Real p38 pilots video

[FLOOB]

Yes but the Brewster was a pre war design and unlike spit and 109 a pretty limited one, against other pre war/EW planes it worked well but were too slow to be a real compeditor against most other planes. The Brewsters big luck was that plane performance is only a small part of aerial combat.

I absolutely disagree with both of these sentence you wrote.

[Randy1]

I think you have your timelines mixed up. . . .

Apples and oranges again.

[Zimme83]

I absolutely disagree with both of these sentence you wrote.

The problem with developing the Brewster is its small size, refitting it with an engine strong enough to give it a speed compeditive to for ex MW spit and 109:s would have been problematic, the small wings would also have problem to carry all that weight without loosing too much of the maneuverability.

But the Brewster was better than the reputation, an overweighted Brewster against zekes and Ki-43 is not a good idea but Neither Wildcats or Hurricanes did better.
As for the Finns they haf and advantage in Pilot skill and tactic that helped them being compeditive even against La-5 and spit V. But The Brewster still had a hard time against them.

[PR3D4TOR]

Apples and oranges again.

In what way? I call bullcrap.

[Randy1]

The brewster was a very good fighter plane compared to it's adversaries and the p38.

The Brewster is like the French Maginot Line.  It worked if you attacked it head on but it was just much easier to go around. 

[PR3D4TOR]

The specs for the 38 were above the 109s know of during late 30s during the spec development, design process and prototype stages.  Apples and oranges here.

I guess you could see it as apples and oranges in that one design was brilliant and game changing while, the other was an expensive dud.

The P-38 spec wise would be the best performance fighter of the day. 

As I've shown it simply wouldn't have been, even without the Mach tuck problem. The P-38 performed poorly compared to contemporary single engined fighters, even against earlier 1930's designs like the 109 and Spitfire.

[Zimme83]

Really hate to say it but i agree w predator. 

[PR3D4TOR]

There's a first for everything.

[Ack-Ack]

I guess you could see it as apples and oranges in that one design was brilliant and game changing while, the other was an expensive dud.


As I've shown it simply wouldn't have been, even without the Mach tuck problem. The P-38 performed poorly compared to contemporary single engined fighters, even against earlier 1930's designs like the 109 and Spitfire.

How was the P-38 an expensive dud?

[Mister Fork]

How was the P-38 an expensive dud?

Out of the gate it was...required a lot of 'upgrades' and modifications.  The versions delivered to the British were also a 'dud'.

[Oldman731]

How was the P-38 an expensive dud?

I've never been a 38 fan (as you know from Bigweek, Ack-Ack), and so far as I'm concerned it was less effective in ETO and MTO than our other available plane, the P-47, would have been  (and was).  But in the Pacific the 38's range was decisive, and its lack of performance was less significant because it faced inferior planes, given the tactics used and the ability to fly higher and dictate the engagement.

Wonder what became of Savge, he was the best 38 apologist I've encountered.

- oldman

[bustr]

Out of the gate it was...required a lot of 'upgrades' and modifications.  The versions delivered to the British were also a 'dud'.

The British ordered the fighter to be reduced to a DUDer dud by the removal of the supercharger and both engines right handed as part of the contract. With the supercharger installed during the British testing along with the proper handing of the engines in the ETO, who knows..... They may have changed their designation from  DUD to  dud and acknowledged it just needed a bit more TLC for prime time ETO.

The British ordered a DUD by speicifaction, Lockheed was producing evolving winners for the AAF off the same assembly lines. The standardization on right hand Allisons and no supercharger may have been due to wanting an ease of maintenance due to the large numbers of P40 in contract.

[PR3D4TOR]

It cost twice that of a P-51 and at least four times that of a 109G and whenever it met single engined German fighters in anything like a fair fight it got slaughtered. It was overly complicated and could easily kill inexperienced pilots if an engine lost power on take off, and it was difficult to bail out of. It did very well in the PTO against an inferior enemy, but not in Europe or North Africa. In Africa on 25 August 1943, JG 53 shot down 13 P-38 without losing a single 109. On 2 September they shot down 10 P-38 for the loss of one 109. 109 driver Kurt Buhligen who fought in North Africa says: “The P-38 fighter (and the B-24) were easy to burn. Once in Africa we were six and met eight P-38s and shot down seven." Adolf Galland: "It had similar shortcomings in combat to our Bf 110, our fighters were clearly superior to it."

[pembquist]

Still at 1250 for a brand new surplus one in 1946 it seems a hella bargain.

[PR3D4TOR]

Only until you need to fill it up.