slow roll rates most of the early problems were much more inexperiance with the P-38 than the 38 itself.

The desert problems are/were the same as all aircraft have in the desert.

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Marshall_Stack

The P-38 was the best. It had the greatest range, two engine reliability, speed, high ceiling, and concentrated firepower. It could have been better if it used the 100 octane fuel that was avilable in the U.S. but not the U.K. The pilots that flew them were also green.

The range for a Spitfire was too limited.

For the ETO I disagree. While it was a great aircraft it was better suited for the PTO. There were plenty of aircraft in the ETO that were just as good as a P-38.

[Gnomey]

and better....

[syscom3]

The P38 was origionally designed to be an interceptor, not a dogfighter. The fact that it could at at least be competetive in a fighter role says volumes about its basic design. As a fighter escort, it did what it was supposed to do. Keep German fighters away from the bombers. But as an air superiority fighter, it wasnt dominating enough.

But the bottom line is this. The Spit, 109 and 190 were better planes if you wanted to mix it up one on one. The fact that the P38 could speed away from trouble was its saviour many times over.