Best Pacific Fighter?

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

P-38 would always out-turn, out-dive, out-gun, out-range the Corsair. Best evidence seems to suggest that the speed and climb were relatively close.

Furthermore, the P-38 enjoyed significant advantages over the Shiden in everything but maneuverability. Properly flown, P-38's were able to counter Shidens without much difficulty.

Best evidence is that the F4U-4 with capped pylons was about the same speed and climbed 33% faster than the P-38L with the pylons removed.

The P-38, even the L, could not out turn a F4U-4 at speed. I seriously doubt it could out-dive one either, max dive speed on the F4U-4 was 550 mph and it was very fast on entering a dive and did not suffer the compression problems of the P-38. The F4U-4 was still a stable gun platform at 500 mph, the P-38 certainly was not.

The Shiden's were no match for the F4U-1d, let alone the F4U-4.

=S=

Lunatic

[Lightning Guy]

The F would out-turn the P-51 which would turn with the F4U. The L was even better. The P-38 could handle the F4U in a turning fight. It could also out dive it. The higher diving-speed of the F4U proves nothing. The P-38 accelerated faster in the dive, meaning that it will pull away from the Corsair once the dive is initiated.

[lesofprimus]

The Shiden's were no match for the F4U-1d, let alone the F4U-4.

Funny how many Shiden pilots racked up kills over the invincible F4U........

[GermansRGeniuses]

I know! Strange thing, that!



The N1K1/2 were like the Mig-29s of today (German in particular)...


Pretty fast, EXTREMELY agile, and nigh-on invincible in close, though both have major disadvantages in other areas, whatever they might be.


In mock dogfights, thought technologically at a great disadvantage, Luftwaffe (only plane to be kept from the East by the reformed Luftwaffe after the wall was torn down) Mig-29s proceeded to kick F-16 Block 50 ASS.


I think it was something like 40 mock kills on the F-16s before they "took down" a Mig!

[lesofprimus]

Heres alittle tidbit, although not against Corsairs......


In one notable action, on February 16 1945 over Yokohama, Warrant Officer Kinsuke Muto of the 343rd Kokutai in an N1K2-J single-handedly battled a dozen F6F Hellcats...... He shot down four of them before the rest were forced to break off combat and return to their carrier......

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Heres alittle tidbit, although not against Corsairs......


In one notable action, on February 16 1945 over Yokohama, Warrant Officer Kinsuke Muto of the 343rd Kokutai in an N1K2-J single-handedly battled a dozen F6F Hellcats...... He shot down four of them before the rest were forced to break off combat and return to their carrier......

IIRC they were low on fuel and ammo and heading for home when bounced. And I think he in fact only shot down one.

=S=

Lunatic

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Funny how many Shiden pilots racked up kills over the invincible F4U........

How many?

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

The F would out-turn the P-51 which would turn with the F4U. The L was even better. The P-38 could handle the F4U in a turning fight. It could also out dive it. The higher diving-speed of the F4U proves nothing. The P-38 accelerated faster in the dive, meaning that it will pull away from the Corsair once the dive is initiated.

The P-51 could not turn with the Corsair, where do you get that from?

See P51-B Vs F4U-1 pg. 5. Also see the conclusions on page 7. Keep in mind the -1 corsair was inferior to the -1d which was inferior to the -4, where the P-51B was superior (as a dogfighter) to the D model. As you will see, the Corsair was the better turning plane.

The P-51 could out turn the P-38 at medium speeds and above. Only if the speed got below about 200 IAS would the P-38 start to have a meaningful advantage. Above 300 IAS, the P-51 wins hands down. The F4U-4 could out turn the P-51, and at reasonable combat speeds of over 200 IAS it could out turn the P-38.

Yes the P-38 had better initial dive acceleration than the F4U-4. But even that is subject to limits, the P-38 would start suffering buffeting from compression well over 50 mph before the Corsair would. The P-38 dives better, but not a lot better, probably not enough better to escape.

[lesofprimus]

He shot down 4 Hellcats.. Only 1 pilot was lost.....

[plan_D]

The F-16 can't fire out of its visual range though, GrG. So, it's not that impressive.

[Lightning Guy]

Shiden's did not score countless kills over Corsairs and much of their success was due to the phenomenal skill of their pilots.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

The P-51 could not turn with the Corsair, where do you get that from?

See P51-B Vs F4U-1 pg. 5. Also see the conclusions on page 7. Keep in mind the -1 corsair was inferior to the -1d which was inferior to the -4, where the P-51B was superior (as a dogfighter) to the D model. As you will see, the Corsair was the better turning plane.

The P-51 could out turn the P-38 at medium speeds and above. Only if the speed got below about 200 IAS would the P-38 start to have a meaningful advantage. Above 300 IAS, the P-51 wins hands down. The F4U-4 could out turn the P-51, and at reasonable combat speeds of over 200 IAS it could out turn the P-38.

Yes the P-38 had better initial dive acceleration than the F4U-4. But even that is subject to limits, the P-38 would start suffering buffeting from compression well over 50 mph before the Corsair would. The P-38 dives better, but not a lot better, probably not enough better to escape.

I will have to check some moe. At this time I've got the data from the following sources:

With the dive slats the P-38 dove quite well and was controllable above 500mph.

Planes and Pilots of WWII where the 38 is a least right there with the F4U-4 or better and at least 3 except for the 38 statements.

C C Jordan and his interviews where he states that P-38/P-51 pilots (some prefering the P-51 overall) and of course Art Heiden who say the P-38 was better/didn't give anything up to the P-51 in ACM at least.

The F4U-4 was/is a great plane but where does 5,500 ft/min come from?

While I think the P-38 was better at least in most areas and with an efective pilot could take on anything in the air in WWII and have a 1 to 1 or better chance of winning.

Please put up some info here.

Originally Posted by wmaxt

I will have to check some moe. At this time I've got the data from the following sources:

With the dive slats the P-38 dove quite well and was controllable above 500mph.

Planes and Pilots of WWII where the 38 is a least right there with the F4U-4 or better and at least 3 except for the 38 statements.

C C Jordan and his interviews where he states that P-38/P-51 pilots (some prefering the P-51 overall) and of course Art Heiden who say the P-38 was better/didn't give anything up to the P-51 in ACM at least.

The F4U-4 was/is a great plane but where does 5,500 ft/min come from?

While I think the P-38 was better at least in most areas and with an efective pilot could take on anything in the air in WWII and have a 1 to 1 or better chance of winning.

Please put up some info here.

Everything I've read indicates that the dive recovery flaps allowed the P-38L to recover from an otherwise terminal dive, but they still had to cut back on the power. These flaps do not prevent the compression effects, they just allow the plane to recover despite them. If its above about 460 mph, it's flying the wings through compression (they were poorly designed for this, being of a conventional high aspect design), and that means buffeting.

5500 fpm? Where is that? The figures I quoted were 4.9 mins to 20,000 feet with capped pylons (which implies ~4.6 mins to 20k w/o them) for the F4U-4, which comes right out of the declassified F4U-4 pilot handbook from the USN, along with the 464 mph top speed figure. This converts to a sustained climb rate of a little better than 4000 fpm, and you can see from the climb graph in the handbook the overall climb performance (with capped pylons).

As for sources, I've already posted a bunch of P-38 urls (I can post them again if you like?). You can follow the link in the quoted part above (I've located it in red for you) to see the USN comparison data of the P-51B and F4U-1a (upgraded 1944 version with water injection but no paddle prop). Once on the page referenced, you can investigate the other pages of that report.

=S=

Lunatic

[wmaxt]

The P-51 developed a strong buffet in a dive if the speeds were getting much above 500mph to. John Lowell in "Top Guns" reported "diving at 600mph" in the Spitfire dogfight story (granted this is probably overstated but shows high speed dives are both possible and controlable in a P-38.

The Plans and Pilots of WWII graph shows 4.9-5 mins to 20,000ft for the P-38L. C C Jordon cites 4,125-4,225ft/mn max climb and 4.91min to 20,000 for the P-38L Identical to the F4U-4. The graph also shows a climb to 20,000ft at 7min in cruise power (1,100hp). My understandind is the planes in the graph are set up for average combat conditions (not capped pylons).

The 5,500 is what the F4U-4 would have to climb to meet the figure of 33% better climb than the P-38.

I checked out the P-51, F4u site, interesting. I can easily accept the F4U over the P-51. I did notice a bias for the F4U with comments like "Not suited to carrier operations" when the F4U was not carrier qualified for the same things at the time of the test, early '44.

I can't buy the superority of the P-51 over the The P-38 for the following reasons.

1. The pilots who flew both felt the P-38 was better/as good, Art H said "There was nothing the P-51 could do that the P-38L couldn't do better". I rate this high for these reasons:
a. They flew both of them in combat. Thier lives depended on it.
b. We both know they flew them against each other, officialy or not, and these pilots knew how to get everything out of a P-38 where other test pilots might not.

2. At 250 and above, the fowler flap was prohibited, affecting turn in F/G/early Js esp. at altitude, however the dive flap of late J and all L models would kick the nose up about 20-25deg for the same effect with the same drag limitations. These slats worked better the faster you flew.

3. The P-38J-25 and L Actually rolled Faster as the airspeed went up the P-51 went down above 300mph.

4. The prefered speed of combat for the P-38, per Tom Lynch, was 300/350mph as this maximizes performance.

5. The controls on a P-51 tightened up considerably above 300/350mph. Exterme turning manauvers High speed/high altitude in a p-51 could also turn into a vicious stall/spin suddenly and without warning.

6. Due to energy loss the speed of a dogfight is down to 300mph range after just a few turns. Flown properly the P-38 is reported to have excellent energy retention and better energy recovery (note acceleration) than a P-51.

7. P-38 acceleration, climb and ceiling are also better that the P-51 at all speeds/altitudes (granted this diminishes to zero as the high end limits are approached).

I think a dogfight between a P-38L and a F4U-4 with experianced pilots would be incredable they are very closley matched!

Originally Posted by wmaxt

The P-51 developed a strong buffet in a dive if the speeds were getting much above 500mph to. John Lowell in "Top Guns" reported "diving at 600mph" in the Spitfire dogfight story (granted this is probably overstated but shows high speed dives are both possible and controlable in a P-38.

The P-51D developed porpousing at about 525 TAS in a dive, due to the bubble canopy. The P-38 (all models) developed shuddering from compression effects before it hit 500 mph TAS. The 600 mph figure is bogus, that puts the airflow over the wings above Mach 1 even at sea level.

Here I found this on the P-38 dive and compression:

A typical dive of the P-38 from high altitudes would always experience compressibility. Starting from 36,000 ft., the P-38 would rapidly approach the Mach .675 (445 mph true airspeed). At this point, the airflow going over the wing exceeds Mach 1. A shockwave is created, thus breaking up the airflow equaling a loss of lift. The shockwave destroys the pressure difference between the upper and lower wing, and disrupts the ability for the aircraft to sustain flight. As the lift decreases, the airflow moving back from the wing also changes in its form and pattern. Normal downwash aft of the wing towards the tail begins to deteriorate. The airflow across the tail shifts from normal to a condition where there is now a greater upload, of lifting force, on the tail itself. With the greater uploading force applied to the tail, the nose of the aircraft wants to nose down even more, which creates a steeper and faster dive. As the aircraft approaches the vertical line, it begins to tuck under and starts a high-speed outside loop. At this point, the airframe is at the greatest point of structural failure. When the angle of attack increases during the dive, it also increases for the tail. The resulting effect is that the pilot cannot move the controls because tremendous force is required to operate the aircraft. The pilot is simply a passenger during this period. Shockwaves become shock fronts, which decrease the lift no matter what the pilot tries to do. Instead of smooth airflow over the wing, it is extremely turbulent, and strikes the tail with great force. The aircraft can only recover when it enters lower, denser atmosphere lower to the ground.

The solution to the problem was in understanding that the speed of sound changes with the altitude. At sea level, it is 764 mph, while at 36,000 ft. it is 660 mph. An aircraft moving at 540 mph at 36,000 ft. is much higher in the compressibility zone. The same speed at sea level results in the aircraft being exposed to lower effects of compressibility, and will respond to pilot controls. The dive recovery flap was a solution to this problem. In the ETO, German pilots would dive out of trouble because they knew the P-38 pilots would not follow. This greatly reduced the effectiveness of the aircraft in normal battle conditions. The NACA tested the flaps in high-speed wind tunnels at the Ames Laboratory. They tried several locations before discovering that when the flaps were positioned just aft of the trailing edge of the wings, it showed definite improvements. The flaps were finally positioned beneath the wings outboard of the booms, and just aft of the main structural beam. The pilots had a button on the yoke, and would simply activate the flap just prior to entering a dive.
http://www.p-38online.com/dive.html

The P-51 didn't hit compression until above 0.81 mach. Regaurdless of the dive recovery flaps, once the P-38 hits compression effects, it would be nearly impossible to aim the guns.

Another thing I'd point out about the P-38L vs. Spitfire story - at low altitude the speed of sound is higher, allowing the high speed dive (though I still think it was more likely about 450-500 mph), AND the P-38's were noted for being "surprisingly manuverable at low altitudes".

Originally Posted by wmaxt

The Plans and Pilots of WWII graph shows 4.9-5 mins to 20,000ft for the P-38L. C C Jordon cites 4,125-4,225ft/mn max climb and 4.91min to 20,000 for the P-38L Identical to the F4U-4. The graph also shows a climb to 20,000ft at 7min in cruise power (1,100hp). My understandind is the planes in the graph are set up for average combat conditions (not capped pylons).

The 5,500 is what the F4U-4 would have to climb to meet the figure of 33% better climb than the P-38.

All F4U-4's had capped pylons for WWII. They were so much faster than the Japanese planes they faced that there was no need to remove them. P-38's flew with and without pylons, depending on the mission and the time frame.

As for climb rates, initial rate of climb figures are pretty meaningless, you need to use time to altitude figures to get any feel for the real climb performance of a plane. The Jordan sight uses the Lockheed-Martin climb chart:



The problem with this chart is there is no verification of the data anywhere. Lockheed-Martin will not provide any info, in fact they won't even reply to an email requesting the source of this data. All other sources indicate ~7 mins to 20k for the P-38L-5-LO. Furthermore, the late J series is consistantly quoted as having been faster to alitude than the L series (which makes sense as it weighed less) at 5.9 minutes to 20K. I suspect these Lockheed figures are for a hot-rodded P-38L, or, more likely, they are really the figures for the P-38K.

On the other hand, we have every reason to believe the USN report. The figures in the report were never intended for non-military viewing and represent what the Navy was telling its pilots to expect from the plane. The .pdf's at the USN site are the Navy's way of complying with the FIA without having to respond to individual requests. If it'd been up to the USN, we'd never have seen these documents. They don't like to declassify anything!

My Dad did these tests on the FJ (Navy F-86) and the way they did it was for 4 planes to takeoff and the first thing they'd do is time the climb. The two middle performers results were used compile the test results. Ordinary USN pilots (usually an advanced flight instructor and 3 of his students) were used to conduct the tests. If the two planes were way off the best performer, they'd land and have the planes checked out and redo the test. Also note that 115/145 fuel was used in the F4U-4 test, not 135/150.

Originally Posted by wmaxt

I checked out the P-51, F4u site, interesting. I can easily accept the F4U over the P-51. I did notice a bias for the F4U with comments like "Not suited to carrier operations" when the F4U was not carrier qualified for the same things at the time of the test, early '44.

I agree, that site is biased against the P-51. The USN pilot handbook excerpt .pdf file is a better source for info on the F4U-4.

Originally Posted by wmaxt

I can't buy the superority of the P-51 over the The P-38 for the following reasons.

1. The pilots who flew both felt the P-38 was better/as good, Art H said "There was nothing the P-51 could do that the P-38L couldn't do better".

I rate this high for these reasons:

a. They flew both of them in combat. Thier lives depended on it.

This letter (a reply to a magazine writer's questions) was posted on the usenet forums back in 1998. It comes from an article in a flight magazine. The pilot was only refered to by first name, he did not want to be contacted by readers.

Regarding the various comments about throttling back or up a P-38 engine to increase maneuverability I can only repeat that this was not practiced as far as I know. When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer, the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely. When you actually went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, up past 3000 rpm. And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you remembered to throttle back. You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or more.

Full power all the time was wanted because maneuvering bled off so much speed and altitude. What you wanted was more power and more power. All the prop fighters were underpowered and the only way to keep them turning was to keep them descending. The more power you had available, the slower the descent and the easier the recovery. The 38 seemed to have plenty of power for a prop job and certainly below 15,000 ft. no German fighter could get away from it.

That may sound pretty low, but if you initiated an engagement at 27,000 ft. going into a shallow dive and making a few parring turns, you could easily lose 10,000 ft. Certainly in a 38 without dive flaps you would not want to drop the nose too sharply above 20,000 ft. As krauts got to know the 38 they would tend to dive sharply away from it, convinced it would not follow. But that was just fine, because the 38's job was to protect the bombers. If a gaggle of 109s approached the bombers, escorting P-38s turned to engage them and the 109s bugged out for the deck, the 38's job was done. Those 109s wouldn't have enough gas to climb back up to altitude, chase the bombers and position for an attack. And if they did, the 38s would turn in to them and the process would repeat.

The krauts figured this out pretty soon and knew they had to hit the 38s. They would climb very high (109s, the 190s weren't seen at very high altitudes)and bounce the 38s, who would be cruising at around 220 or so if they hadn't spotted the krauts. Most losses were the result of surprise bounces, the krauts keeping on moving so there was no chance for retaliation. The 38 formation would be broken up, with guys turning looking for the enemy, leaving a way open for other German fighters to hit the bombers.

The only solution to the surprise bounce was to open up the escort fighter formation, have high cover several thousand feet above the bombers and close escort, and keep your head on a swivel. Of course, simply having MORE escorts also helped. (I would wager that was a big problem for the two early 38 groups. They just didn't have enough people to play both the infield and the outfield.) The trick was to spot the Germans as they maneuvered into position for a bounce. That's where having outstanding eyesight mattered, mattered a LOT more than dive flaps or a few more horsepower. One man in a squadron with exceptional eyesight was a real lifesaver. If a high group of krauts was spotted, some of the escort would be tapped to go after them. They didn't have to shoot them down to succeed. All they needed to do was break up their party and force them to dive away.

The 51 could operate at altitudes higher than we usually encountered krauts so had less trouble with being bounced, although, of course, you had to fly at the altitude dictated by the bombers. It had a trickier stall than the 38 so that it was not at all unusual to snap out a tight turn curving in after a kraut.

The first time I lost a 51 in a high speed stall I lost 13,000 ft. before I was able to recover and thought I was going to have to bail out. Man, at that point I HATED that airplane. But by about the third or fourth time that happened, I could recover losing less than 500 ft. and wasn't afraid to push the plane till it snapped. I'd just get it right back under control and keep going. I got so I could catch it just as it departed and it would only wiggle a bit before getting back down to business. I knew what the airplane was going to do before the airplane did and was ready for it. I didn't even have to consciously think about it. What I had thought was a very big deal was, after a while, no problem at all. The airplane was OK. The pilot just had to learn how to handle it. Stick time does make a difference. To those who have said the 38 was a more complicated airplane than the 51 and so pilots needed more time to master it, I would answer that the 51 could be a contrary beast and a pilot needed time to learn to master IT.

If I was to differentiate between the 38 and the 51, I would say the 38's qualities shone best when it was low and slow. Even a pilot with limited hours in the cockpit could have absolute confidence in it and so push it right into the stall with no fear, even at treetop height. The 51's qualities shone best when it was high and fast. In the upper air at well over 300 per, the German fighters were sitting ducks for a 51. They couldn't outmaneuver it and they couldn't out run it and they couldn't out dive it. That's why you hear these stories about a German pilot simply bailing out as soon as a 51 locked on to him. He knew he had no chance so why hang around for the bullets to hit.

Once the 51 was available in numbers it made sense to shift the 38s to the 9th air force and ground attack. It could easily outfight any Luftwaffe opposition at mid and low altitudes, could carry plenty of bombs and survive ground fire that would have killed the 51 very quickly. The only time I wished I was in a 38 when flying the 51 was attacking ground targets. It wouldn't take much to bring a 51 down, and unlike in an air to air encounter, whether you went down or got home was just a matter of your luck that day. Pilot skill was largely irrelevent, as long as you were good enough to keep the airplane at grass cutting height and didn't fly it into the ground because your reactions were too slow. A 38 on the deck was very stable at speed, and hard to bring down by triple A.

My personal situation was such that I had to lean forward slightly to reach all the controls on the 38 and get a good grip on the control wheel. Because of my body's position, I would tend toward gray out and tunnel vision fairly quicky in hard turns. With the 51, I was able to reach all the controls and have a good grip on the stick while leaning back slightly, so gray out and tunnel vision didn't hit me as quickly. That was one big reason I preferred the 51. Other reasons were that I preferred the high sky for my war, and if I had wanted to follow the 38 thru its war career (assuming I had a choice in the matter) I would have had to have spent it in the 9th shooting up airfields.

No thank you.

George

The point is, you can find pilots who liked the P-38 better than the P-51, and you can find pilots who liked the P-51 better than the P-38.

Originally Posted by wmaxt

b. We both know they flew them against each other, officialy or not, and these pilots knew how to get everything out of a P-38 where other test pilots might not.

Perhaps so, but it is questionable if pilots who'd mastered the P-38 ever mock dogfought those who'd masterd the P-51. Usually these would have occured during the transition period, where they had lots of P-38 experiance but little P-51 experiance.

Also, mock dogfights tend to come down to who can stay on who's tail. This is meaningless since in a real dogfight that plane might well have been dead before it ever got to the tail chase.

Originally Posted by wmaxt

2. At 250 and above, the fowler flap was prohibited, affecting turn in F/G/early Js esp. at altitude, however the dive flap of late J and all L models would kick the nose up about 20-25deg for the same effect with the same drag limitations. These slats worked better the faster you flew.

The dive recovery flaps are noted as having been used on occasion as a trick to get the nose inside an enemy in a turn fight, never as manuver flaps in combat. The P-51 however, had a 5 degree combat flaps setting that could be dropped at any speed, and a 10 (or 15) degree setting that was useable below about 325 IAS.

While there is no arguing that the P-38 turned better at lower speeds, especially at lower altitude, I think it is clear the P-51 had the turn advantage at high speeds and especially at high speeds at high altitude.

Originally Posted by wmaxt

3. The P-38J-25 and L Actually rolled Faster as the airspeed went up the P-51 went down above 300mph.

Yes but the P-51 still rolls better up to 330 mph, and the difference is not that huge thereafter. Also, while it is true the P-38 absolute roll was higher, this was using power boosted ailerons. If you've ever driven a 1950's or early 60's car with power steering you know that power hydrolic units of that time period were very stiff, gave no feedback, and also tended to have a tiny bit of lag on reversal. When it comes to the ability to do a series of rolls and reverse rolls, I'm not sure the P-38 would really have the advantage. In any case, it is questionable if there is enough difference overall to matter much.

Originally Posted by wmaxt

4. The prefered speed of combat for the P-38, per Tom Lynch, was 300/350mph as this maximizes performance.

IAS or TAS. As you can see from the quote above, all planes sought to maintain speed. I suspect this is TAS. The P-51 optimal speed was more like 350-500 TAS.

Originally Posted by wmaxt

5. The controls on a P-51 tightened up considerably above 300/350mph. Exterme turning manauvers High speed/high altitude in a p-51 could also turn into a vicious stall/spin suddenly and without warning.

In the hands of an inexperianced pilot yes it could, but as you can see from the quote above, in the hands of an experianced pilot this was not a signficant issue. As for the controls tightening up, that didn't happen until higher speeds. The ailerons never tightened up, the rudder was always quite workable. The elevator became stiff, usually well over 400 IAS at lower altitudes.

Originally Posted by wmaxt

6. Due to energy loss the speed of a dogfight is down to 300mph range after just a few turns. Flown properly the P-38 is reported to have excellent energy retention and better energy recovery (note acceleration) than a P-51.

The P-51 had better energy retention if flown right (not breaking the laminar flow bucket), though I agree the P-38L had better acceleration (below 300 IAS). Flown properly, the P-51 does not make "turns", it dives into the attack, zoom climbs away, then dives back into the attack. Eventually energy will be lost, but the whole point is that the target should be dead by then.