Best Pacific Fighter?

[kool kitty89]

If it was equal amount of damage to the engines I'd take the Corsair, the R-2800 could continue to run and produce sufficient power to fly (and climb, and get home) with several cylinders out, somwtimes with the entire jug blown off. The P-38 was no good if it lost a single engine if the down engine caught fire (which would be likely) and that engine could not be extinguished as was sometimes the case, in most circumstances though I'd certainly take a P-38 over a P-51 in this theater. Plus with outboard engines you have quite a bit more time to get an engine fire under controll: 1. you dont have flames and oil engulfing the cockpit, 2. you have another engine to keep flying with.

But it should be noted that the F4U had vulnerable oil coolers which could easily be hit by ground fire, drain out, and result in the engine ceasing. The P-47 had a much more protected placement inside the engine compartment.


Granted the F4U was more maneuverable than the P-47 (and by some standards the P-38 ) in addition to slightly lower wing loading it had a high lift airfoil, the same as used on the Fw 190, with an unusually high CL. However with proper tactics the P-47 could out maneuver and out fight the Corsair but both had their advantages. (I'd take the P-47 in a defensive combat suiuation, ie if bounced or evading it had a better chance, especially with some altitude: ~10,000 ft should be sufficient to dive away)


I totally agree on the STOL characteristics (it was a carrier a/c for crying out loud) and I'd bet it was better than the P-38 at this. (though the P-38's fowler flaps helped alot, in maneuvering too) I assume that climb figure is at full (clean) combat weight, otherwise it seems a little low.


But for High altitude escort (crusing above 25,000 ft) the P-47 was the best, kept it's rated power of 2,300 hp over 30,000 ft (depending on turbo unit), very comfortable, well organized, cocpit and good all around performance.

[syscom3]

What do you mean the P38 was no good with only one engine?

The P47D wasnt up to the task in the PTO due to its poor maneuverability and acceleration at low and middle altitudes where most of the fighting took place, as well as its notoriously short range. In fact, you could make a case that the P40 was better than the P47 in this theater.

The P38 is still the best fighter of the PTO because of its versatility, long range capabilities, climb rate and payload. As for ruggedness, both were equal.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

As for ruggedness, both were equal.

Not argueing with you on what is best or not because both the P-38 and the Corsair were wonderful aircraft, but what is your proof that the P-38 and the Corsair are equal in reliability and ruggedness.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The P38 is still the best fighter of the PTO because of its versatility, long range capabilities, climb rate and payload. As for ruggedness, both were equal.

While this is your opinion which is fine, you have given no proof that the P-38 was the best.

While many others have given proof (real facts, not just general statements)that the Corsair was better. I have seen real proof how tough a Corsair is, I don't remember ever seeing the same sort of information posted for the P-38 on this forum (I could of missed it, post if you have facts to back up your claim of it being as tough as the Corsair).

But to each their own, if you like the P-38 good. Both were good and both help win the war in the PTO.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Not argueing with you on what is best or not because both the P-38 and the Corsair were wonderful aircraft, but what is your proof that the P-38 and the Corsair are equal in reliability and ruggedness.

Structural failures were something that did not happen to either airplane. (except in the well known compressibility problems the P38 encountered).

As for reliability, once the logistics issues were worked out, then the availability rates for the P38 were acceptable. In fact, the P38 availability (compared to the carrier based Corsairs) was probably better due to them being land based and had far better access to depot supplies/repair and mechanics.

I asked these things to that 475th FG pilot I met at Chino.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

But to each their own, if you like the P-38 good. Both were good and both help win the war in the PTO.

The only reason I say the P38 was better, is its range and versatility.

As for maneuverabilty in the PTO ...... the Japanese planes were so much better in that catagory, theres really no point in trying to compare allied fighters to Japanese fighters.

[renrich]

I question although I can't prove it that a P38 had any more range with a bomb load than a Corsair. As far as versatility, the Corsair was a better fighter below 25000 feet where the vast majority of ACM took place in all theatres, it was the best fighter bomber of the war, it turned out to be an excellent dive bomber(as accurate as an SBD) was a good recon plane, was a night fighter and could do all these missions and operate off carriers. The P38 was in service in the PTO before the F4U but the Corsair had 2155 kills to the P38's 1700 and although I don't know how many P38 sorties were flown the Corsair had a good sortie to loss ratio of 119 to 1. The P38s in the ETO had a sortie to loss of 74 to 1. I believe that Rex Barber made the statement that if the US had to build one fighter in WW2 it should have been the Corsair. Rex Barber flew the P38 extensively.

[parsifal]

A good indicator of the relative merits of US aircraft is...which ones continued in service after 1945. How long beforethe P-38s and hellcats were retired, and how long dod the Corsair continue in service. As for P-51, dint derivatives continue to fly into the Vietnam war (F-82???).

P-47 is a bit tricky. I believe it wa sold or given to avery two bit hanger on after the war. They did surpisingly well with it as i understand. USAF didnt want them though. Why not? its a genuine question

Michael

[syscom3]

The P38 had the greatest range of any fighter of WW2, beating the Corsair by a large margin.

The P38 was a far better recon platform as compared to the Corsair because of its extensive range, high altitude capability and big fat nose to mount multiple camera's.

Corsair was a far better dive bomber than the P38. No doubt about that!

But the P38 was a far better light bomber than the Corsair.

Both had equal capabilities in fighting at low and middle altitudes. Remember their was no torque factor for the P38.

P38 was a far safer airplane to land and takeoff compared to the Corsair due to its tricycle gear.

Gunnery? I'd say the edge goes to the P38 because of no convergence issues. But its a close call.

Sortie rate? Hard to compare. If we look at 1944 when the logistics were sorted out, there probably wasn't much difference between the land based Corsairs and the P38's. The sea based Corsairs would have the advantage for short term sortie rate, but decreasing sortie rate over the long haul.

Air kills? The Corsair pilots had far more opportunities to get air kills throughout 1945, simply because there weren't many targets for the land based P38's as compared to the Kamikazi magnets called aircraft carriers. But then, the Corsair wasnt found over NG where most of the fighting in 1943 took place.

Economics, the edge goes to the Corsair. Single engine and smaller airframe makes for an easier production rate. But with the vast production capabilities of the US, it didn't matter the P38 cost more and took longer to build.

Richard Bong said the P38 was the finest fighter in the AAF.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by renrich

The P38s in the ETO had a sortie to loss of 74 to 1.....

And put your Corsair into the thick of things with the LW and the hi quality flak, and watch your loss rate go way up.

[renrich]

Well the pilots at the fighter conference in 1944 did not seem to have a high opinion of the P38. As said before it was rated number one in only one category-worst cockpit. Not sure where you are getting your numbers about range but the only numbers that matter in the real world are combat radius numbers. My reference states that the combat radius of the P38 J and L with 740 gal of fuel has a combat rad. of 650 to 675 miles. The P51D with 419 gals has CR of 700 to 750 miles. Another chart and these are USAAF charts show the P38 has the third best CR with 650 miles, the P51D is second with a CR of 700 miles and the P47N is best of Army fighters with a CR of 1000 miles. That does not support the notion that the "P38 has the longest range of any fighter in WW2." As far as "yardstick" not practical ranges are concerned, a table showing Army Fighter Ranges shows the P38 L with max internal fuel with a range of 1170 miles, the P47 N with max internal fuel with 1700 mile and the P51B/C with max internal fuel with 1275 miles. These are cruise at 10000 feet at most economical power. For Navy fighters on internal fuel most economical cruise speed-F4U1 got 1596 miles. That is substantially better than P38.

[syscom3]

The P38's were going on 1300 mile missions (2600 round trip) in 1944.

And the fighter conference in 1944 didn't include the PTO representation, nor an understanding of the difference in operating conditions and tactics out there.

Please keep the discussion to the F4U and P38 for Pacific operations.

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Structural failures were something that did not happen to either airplane.
As for reliability, once the logistics issues were worked out, then the availability rates for the P38 were acceptable. In fact, the P38 availability (compared to the carrier based Corsairs) was probably better due to them being land based and had far better access to depot supplies/repair and mechanics.
I asked these things to that 475th FG pilot I met at Chino.

There were a hell of alot of land based Corsairs, besides USMC planes there were commonwealth users. (RAAF, RNZAF)

renrich,
It should also be noted that the F4U-1 had the non-sealing wing tanks which were not present on later models. (which thus had shorter range)

Originally Posted by syscom3

The only reason I say the P38 was better, is its range and versatility.

As for maneuverabilty in the PTO ...... the Japanese planes were so much better in that catagory, theres really no point in trying to compare allied fighters to Japanese fighters.

Then why use that as a reason to disqualify the P-47D?

Originally Posted by syscom3

What do you mean the P38 was no good with only one engine?

The P47D wasnt up to the task in the PTO due to its poor maneuverability and acceleration at low and middle altitudes where most of the fighting took place, as well as its notoriously short range. In fact, you could make a case that the P40 was better than the P47 in this theater.

The P38 is still the best fighter of the PTO because of its versatility, long range capabilities, climb rate and payload. As for ruggedness, both were equal.

(note I edited my previous post to clarify the engine out on P-38 with fire)

And with normal combat load, paddle prop, and increased engine output (due to high octane fuel), the P-47D had very good low-medium altitude performance. Comperable in many ways to the P-38 and F4U. The other 2 had better climb compared to the P-47's ~3,300 ft/min max at ~8,000 ft. (~3,100 ft/min at SL, at just under 14,000 lbs)

[syscom3]

Then why use that as a reason to disqualify the P-47D?

Their short range and lack of performance at low and middle altitudes just made them unpopular.

It wasnt untill the "N" model that the P47 had a chance in this theater.

[renrich]

KK, of course you are correct that the later model Corsairs like F4U1D did not have the internal wing tanks that were unprotected. However those unprotected wing tanks had a CO2 system to purge them and they would be used first so they were not a problem in combat. I believe they were deleted in later model Corsairs because the AC did not need that additional range because of the common use of one or two belly tanks. The basic Corsair airframe and engine was capable of being adapted for a lot of different missions. If needed it could have been fitted with a different supercharger system(like the F4U5 had) or even turbo charged for better high altitude performance. If it were needed as a very long range fighter, just think what the fuel capacity would have been with the original internal wing tanks and two belly tanks. As we know, some models carried 4- 20mms. The airplane was optimised for the mission the Navy and Marines required, a fighter bomber and later fleet defense. As you know, the original P51s did not have the internal fuselage tank. It was fitted to extend it's range and even though it caused an undesirable CG shift the pilots used it up first and did not try to go into combat with it.