Best Pacific Fighter?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by drgondog

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.

Cadin writes a line or two about this and how he witnessed their (the P-38s) destruction with his own eyes. If I remember correctly he mentions there were about 20 of them. He goes on to talk about the NK invasion and how having those aircraft might of made things easier....

[syscom3]

The P38 was withdrawn from service because of the production of P80.

Plain and simple.

The USN had problems early on with carrier capable jet aircraft so it was natural they would hang on to the F4U for awhile.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The P38 was withdrawn from service because of the production of P80.

Plain and simple.

The USN had problems early on with carrier capable jet aircraft so it was natural they would hang on to the F4U for awhile.

That seems like the definition of replaceable. The P-38 was replaceable by the P80.

While the world's leading air force manufacturer still could not replace the F4U.

Well said Syscom.

[syscom3]

Why hang onto piston engines when you can use a jet?

No matter how you try to spin it, the Corsair was obsolete in 1946 and the only reason the navy and marines held onto it was there was no suitable jet replacement for it.

[kool kitty89]

As FBJ said it was mostly due to economics that the P-38 didn't stay longer. The USAAF had decided the P-51 was to be the piston engined fighter to keep while the rest of focus was to be on the jets. This was seen to be a rater poor decision as in the post war era the piston engined fighters were most useful as fighter-bombers,in ground attack and close support roles. (and where taking of from small/rough airfields was required, which almost any piston engined fighter could do over a jet)

These were not something the P/F-51 was not particularly adept at performing. The P-47 would have been a better choice. (arguably the P-38 would as well, but the higher costs/maintenance would be a disadvantage)


The F4U on the other hand served well in these roles in Korea compared to the P-51.

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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

The F4U-1 with wing tanks and full 486 US gal. of external fuel had very good range; later models deleted the wing tanks as this range wasn't required for what the USN needed. I don't have the figures but a couple here have mentioned it

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 moderately damaged aircraft that could not be fixed on board.

Which would be present on for any carrier based fighter.


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!

The early P-38's had problems at high alt though... I do agree on the recon role though. Do you know if the P-38 could be used to dive bomb once dive recovery flaps were fitted? -using them as dive breaks-

P38 gets the nod for this. BTW, did you know the P38 was also rated as a torpedo bomber?
Looking at the load rating and the placement of the bomb rack/pylons I don't see why the F4U couldn't do this, even if it wasn't tested for it. But why do that when the Navy had dedicated torpedo planes...


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

Um, I don't think so. The R-2800 could continue to run and get the pilot home safely after losing multiple cylinders, and in some cases with entire jugs taken off. The only way "golden bullet" could disable a corsair if if it was to hit an oil cooler, which were the only really vulnerable spot and probably the only definitive disadvantage of the F4U to the P-47 as a fighter bomber.

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

I pretty much agree with everything else.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Why hang onto piston engines when you can use a jet?

No matter how you try to spin it, the Corsair was obsolete in 1946 and the only reason the navy and marines held onto it was there was no suitable jet replacement for it.

So you are agreeing then? The USA needed the Corsair longer then it needed the P-38, agreed.

1) Syscom for the most part I am just playing devil's advocate in this discussion, as I often do. Its helps the information flow when we all do not agree on everything.

2) Syscom you need to loosen your collar little if you can't tell I am just having a little fun with you......admittly at your expense.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The P38 was withdrawn from service because of the production of P80.

Plain and simple.

????

The USN had problems early on with carrier capable jet aircraft so it was natural they would hang on to the F4U for awhile.

Interesting logic - what is behind it?

The P-80 went into production in 1945 and stopped in 1950

The P-82 went into production in 1946 and stopped in 1949

The F-84A/B went into production in 1947 followed by C/D

The last P-38 came off in 1945 along with the 51H and the 51H remained in ADC then ANG until 1957.

The P-82 replaced the P-38, and P-47N for long range escort of SAC in 1947 and replaced the P-61 as a night fighter and the P-82E was the last piston engine escort for SAC in 1951 and 1952 for Alaska route. It was finally replaced by F-94 for night fighter role.

So how was P-38 in any way tied to P-80 production? What role was the 38 performing that kept it in the inventory even as long as 1948-49?

[syscom3]

The F4U on the other hand served well in these roles in Korea compared to the P-51.

We are talking about WW2, not Korea.

After all, the P80, F84 and F86 were far superior to the P51 and F4U.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

As FBJ said it was mostly due to economics that the P-38 didn't stay longer. The USAAF had decided the P-51 was to be the piston engined fighter to keep while the rest of focus was to be on the jets. This was seen to be a rater poor decision as in the post war era the piston engined fighters were most useful as fighter-bombers,in ground attack and close support roles. (and where taking of from small/rough airfields was required, which almost any piston engined fighter could do over a jet)

These were not something the P/F-51 was not particularly adept at performing. The P-47 would have been a better choice. (arguably the P-38 would as well, but the higher costs/maintenance would be a disadvantage)


The F4U on the other hand served well in these roles in Korea compared to the P-51.

And the USAF had a suitable replacement for P-51, P-38 and P-47 in ground support role with F-84 although the numbers were not high enough to replace the 51 in 1950/1951.

As Syscom noted the USN didn't quite have a jet replacement although the F9 served in Korea... and the AD certainly served but not enough to go around.

Additionally the AU-1 derivative was superb in ground attack role but not fair to throw in the Best PTO Fighter discussion. Hard to argue that either the F4U-5 or P-38L could compare to it in that mission.

[syscom3]

Who cares what happened after 1945. Anything with a piston engine after that year was obsolescent.

The AAF and USN knew that immediatly. The difference was the jet engine technology at the time was not up to par for the performance needed for carrier ops.

Dont you agree that it was a wise choice to have Lockheed concentrate on building P80's rather than P38's?

[kool kitty89]

I know, but we were talking about what happened to these fighters in the post war era. i wasn't trying to use this for justification over the P-38.

And the P-80 and F-84 couldn't operate from small rough airfields near the front early in the Korean war. (and the F-86 wasn't even there yet) The high speeds also meant they were not as well suited to the close support role. But the F-80 was decent in the GA role after the F-86 had taken over the air superiority role, though the F-84E/G was the best jet fighter-bomber of the bunch.


And for the Navy, don't forget that they had the F2H Banshee too, not just the F9F/F-9 Panther, speaking of twin engines for reliability. Plus the Banshee turned out to be the better fighter bomber of the two. (the Banshee was a bit faster as well at normal gross weight clean configuration)

But again we're getting way off topic...

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

So you are agreeing then? The USA needed the Corsair longer then it needed the P-38, agreed.

Yes.

But thats an indication the technology for jet engines for naval ops wasnt there yet.

A more proper question for post WW2 aircraft is what was the better plane, Corsair or Skyraider.

[renrich]

Sys, as usual you make some good points. Obviously I have never flown a P38 or F4U(except in my dreams) and I have only a few solo hours in an Atlas Skyrocket so all I can go on is what other people have written about both AC. Let me quote from Dean in "America's One Hundred Thousand'" about the P38. "The P38 was a large heavy fighter not suited for quick "snap" or "slam bang" maneuvers and had a particularly slow initial response in roll due to a high lateral inertial characteristic. The problem was a slow start into a roll and thus an inability to switch quickly from one attitude to another, as in reversing from a turn in one direction to one in the other. As one pilot said" It was disconcerting to have a fighter barreling in on you, crank the wheel over hard and just have the P38 sit there. Then, after it slowly rolled the first five or ten degrees of bank it would turn quickly, but the hesitation was sweat producing." That doesn't sound like fun when surprised by a Zero! He goes on to say that power boosted ailerons introduced later improved roll characteristics at high speeds but did nothing to improve them at low to moderate speeds. Now from the same book on the Corsair. " A company test pilot claimed "Throwing the stick hard would roll the airplane more than 180 degrees per second." "There is no question, however, that the Corsair roll performance was very good for a WW2 US fighter." From Richard Linnekin in "80 knots to Mach 2." " The Corsair was a stable airplane with reasonable, not objectionable, control forces. It had a comforting, solid feel in cruise configuration, yet maneuver response was quick and relatively easy. It was not as quick as in the Bearcat but in some ways it was more controllable. My subjective impression is of better "control harmony" in the Corsair than in either of the Grummans." Speaking of gunnery runs in the Corsair Linnekin said, " The Corsair was the most comfortable airplane I had yet flown in a gunnery pattern." "In a Corsair, for the first time I let the airplane do most of the work, correcting only as necessary. I think that control harmonisation made that possible." Let me add that Linnekin was not just a Navy pilot but an aero engineer and test pilot. Now from the fighter conference in 1944 and these comparisons have nothing to do with ETO or PTO but rather flying characteristics. Best all around cockpit-F4U4- second, P38 not rated. Best engine controls-F4U-fourth, P38-ninth and last. Best all around armor-F4u-second, P38 not mentioned. Best overload takeoff from a small area-F4U-second. P38- third. Best ailerons at 350 mph-F4u-second, P38L-third. Best ailerons at 100 mph, F4u-second, P38L- sixth. Best elevators-F4U-First, P38L-seventh. Best rudder-F4U-second, P38L third. Nicest all around stability-F4U-second, P38L-seventh. Best characteristics 5 mph above stall-P38L-third, F4U sixth. Best dive stability and control-F4U-first, P38L-eighth. Best instrument and night flying qualities- F4U-third, P38- fifth. Best fighter above and below 25000 feet F4U rated better than P38L. Best production carrier based fighter-F4U- first, P38 can't operate from carrier. Best fighter bomber-F4U-first, P38L- fifth. Best strafer, F4U - second, P38L-fifth. As far as range is concerned official USAAF charts show P38L with 740 gallons of gas with max combat radius of action of 650 miles. How much gas did they have for those 2600 mile missions and what was the ordnance load? The Corsair was deployed to the Pacific more than six months after the P38 and had 2155 kills to 1700 for the P38. The Corsair flew 64051 combat sorties and dropped 15, 621 tons of bombs which I have to believe was more than the P38. The Corsair had 189 losses to enemy AC and 349 to enemy triple A. What are the comparable statistics as far as the P38? The P38 was not desirable in the CBI because of gasoline and parts shortages and was drawn down in numbers there as soon as possible. I agree with Rex Barber of P38 fame when he said that if the US had to build one fighter it should have been the Corsair.

[Hunter368]

Big paragragh, LOL.