Best Pacific Fighter?

[Lightning Guy]

RG, a note about your website and the 250 gallon tanks . . .
110 + 180 + 120 + 500 = 1010?

Try 110 + 180 + 120 + 600 = 1010 gallons.
That would be two 300 gallon tanks and not 2 250 gallon tanks. As I said, the P-38 never carried 250 gallon tanks.

The P-51 tank was probably excluded because the tank caused major CG problems. In the ETO, the tank was often not filled to full capacity and what fuel was in the tank was often burned BEFORE switching to the drop tanks.

The P-38 leading-edge tanks could effect maneuverability, particularly rate of roll. It was for that reason that these tanks were often used for warm-up, take-off, and initial climb-out. All in all I think these tanks were less of a liability than the P-51s. They were certainly less vulnerable than the unprotected leading edge tanks carried by the F4U. It is also interesting that the external fuel carried by the Corsair was greater than it's internal fuel load ( 300 gallons external, 234 internal). If the P-38's massive drop tanks were of no advantage, neither were the Corsair's.

Originally Posted by wmaxt

A skilled P-51 pilot could handle it if NO maneuvering took place. Climbout was always on the fusalage tank to get it down to 50gals before combat. The P-51H had the tank reduced to 50/55gal. It should also be remembered the H model was Escort Only and deemed to light to do ground attack in Korea.

The fuel tanks on the P-51H were reduced to save weight. It was an Intercept plane first and foremost. It was not used in Korea not because it was deemed unsuitable, but because there were only 550 of them and parts and spares were very hard to come by. They just weren't logistically feasable for Korea. The fact is the F-51 should not have been used in Korea either, they should have dug up the P-47's for that job!

=S=

Lunatic

[Lightning Guy]

Or the P-38s. The P-38 had twin-engine relaibility, a better protected cockpit, heavier and more concentrated fire-power, and a better range/payload capability.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and considderably more expensive, out of pruduction and much harder to fly.............

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

Or the P-38s. The P-38 had twin-engine relaibility, a better protected cockpit, heavier and more concentrated fire-power, and a better range/payload capability.

Yup!

The worst thing is that a couple of monthe before the Korean war a/the last of the P-38Ls were destroyed in Korea, Martin Caiden claims to have been there!

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

and considderably more expensive, out of pruduction and much harder to fly.............

And more effective and versatile at least in ground attack, the last job of the piston fighters!

Which would you have picked if you were in Korea doing ground attack?

[plan_D]

The cheaper version that can still do the job, the F-51. You under-estimate the power of tight-fisted politicians.

[Lightning Guy]

I'd have rather been in the more survivable P-38L. But that may just be me.

[evangilder]

While I like the P-38, I have to admit for ground attack in an American WWII airplane, I would choose the Jug. That darn thing just seemed to take about any punishment dealt out and keep coming. I think the liquid cooled engines were just not as well suited due to the vulnerability of the glycol systems to ground fire.

[plan_D]

All of that is pointless though because the politicians want the cheapest thing for the job, the F-51.

Originally Posted by plan_D

All of that is pointless though because the politicians want the cheapest thing for the job, the F-51.

Well, to be fair, the F-51 was still operationally available, the P-47's would have had to be pulled from mothballs.

[plan_D]

I was talking about the P-38 being too expensive but the P-47 having to be pulled out, would be more expensive than operationally available equipment. What's the better choice, F-51 (Operational and cheap), P-47 (Mothballs and cheap), P-38 (Scrapped and expensive)?

Originally Posted by plan_D

I was talking about the P-38 being too expensive but the P-47 having to be pulled out, would be more expensive than operationally available equipment. What's the better choice, F-51 (Operational and cheap), P-47 (Mothballs and cheap), P-38 (Scrapped and expensive)?

First off, the P-47 was not a "cheap" plane to build. It was quite large, it had (until the N) eliptical wings and tail structures, and a turbo-supercharger (not at all cheap to build or maintain). It was cheaper to build than the P-38, but that hardly makes it "cheap".

Secondly, I really don't think the P-47 was much of an option. At the start of the Korean war, they needed planes NOW. The F-51's were ready NOW. The P-47N's might have been ready in 6 months (which was longer than they thought the war would last), and the P-38's (as you pointed out) were simply not available at all.

The answer was to put the F-51's into action immeadiately, and then to replace them as fast as possible with more capable aircraft. Which is pretty much what was done.

=S=

Lunatic

[Lightning Guy]

The P-47 wasn't that much cheaper than the P-38. The cost savings were mainly because the P-38 had two engines and two superchargers.

I realize that chances of the USAAF still operating P-38s in Korea were rather low (as Plan_D noted, politicians are cheap). The thing is, when US forces left South Korea in 1946 there were dozens of virtually new P-38s sitting there. Instead of turning them over to the South Koreans, they were ungloriously destroyed. Had the South Koreans had a useful ground-attack fighter, the early days of the war might have been far different.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

for ground attack i'd rather take a P-47 though.........