Best Pacific Fighter?

[Soren]

The central question ??

You're the one who's claiming the P-51 shot down more fighters than the Spitfire, well where's the proof of this Bill cause like I said, I doubt it!

Now as if this isn't enough you're also claiming that the P-51 was resposible for more LW casualties than the Spitfire, something which just doesn't add up to the already known facts. The Spitfire did afterall shoot down over 600 a/c during the BoB alone, many of them being bombers. The Spitfire was also responsible for allot of LW transports shot down, among these a numbrt of Me-323's.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

The central question ??

You're the one who's claiming the P-51 shot down more fighters than the Spitfire, well where's the proof of this Bill cause like I said, I doubt it!

Soren - please go back to my original comment. You will see, given an average reading comprehension ability that I said no such thing. In fact I stated that I thought it highly possible that the Spitfire shot down more LW fighters than the Mustang _ I JUST COULD NOT FIND THE FACTS!.

Please parse these words and tell us how you came to your conclusion - this is EXACTLY what I wrote

The 51 killed a lot more LW pilots than any Allied fighter except perhaps the Spitfire - I am still having trouble getting those statistics.. but the Spit fought a lot longer.


You jumped in like a fat toad and said it was a 'no brainer'.

I asked you for facts (one way or another) and we get to this point.

Stop.

You owe me (still) an explanation for why you thought 'suction' in Lednicer's models were 'drag'.... and why anyone with any knowledge of aero could think otherwise?

Three weeks ago you said you would be 'right back' on that discussion and I am still waiting from the self proclaimed aerodynamics expert. You laid low for two weeks (on vacation?) and thought that blooper would go away.

It hasn't.

How many LW fighters awarded to Spitfires makes it a 'no brainer'?? And when does 'suction' equate to 'drag' in a finite element, distributed vortices model? Simple facts. No ad hominem attacks, please

You scheduled to go on vacation again?

[Hunter368]

Can we please keep this on subject here guys, many of us want to keep this thread from getting closed like others. Perhaps one of you could open a thread on the subject you are talking about.

Thread is about PTO fighters.

Respectfully Hunter

[Soren]

Huh ?

You wrote this Bill "You may doubt it (Mustang shot down higher number of fighters). " which looks like a claim to me. Or perhaps I misinterpreted it ? (Its 4 AM where I'm at this moment and Im on watch)

And what's with the sudden paranoia Bill? You seriously think I've been away from the forum because of a discussion we had ? Bill I could care less, besides the discussion was over in my eyes.

And as to suction, well I thought we had settled this already, and yes suction equals drag. A razorback design has less drag than a bubble canopy one, the simple reason being that there's not the turbulent area right behind the canopy creating extra drag. I thought you understood this.

The sudden drop over the top of the canopy is what causes the boundary layer to seperate, causing turbulence to the rear(Hence the stability issue), and therefore extra drag. It's the same with bullets Bill, if you say cut way the boattail you'll get sooner seperation and more turbulence which means more drag, hence why spitzer bullets aren't as drag efficient as boattailed ones.

[syscom3]

Thank you Hunter.

OK .... lets list the attributes between the F4U and P38.

Airframe strength: F4U
This is then offset because neither airframe was known to be weak. As I argued with Soren in another thread, once you reach a point in design where it does the job, anything more is just gold plating.

Guns: Tie - four .50's in a nose config. is as deadly as six .50's in the wings. I don't think the 4 x 20mm's for the Corsair was all that prevelaint.

Gunnery: P38. No convergence issues.

Payload: P38. 4000 pound payload with the ability to have a droop snoot type light bomber.

Range: P38 by a large margin.

Performance. Even at low and middle altitudes. P38 has an edge up high.

Ease of flying: P38. No torque factors and tricycle landing gears.

Dive performance: F4U by a good margin.

Production factors: F4U for cost and man hours to build.

Logistics: Slight edge to the F4U. But when on a carrier, huge edge to the P38.

Variants and roles: Slight edge to the P38 as its role as a photo-recon fighter.

Pilot training: Once the twin engine curriculum was perfected in 1943, it probably worked out even. More hours needed for the P38 for the twin engine, offset by the USN needing more hours to qualify pilots for carrier ops.

[Thorlifter]

nice outline Soren.

1 question. I'm confused why under Logistics, you give the P-38 a huge edge when on a carrier. Did you mean to type Corsair? Just want clarification.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Thorlifter

nice outline Soren.

1 question. I'm confused why under Logistics, you give the P-38 a huge edge when on a carrier. Did you mean to type Corsair? Just want clarification.

I meant that when the Corsair was carrier based, its supportability dropped by a huge margin, as compared to a P38 on a ground base, with all the supporting depots.

When the Corsair was land based, the supportability would have been equal.

[Thorlifter]

Ah.......got it. Thanks

[renrich]

According to "Air and Space, Smithsonian" in a recent article comparing Spitfire to Hurricane, Spitfire shot down 529 EA in BOB, not 600 as recently stated in this forum. Good article. Attributes of P38 versus F4U- I differ on following: Payload-tie, Corsair carried 4000 pound bombload also: Range- I would not give P38 huge edge her as USAAAF charts do not support, but edge to P38; Performance- I would give edge to Corsair because of low to medium altitude better overall performance which would include maneuverability; Ease of flying-definite edge to F4U as it was notable for beautiful handling once in the air. Landing it took concentration, particularly on carrier but handling in combat was much superior. Logistics-Huge edge to F4U, less gasoline needed, many less spare parts, engine much more reliable, only one kind of engine to fit(no right or left engine) Variants- Edge to Corsair because mainly of ability to dive bomb which P38 could not do at all. One other big advantage is that P38 much easier to identify and is huge target with many vulnerable places to hit. A P38 along with all liquid cooled engined fighters could be more easily damaged fatally by rifle caliber weapons and the P38 had twice as many engines to be hit and catch fire. Look at combat film of enemy fighters in classic rear quarter attack on P38s and think of enemy gunners on ground. Radial engined fighters very difficult to shoot down with rifle caliber weapons. Corsair much more survivable air to air and air to ground.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by renrich

Attributes of P38 versus F4U- I differ on following: Payload-tie, Corsair carried 4000 pound bombload also:

Fair enough

Range- I would not give P38 huge edge her as USAAAF charts do not support, but edge to P38;

The P38's flew 1300 mile missions (2600 round trip). Show me the F4U doing that. Thats a HUGE edge.

Performance- I would give edge to Corsair because of low to medium altitude better overall performance which would include maneuverability;

But then the P38 and F4U were both fighting against the Japanese fighters which were far more maneuverable, and not against themselves. So the question on who has the best maneuverability is kind of irrleveant.

Ease of flying-definite edge to F4U as it was notable for beautiful handling once in the air. Landing it took concentration, particularly on carrier but handling in combat was much superior.

So the torque issues of that big paddle blade prop is not a factor?

Logistics-Huge edge to F4U, less gasoline needed, many less spare parts, engine much more reliable, only one kind of engine to fit(no right or left engine)

Once the industrial might of the AAF was felt, there were so many spare parts available, it meant nothing. And then if the Corsair was on an carrier, then its logistical requirements went up dramatically, including the disposal overboard of moderatly damaged aircraft that could not be fixed on board.

Now about the tricycle gear.... flyboy has some definate opinions on how good that was for takeoff and landings, especially in poor visibility and rotten airstrips.

Variants- Edge to Corsair because mainly of ability to dive bomb which P38 could not do at all. One other big advantage is that P38 much easier to identify and is huge target with many vulnerable places to hit.

But the Corsair was not a level "light bomber" like the P38 Droop Snoot version. Nor was the Corsair anywhere nearly as good as the F4 and F5 phot recon types. In fact the P38 gets a huge extra credit for this for performing fantastic service in that role. Long range, big camera payload and high altitude capability!

P38 gets the nod for this. BTW, did you know the P38 was also rated as a torpedo bomber?

A P38 along with all liquid cooled engined fighters could be more easily damaged fatally by rifle caliber weapons and the P38 had twice as many engines to be hit and catch fire.

And a single golden bullet into the single engine of the Corsair was definatly a mission stopper. Two engines means you can get home.

Look at combat film of enemy fighters in classic rear quarter attack on P38s and think of enemy gunners on ground. Radial engined fighters very difficult to shoot down with rifle caliber weapons. Corsair much more survivable air to air and air to ground.

True. Bit there are many Spitfire, P51 and -109 aces that say any aircraft was vulnerable.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Now about the tricycle gear.... flyboy has some definate opinions on how good that was for takeoff and landings, especially in poor visibility and rotten airstrips.

IMO if all WW2 fighters had tricycle landing gear you probably would have seen at least a 20% reduction in landing/ takeoff/ taxi accidents. The advantage of the tail wheel aircraft was apparent when operating out of dirt or grass fields but that was about it. The extra weight and additional systems in incorporating a nose wheel paid for itself in equipment and pilots.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Thorlifter

nice outline Soren.

1 question. I'm confused why under Logistics, you give the P-38 a huge edge when on a carrier. Did you mean to type Corsair? Just want clarification.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/pol...tml#post345064 (Allied tests of captured Bf-109's)

Thor - I'm taking the 'lift/drag debate out of here as it doesn't belong but reference the model and interpretations if you want to evaluate Soren's comments.

[parsifal]

Guys

I am impressed by the knowledge you guys have on these two aircraft. Its impressive. I asked this question before....and I can honestly say I am neutral on the the great P-38/F4U debate.....why did the Corsair continue in US service for quite some time after the war (indeed it stayed in production I believe until 1952), when the P-38 was withdrawn from service more or less immediately after the war. I just dont understand how the Lightning can be judged a better aircraft with that historical fact hanging over its head....

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Guys

I am impressed by the knowledge you guys have on these two aircraft. Its impressive. I asked this question before....and I can honestly say I am neutral on the the great P-38/F4U debate.....why did the Corsair continue in US service for quite some time after the war (indeed it stayed in production I believe until 1952), when the P-38 was withdrawn from service more or less immediately after the war. I just dont understand how the Lightning can be judged a better aircraft with that historical fact hanging over its head....

One of the reasons whey the P-38 was immediately withdrawn from service was purely economics - it simply cost more to maintain a multi-engine aircraft when compared to a single engine aircraft, plain and simple.

If you want to believe the author Martin Cadin, he claims there was a squadron of P-38s maintained in Korea until 1949 or 1950 (reference his book "Forked Tailed Devil"). He claimed to have cut them up and buried them in a large ditch.

I'm not aware of when the very last P-38 was removed from the USAF inventory but I've always had a hard time believing this story.

After the war several P-38s found their way to Honduras. A former neighbor Col. Mike Alba trained their pilots and developed their first air combat schools.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

One of the reasons whey the P-38 was immediately withdrawn from service was purely economics - it simply cost more to maintain a multi-engine aircraft when compared to a single engine aircraft, plain and simple.

If you want to believe the author Martin Cadin, he claims there was a squadron of P-38s maintained in Korea until 1949 or 1950 (reference his book "Forked Tailed Devil"). He claimed to have cut them up and buried them in a large ditch.

I'm not aware of when the very last P-38 was removed from the USAF inventory but I've always had a hard time believing this story.

After the war several P-38s found their way to Honduras. A former neighbor Col. Mike Alba trained their pilots and developed their first air combat schools.

I wouldn't dispute Caiden but would offer that most references have the P-38 retired from active duty USAF in 1949..

Even as a 5 year old young kid on June 25th in Tokyo, I could sense the urgency over the NK attack. The USAF fought with what they had and what they had was 18th and 35th FBW equipped with 51s. It is inconceivable to me that USAF would not fly P-38s from Korea or Japan if they had been available in June 1950.

My father had just left command of 35th FBW and stepped up to 5th AF HQ at the time

IIRC there P-47s in the Phillipines at the time (1949) but I am not sure of this. I believe all the P-47s were moved to National Guard units in late 1949 and 1950 and the ones in the Phillipines came home before the Korean War started.

If P-38s were in theatre I expect they would have come home at same time as P-47s to simplify logistics to one airplane and there were a lot more P-51s than P-38s and 47s combined in 1947 forward when SAC got completely out of the P-47 business.

Net - I do NOT know for sure about the timing of P-47 and P-38 from Far East Command.