Best Heavy Fighter

[Masherbrum]

T-A, You do realize that the `38 was dumped from the 8th AF?
That does more than 'imply ineffectiveness in the primary role' - correct?

"While in the pilot's lounge at Santa Maria Air Base, California, I overheard three P-38 students scorning their airplane.   They were saying the P-38 would not operate above 25,000 ft, or if it would, their instructor would not take them.   I found out their Instructor's name and cleared a flight with the students.   My briefing was short and to the point:  "We're going to take this four-ship formation up and we will continue to climb until one of you say 'Uncle'."  With that we took off, at 42,800 ft indicated on the altimeter, I heard a garbled "uncle" being transmitted by a throat mike.   One hundred percent oxygen under pressure made it difficult to speak at high altitude.  The formation was climbing at 500ft per minute when the flight was terminated.   That flight convinced them that the P-38 was a high altitude aircraft."  - Lt. Frank Shearin Jr, 343rd FG, Aleutians, 1943.


You're right, it was "ineffective".         The P-38 was a very effective and versatile tool in the USAAF's toolbox and still maintained a proven track record.   You seem to cherry pick data from topic to topic, all the while playing shell game.   The Sea Fury F 10 drivel was about as exciting as watching a bag full of pitons tumble down the rock face.   Almost every post of yours in thread is ad-hominem.   Because you go from one gear to another, skipping any relevant data along the way.    


BTW, you never answered Widewing's simple question that you blatantly ignored.    Please answer this:  

I've got more than 3,200 hours behind R-2800s and R-1820s.... How many do you have?

[J.A.W.]

"While in the pilot's lounge at Santa Maria Air Base, California, I overheard three P-38 students scorning their airplane.   They were saying the P-38 would not operate above 25,000 ft, or if it would, their instructor would not take them.   I found out their Instructor's name and cleared a flight with the students.   My briefing was short and to the point:  "We're going to take this four-ship formation up and we will continue to climb until one of you say 'Uncle'."  With that we took off, at 42,800 ft indicated on the altimeter, I heard a garbled "uncle" being transmitted by a throat mike.   One hundred percent oxygen under pressure made it difficult to speak at high altitude.  The formation was climbing at 500ft per minute when the flight was terminated.   That flight convinced them that the P-38 was a high altitude aircraft."  - Lt. Frank Shearin Jr, 343rd FG, Aleutians, 1943.


You're right, it was "ineffective".         The P-38 was a very effective and versatile tool in the USAAF's toolbox and still maintained a proven track record.   You seem to cherry pick data from topic to topic, all the while playing shell game.   The Sea Fury F 10 drivel was about as exciting as watching a bag full of pitons tumble down the rock face.   Almost every post of yours in thread is ad-hominem.   Because you go from one gear to another, skipping any relevant data along the way.    


BTW, you never answered Widewing's simple question that you blatantly ignored.    Please answer this:  

 Doolittle didn't want `38s for the 8th AF - Period - Not even one FG..

But at least the 56th FG got to keep their `47s..

Did a `38 FG unit A2A high score in ETO or MTO?

No..

How did their actual claim/loss stats compare with `47s & `51s in Europe?

Not real good..

How many hours do you have up  - on posting here?

I have been in the cockpit behind a couple of radial types,

Bristol Hercules & in a DC-3..  So what?

Relevance to the facts about the thread topic is...what?

& an apparently snide tag-line threat of banning?

Not real cool, man .. talk 'bout playing the man, not the ball...

[ad-hominem, indeed..]

[Saxman]

 
Relevance to the facts about the thread topic is...what?

That Widewing has a TON of personal hands-on experience with these aircraft and engines, so he probably knows a thing or two about how they work and how they perform in relation to one another.

You just come across as a punk kid who picks out one or two things that you think proves your point, while throwing out everything else that proves you actually don't have a clue. ESPECIALLY when you decided to start throwing insults when it started to be clear the ground you're standing on started crumbling away.

[J.A.W.]

& Sm..

Do you maybe have a clue?

'bout when Ww might ante-up with a reply on the `51H stick time question?

Unless, its that you - don't want pesky ol' facts clouding the issue - now, huh..

[BaldEagl]

Not real cool, man .. talk 'bout playing the man, not the ball...

You've already reponded to the name Alice.  Who's the man you refer to?

[J.A.W.]

Wonderwall.. an Oasis of inanity in a sometimes cogent thread..

What is your ETOH blood level currently Eagledad?

Bit slurrry there perhaps..L.O.L..

To quote Hal 9000, further response to your posts in this time frame
"can serve no purpose"..

[Widewing]

What "record" would that be?
An airshow stunt in a hot-rodded Bearcat?
That aint a kosher record..

How many hours have you got behind a V-1650-9 @ 90in boost?
Or WFO behind a Napier Sabre?

How many of those F8F jockeys mentioned have `51H stick time?

I suggest you go back to the wwiiaircraftpeformance website & run the numbers of a mil-spec F8F vs `51H, it wont cut it against the equivalent
 load out toting `51H..

& [from memory] didn't Corky Meyer [Grumman test pilot] concede that the XF8F needed a lot of work to solve directional stability issues, & would be unacceptable to the USN as a service fighter until they did?

I note that Grumman had finally got around to fitting a decent blown bubble canopy of the kind used in operational service by Hawker fighters for quite some time already..

The F8F-1's climb record was recognized as a legitimate record by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. The aircraft was unmodified. The record was broken by modified F8F-2, Rare Bear, which currently holds the absolute speed record for piston engine aircraft.

You never answer a question, do you? What experience do you have with these engines? Ever fly any aircraft powered by anything beyond a rubber band?

Since you seem to be at odds with everyone, one should recognize that it's very unlikely that the problem resides with everyone.

The P-51H was a terrific performer in terms of speed. It was not nearly as agile as the F8F, and far less durable. Too late for WWII and considered too frail and unreliable to be employed as a fighter-bomber in Korea, it never flew a single combat sortie. All were relegated to ANG service rather quickly as they were obsolete as fighters by 1948. The lightweight structure of the H model made them less suitable for the air to ground mission than the stronger, but heavier P-51D.

[J.A.W.]

Ah yes, 'answering questions' eh,
- here a few more for you Ww..

You get that `51H stuff from Wiki did you Ww?

Got a link to verify your 'FAI' ratified USN time-to-climb Bearcat record claim?

How is it that the F-51H operational service documents
[that I have provided a link to] - are under SAC auspices & dated 1949?

Do you actually read the posts/data links provided?
[- Since the real reasons as to why the `51H was not utilized in Korea have already been discussed - & do tell us about the F8F service in Korea too.. l.o.l..].

AFAIK, that USN stunt - 'record' - was not FAI recognised, & did not meet existing FAI rules or categories..

That airshow stunt Bearcat was indeed modified from mil-spec & took off into a very stiff headwind.. a cheater, in fact..

The USAF was very likely not interested in trying for climb records with its recips' - since that might well make its new turbo-jets look lame.. although the need for the long range abilities of the Mustang [ see P-82 'Betty Joe' record]
kept them in the service of the SAC..


But if you are serious in your assertion that an F8F could beat a 1950's era
USAF F-104 or RAF E.E. Lightning interceptor climb rate, let alone `70s F-15   ["time to climb until the 1980s"..] well, then your credibility is to put it mildly, ah, suspect..
 

& what about the `51H stick time question,- is Wiki really the best you can do?

 L.O.L...

& as to being 'at odds with everyone' well, frankly if it comes down to
'everyone' vs the original data sets - as documented in official service acceptance test programs - then I'll definitely give the weight of validity to the established facts  - over your unsubstantiated 'opinion'...
 

[Masherbrum]

 Doolittle didn't want `38s for the 8th AF - Period - Not even one FG..

But at least the 56th FG got to keep their `47s..

Did a `38 FG unit A2A high score in ETO or MTO?

No..

How did their actual claim/loss stats compare with `47s & `51s in Europe?

Not real good..

How many hours do you have up  - on posting here?

I have been in the cockpit behind a couple of radial types,

Bristol Hercules & in a DC-3..  So what?

Relevance to the facts about the thread topic is...what?

& an apparently snide tag-line threat of banning?

Not real cool, man .. talk 'bout playing the man, not the ball...

[ad-hominem, indeed..]

Absolutely ad-hominem.   Doolittle flew the 38 while in the ETO and said that it was "the sweetest-flying plane in the sky".  Mark Hubbard was one of the biggest critics of the Craft, not Doolittle.   So enough with the Doolittle criticisms.

In the ETO, P-38s had around 130,000 sorties with a loss of 1.3% overall.  ETO P-51s which posted a 1.1% loss, considering that the P-38s were vastly outnumbered and suffered from poorly thought-out tactics.   

100+ Aces were made in the PTO.

But again, how many hours do you have flying R-2800 engine aircraft?   Sitting in a cockpit doesn't count.

[Randy1]

 Indeed, a unmodified F8F-1 held the time to climb record from 1946 into the mid 1980s. From a standing start to 10,000 feet in 96 seconds.

If I remember right it was the Army's giant, lifting helicopter that beat that record.

[Widewing]

Ah yes, 'answering questions' eh,
- here a few more for you Ww..

You get that `51H stuff from Wiki did you Ww?

Blah, blah, blah...

I have more primary source documents in my collection than you can possibly imagine. Almost all have been digitized, filling two 1 terabyte drives. I also have a vast collection on books and manuals.

The F8F's time to climb record was for Piston Engine aircraft. Be that as it may, A jet didn't beat it for about 8 years. Oh, and that "stiff headwind" is hysterical.

How about a recent comparison? At the 2011 Jacqueline Cochran Air Show, an F8F-2 and P-51D took off side by side. Okay, not really. The F8F was passing 2,000 feet before the Mustang had the gear coming up.

Watch the first 30 seconds...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5HfqMtksBI

I also like this brief video... The F8F pilot makes a couple of high speed passes at MIL power, which you will never see at an airshow....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw6UWPaTUt0

My friend Chris Fahey is a pilot for the Planes of Fame Museum. Chris was a career F-16 pilot and currently flies for Delta. Chris has many hours in the F8F-2, P-51D, P-38J, F6F-5, F-86 and MiG-15 to name just a few. I asked him, what in his experienced opinion was the best air to air prop fighter ever made. Without hesitation, Chris stated, "the F8F Bearcat". He called it the closest thing with a propeller to an F-16.



Left to right... Steve Hinton, John Hinton, Chris Fahey, Stewart Dawson, Kevin Eldridge and the mighty F7F-3N Tigercat.

[Widewing]

Here's an interesting link to air to air kill totals for US fighters, fighter bombers and light bombers.

http://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/aircraftvictorieswwii.htm

[earl1937]

Wonderwall.. an Oasis of inanity in a sometimes cogent thread..

What is your ETOH blood level currently Eagledad?

Bit slurrry there perhaps..L.O.L..

To quote Hal 9000, further response to your posts in this time frame
"can serve no purpose"..

Ok, didn't mean to start a argument, so let me put the 8th Air Force records into the discussion, during WW2. First, here is the official Aces records in the ETO:
Francis "Gabby" Gabreski 28.0 DSC 56FG P-47  
Robert S. Johnson 27.0 DSC 56FG P-47  
George Preddy 26.8 DSC 352FG P-51  
John C. Meyer 24.0 DSC 352FG P-51  
Ray Wetmore 22.6 DSC 359FG P-51  
David C. Schilling 22.5 DSC 56FG P-47  
Dominic Gentile 21.8 DSC 4FG P-47  
Fred J. Christensen 21.5 SS 56FG P-47  
Walker M. 'Bud' Mahurin 20.8 DSC 56FG P-47  
Glenn E. Duncan 19.5 DSC 353FG P-47  
As you can see, these are the top ten aces, but what I was asking about was the "best" fighter-bomber of WW2. There are serveral factors which should be considered, Range: P-47D, 800 miles, P-38, 1300 miles, the P-51D's, 1650 miles. Now this is with a normal combat load for that aircraft. I am sure that the ranges of all three could be extended by adjusting ord loadout, but for the purposes of this discussion, we will use load out range.
Next, service ceiling: P-51D, 41,900 feet, P-47D, 43,000 feet, the P-38, 44,000 feet. Service ceiling is defined as when the aircraft will no longer sustain a 100 foot per min climb, and with out ords and probalay just enough fuel to get them to their respective service ceiling and back to base.
Next, ord load outs: P-51D,2,000 lbs of bombers and or 10, 5" unguided rockets, the P-47, 2,500 lbs AND 10, 5" unguided rockets, the P-38, 4,000 lbs of bombs and or 10, 5" unguided rockets, and with 2500 lbs of bombs, could also carry a M10, 4.5" rocket rack.
One of the things which we should consider is this: The P-47's were first in air to air combat of the three in the ETO and were fighting against the "elit" of the German fighter pilots. The P-51D's were not introduced to the ETO until early 44, and by then, a lot of the first class German pilots were taking the big "dirt" nap. The P-38 was never really used as a straight intereceptor except under extreme conditions. But what we are talking about is one which can act as a fighter-bomber, yet still be able to defend itself if need be. All three of these aircraft meants that quailification, so back we go to the Main question".
I vote for the P-38J for one reason, it had 20MM cannon to help defend itself as well as ground attack activities.

 A restored and privately owned P-38, in "D" day colors!

 A great pic of the "Jug"

 A beautiful sight!

We all have our "favorite" ride, so I guess that it is a subjective matter as to which is the best over all!

[Saxman]

Here's an interesting link to air to air kill totals for US fighters, fighter bombers and light bombers.

http://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/aircraftvictorieswwii.htm

Always wondered how many victories the Corsair would have ended with had it been declared fit for carrier service from the start, and Vought been able to keep up with the manufacturing demands.

[J.A.W.]

Absolutely ad-hominem.   Doolittle flew the 38 while in the ETO and said that it was "the sweetest-flying plane in the sky".  Mark Hubbard was one of the biggest critics of the Craft, not Doolittle.   So enough with the Doolittle criticisms.

In the ETO, P-38s had around 130,000 sorties with a loss of 1.3% overall.  ETO P-51s which posted a 1.1% loss, considering that the P-38s were vastly outnumbered and suffered from poorly thought-out tactics.   

100+ Aces were made in the PTO.

But again, how many hours do you have flying R-2800 engine aircraft?   Sitting in a cockpit doesn't count.

R-2800s make perfectly adequate bomb truck, or transport mills - sure,
where a dedicated flight engineer can fart about fettling throttle/boost/mixture/cooling gills & etc..

All stuff a fighter jock don't need with a Messerschmitt  up his arse..

& stuff a `51 pilot [& even a radial powered 190 jockey] didn't have to do..

You are the one being 'absolutely ad-hominem'..
- how much `51H stick time do you have? L.O.L...