Best Pacific Fighter?

Originally Posted by evangilder

If you are using a radar targetting system for your AAA, then it would have essentially been no different shooting down a jet versus a prop, it's a question of lead time.

Error grows exponentially with lead, so you are much less likely to hit, even with radar tracking, if you must lead twice as much. The system also must aquire the target, which takes more time the faster it is moving, and there is less time available.

Originally Posted by evangilder

The reason prop aircraft are better for it is because they are slower and when you are going slower, you have a better chance of spotting what you are after, hence a better chance to hit it. Plus you can't spot artillery or call in additional FBs from a jet, you are just going to fast over the terrain to effectively spot targets. The exception being the A-10, which they nearly retired until they realized they needed a SLOW aircraft to sopt and go after ground targets.

This depends on the targets. As I said, there is a place for both types of attack planes. Jets have advantages, such as the ability to cover a wider area and generally speaking to carry more ordinance, props (or the A-10) have an advantage in being able to loiter longer over the battle field. Which is better for a given situation is very dependant on that situation.

Lancaster -

Even from the start Jets were generally harder to shoot down than their prop counterparts. There are only a few places within the engine that are highly vulnerable. The fuel is not nearly as combustible. And because of the placement of the Jet engines, it is often easier to use the same armor to protect critical engine sections and the pilot. Finally, Jets are generally bigger than their prop counterparts and require more internal structure, which also makes them harder to shoot down.

The 262, which was one of the weakest jets, was still harder to shoot down than most props. The USA even introduced a new .50 calibur ammo type, the M23 incendiary, specifically to shoot down jets. This ammo only had an effective range of about 175 yards, but it was very much more incendiary than earlier types. This was necessary because it was much harder to start fires on the 262 than a prop even though the thing was, to a very large extent, a flying fuel tank.

It is generally considered that even the Mig-15's were much harder to kill than WWII prop fighters. By Vietnam, Jets were very much harder to kill.

=S=

Lunatic

=S=

Lunatic

[evangilder]

I will agree that there is a place for both. The AD-1 could carry a tremendous amount of ordinance though. Laser range finders and FACs definitely increase the effectiveness of faster attack aircraft.

[MP-Willow]

The role of the Pacific fighter changed from WWII to Korea. The first was aircontrol and then ground support. The latter saw the two jobs split to different airframes.F8F Bearcats did a great job at hiting the ground in Korea and even latter in Vietnam. I agree slower can give you better results but also you are getting out of the area slower, so more chance to get shot.

[evangilder]

The F8F only saw limited service in Korea. Most were phased out of US Navy service by 1952, replaced by modern jets. The US never flew F8Fs in Vietnam, however, the French bought some for their forces who did use them in the earlier engagement in Vietnam.

As a ground attack airplane, it would have done okay, but carried a very limited amount of fuel. With economic cruise, your going to have 2 hours of airtime maximum.

[Lightning Guy]

The F8F was also limited to just 4 5in rockets compared to the 6 of the F6F and 8 of the F4U.

Getting back to the R-2800 vs. 2 x Allisions discussion...

A little research seems to indicate that one R-2800 was generally prefered for combat durability. The problem with the allisons on the P-38 was that they were highly subject to catching fire when hit by gunfire. The main reason pilots in the pacific liked having two engines was in case of mechanical failure, not battle damage. Mechanical failure was probably as much or more of a risk to US fighter pilots in the PTO during WWII than Japanese fighters after Midway.

On the basis of this, I think the P-47 would be a much better ground attack plane than the P-38. The USAAF was stupid to mothball the P-47N's after WWII until they had a suitable ground attack plane to replace them with.

=S=

Lunatic

[evangilder]

Yeah, LG, the external load was extremely light on the Bearcat. The max takeoff is actually pretty light.

Originally Posted by evangilder

Yeah, LG, the external load was extremely light on the Bearcat. The max takeoff is actually pretty light.

It could carry 2 x 1000 lbs bombs. It could only carry 4 x 5" HVAR's but that was because it simply lacked the stations for more, not that it could not be fitted to carry more. I think the reason for having 4 stations was the belief they might carry some kind of A2A missile. 2 x 2000 lbs bombs puts it on a par with the Hellcat and Mustang's load capacity.

=S=

Lunatic

[evangilder]

It could carry 2 x 1000 lbs. bombs, but how far? It was either the bombs or drop tanks. WIth the minimal fuel load onboard, it would have been okay for short range attack, but that's about it. It's original design called for a fighter with excellent climb and speed. The reasons for this is it was designed to counter the kamikaze threat, get off the deck fast, get to the planes, get them before they get to the carrier and then get back.

If you guys want a fun article on the F8F, one of our members at the museum is John Deakin. He has a regular column on AVWeb called Pelican's Perch. Here is his article on the F8F, the one at our museum!

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182122-1.html

[plan_D]

Great article. He's a cheeky sod about flying that Bearcat isn't he? I don't blame him.

[evangilder]

He is really a funny guy, great sense of humor. He has flown more airplane types than most people I know. He had a tremendous amount of knowledge about all of them as well. He teaches the ground school for the C-46 and checks people out on different aircraft as well. He has a callection of his stories in a book called "Full Throttle". I need to pick that up soon.

Originally Posted by evangilder

It could carry 2 x 1000 lbs. bombs, but how far? It was either the bombs or drop tanks. WIth the minimal fuel load onboard, it would have been okay for short range attack, but that's about it. It's original design called for a fighter with excellent climb and speed. The reasons for this is it was designed to counter the kamikaze threat, get off the deck fast, get to the planes, get them before they get to the carrier and then get back.

If you guys want a fun article on the F8F, one of our members at the museum is John Deakin. He has a regular column on AVWeb called Pelican's Perch. Here is his article on the F8F, the one at our museum!

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182122-1.html

I actually exchanged emails with John Deakin a few years ago. At that time he had told me he had the Bearcat Pilot Handbook in .pdf format, and was willing to send it to me, but we could not find a way to do so (it's over 10 mb so email or my personal web space would not work, and he does no do MSN or other msgr's for direct file transfer). Maybe you could talk to him and see if he can post it here? Seemed like a very nice guy.

Two points to be made about the article - the original F8F-1 had 4 x .50's (in universal bays which could also take 20mm), but these were M3's, not M2's, and had an RoF of 1200 rpm - so four of them gave the same firepower as 6 x M2's. Also, in 1945 in WWII 150 Av-Gas was available giving even more HP than that listed.

I agree range would be short. But only short range is needed if you're supporting an invasion such as Okinawa. And with 1 x 150 gallon drop tank on the belly and 2 x 100 gallon drop tanks on the wings, patrol range is not really that short. It was well suited to its primary mission, which was to provide CAP for carrier fleets. With a good 4+ hours on drop tanks it had pleanty of flight time for this mission.

=S=

Lunatic

[evangilder]

I will see if I can find him next time I am out at the museum. He is a very busy guy these days and doesn't come around as much. He is a great guy, and very knowledgable. He was our wing safety officer for awhile as well. He taught us how to put out aircraft fires. Fortunately, we have never had to do that!

[Lightning Guy]

I would love to see that info on the Bearcar if someone could get it.

[Lightning Guy]

Make that the Bearcat.