Best Heavy Fighter

[Karnak]

See Rule #4

[FLOOB]

Until the p38L, p38s couldn't turn with 109s, but p51s and p47s could out turn 109s.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSU_T3VM22g

[Brooke]

Brooke, those stats are - by USAAF standards - pretty shocking,
compare them to how well the P-38 did in the PTO..

They aren't shocking if you consider a simple thought experiment.  What if in the days before the P-51, instead of P-38's, the USAAF used 109's and 190's that could do long-range escort (i.e., other than magically giving them range, the same aircraft that the LW flew), gave them similarly experienced pilots to the Luftwaffe, and put them up in similar numbers to the Luftwaffe.  In air to air combat, there would then be little difference between the USAAF and the LW, and they would thus lose similar numbers of aircraft in fighting each other.  Now, if you substitute the P-38 for the USAAF fighters instead of 109's and 190's, and give them less-experienced pilots, and in lower relative numbers than the LW, and they *still* are about even, then you can judge that that P-38 is a decent fighter.

& on a cost analysis alone, it shows a significant win for the LW..

Indeed, the P-38 was a relatively expensive airplane.  That's another good aspect for the P-51, which was relatively inexpensive.  However, what hampered the LW later in the war was not cost of airplanes or production of airplanes but rather lack of pilots.  The same was true for Japan.  So history shows that plane cost is secondary.

They could not do that against the top fighters,
& [from memory] the Spit XIV was running 'bout 7-1 ahead..

Again, plane A < plane B does not mean that plane A is bad.

[Brooke]

Until the p38L, p38s couldn't turn with 109s, but p51s and p47s could out turn 109s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSU_T3VM22g

That sounds like the source is including roll rate into his definition of turn capability (i.e., hydraulic-assist ailerons).  Late-model P-38J's had hydraulic assist, too.  P-51's and P-47's had good roll rate without it.

I wouldn't put too much stake in anecdotal statements of performance, though.  Flight-test data is the best source of opinions on performance.

[Randy1]

If you put a new, average rated pilot in a P51D and the same type pilot in a P38L, the P51D average pilot would have a better chance to live long enough to gain that needed combat experience I would think.  After the learning curve would think all things would equal out.

[FLOOB]

That sounds like the source is including roll rate into his definition of turn capability (i.e., hydraulic-assist ailerons).  Late-model P-38J's had hydraulic assist, too.  P-51's and P-47's had good roll rate without it.

I wouldn't put too much stake in anecdotal statements of performance, though.  Flight-test data is the best source of opinions on performance.

Yeah it's because of the aileron boost. Now shut up and watch the video.

[Ack-Ack]

& P-38s weren't flying escort missions by late `44..

The 474th FG kept flying long range escort missions until the end of the war.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

I don't mind digging the dirt to 'demolish'[ as Widey put it] the P-38 myth..

The only myth about the P-38 being thrown around is your myth about the P-38 being relegated to a medium bomber in the ETO.  Just because you think it was doesn't make it so and you've shown nothing that proves your "myth". 

When you've been shown to be wrong about something, you quickly change the subject, like when you claimed the RAF only started to look at arming their planes with cannons after seeing how effective they were on Luftwaffe planes.  Milo showed that you were wrong, the RAF was already developing planes armed with cannons prior to the war starting, so you quickly changed the subject to the Westland Whirlwind's service life to try and prove your point.  You're not interested in any sort of discussion, you want to troll in the hope someone blows their cool and gets banned.

ack-ack

[SirNuke]

He's craving for attention and recognition.

For now I only recognized that he is deep and dark at the bottom.

[Brooke]

Yeah it's because of the aileron boost. Now shut up and watch the video.

 

I did, and it is a great video.  Thanks for the link.

I loved this comment from Jim Beyers (P-38 pilot), speaking of the P-38L, at 16:53:

"We could outturn 'em, we could outclimb 'em, we could outdive 'em, we could outlast 'em, and we could outgun 'em."

There's a P-38 pilot who disagrees with JAW about the P-38 being a poor fighter.  (Not that one pilot's opinion is the whole and final truth about an airplane -- it's just an example, like I talked about, that many P-38 pilots did not think that the P-38 was bad.)

[Saxman]

I wouldn't put too much stake in anecdotal statements of performance, though.  Flight-test data is the best source of opinions on performance.

Speaking of flight test data: I was reading the actual US BuAer comparison tests between the F6F-3, F4U-1 (a 1D was tested, which was a bit slower than the birdcage and 1A due to the fixed pylons) and 190A5 the other day. Conclusion from the flight test data was the F4U-1 was superior to the 190 in all aspects except for firepower (due to the cannon) and climb at speeds above 140kts (Corsair was superior in the low-speed climb). The 190's simplified engine controls were noted to be handy and convenient, but nothing that conferred it a particular advantage in combat (and according to the report, was actually a DISADVANTAGE in some ways) over the two American aircraft. It's unclear whether the 190 had the water injection system installed, but the airframe was otherwise confirmed to perform well within the known capabilities of a typical A5 fighter variant.

One of the things I noticed in the report was that the F4U was stated to have the best roll rate at all airspeeds of the three. That's NOT the case in Aces High, where the 190 is one of the few aircraft that will out-roll the Corsair.

[GScholz]

The P-38L with most of the high-alt cooling problems fixed, dive-flaps and boosted ailerons was a competitive aircraft in the ETO. However it arrived late in the war and the P-51 had already shown its worth and was selected as the primary USAAF fighter in the ETO. For comparison, the P-38L and the Me 262 entered service at about the same time in the summer of 1944.

[Brooke]

A thing that amazes me about the 262 is that first flight of the jet-powered prototype was in 1942.

[GScholz]

Two years from flying prototype to service is pretty much the standard of those days. Fw 190 first flew in 1939 and entered service in 1941. In many respects the 262 was still "experimental" when it was pressed into service, but the enemy was, quite literally, at the gates.

[-ammo-]

Until the p38L, p38s couldn't turn with 109s, but p51s and p47s could out turn 109s.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSU_T3VM22g

Wally Groce - 56th FG pilot responsible for a ME-262 kill.  Thanks for the link