Q for you P38J folks

[FLOOB]

And just to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you're completely wrong FLOOB about twins being a bad idea that was replaced as soon as possible, here are some late war (post war) american twins. And they were truly excellent.

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

And the british made this powerhouse that 'Winkle' Brown said was the best prop fighter he had ever flown.

    "...the next two months of handling and deck landing assessment trials were to be an absolute joy; from the outset the Sea Hornet was a winner!"
    "The view from the cockpit, positioned right forward in the nose beneath a one-piece aft-sliding canopy was truly magnificent. The Sea Hornet was easy to taxi, with powerful brakes... the takeoff using 25 lb (2,053 mm Hg, 51" Hg) boost and flaps at one-third extension was remarkable! The 2,070 hp (1,540 kW) Merlin 130/131 engines fitted to the prototypes were to be derated to 18 lb (1,691 Hg, 37" Hg) boost and 2,030 hp (1,510 kW) as Merlin 133/134s in production Sea Hornets, but takeoff performance was to remain fantastic. Climb with 18 lb boost exceeded 4,000 ft/min (20.32 m/sec)"...
    "In level flight the Sea Hornet's stability about all axes was just satisfactory, characteristic, of course, of a good day interceptor fighter. Its stalling characteristics were innocuous, with a fair amount of elevator buffeting and aileron twitching preceding the actual stall"...
    "For aerobatics the Sea Hornet was absolute bliss. The excess of power was such that manoeuvres in the vertical plane can only be described as rocket like. Even with one propeller feathered the Hornet could loop with the best single-engine fighter, and its aerodynamic cleanliness was such that I delighted in its demonstration by diving with both engines at full bore and feathering both propellers before pulling up into a loop!"

(Image removed from quote.)

None of those aircraft were particularly good fighters and certainly not better than available alternatives. They were more expensive though.

[WaffenVW]

The problem it could not compete with modern light fighters when it got to the target. Spit and 109 were short legged - but many other planes were not.

I'm sorry but that is just not right.

"Eduard Tratt was born on 24 February 1919 at Würzburg. In 1937, Tratt was serving as a Fahnenjunker in the Luftwaffe. At the beginning of World War 2, Leutnant Tratt was serving in 1./ZG 1 flying Bf 110 Zerstörer twin-engine fighters. He participated in the invasion of Poland but did not achieve his first victories until 1 June 1940 when he shot down three RAF Hurricane fighters over Dunkirk. In July 1940, Tratt was transferred to 1./Erprobungsgruppe 210. He flew numerous combat missions over England. By the end of 1940, he had 12 victories to his credit. Tratt served with 1./SKG 210 on the Eastern front during Operation Barbarossa. He was to fly many ground attack missions over Russia but was able to record nine victories over Russian fighters by the end of 1941. In January 1942, Tratt was transferred to 4./ZG 26. On 18 February 1942, Oberleutnant Tratt was wounded by ground fire over Rzhev. He was appointed Staffelkapitän of 6./ZG 26 in March. Tratt was again wounded by enemy fire on 27 March. Oberleutnant Tratt was awarded the Ritterkreuz on 12 April 1942 for 20 victories and for his ground-support activities in Russia with I./SKG 210. On 1 May 1942, Tratt was transferred as Staffelkapitän to 2./ZG 2. He was appointed Staffelkapitän of 1./ZG 1 on 27 July 1942. On 30 January 1943, Tratt suffered serious wounds and his Bordfunker Fw. Rennefahrt was killed when he crash-landed Bf 110 G-2 (W.Nr. 5198) “RH+YK” after suffering engine damage. On his recovery, Tratt commanded Erprobungskommando 25. The unit undertook the testing of new weapons for use against the Allied four-engine bombers. On 11 October 1943, Hauptmann Tratt was appointed Gruppenkommandeur of II./ZG 26 flying Me 410s. He led the unit on Reichsverteidigung duties. On 29 November, he shot down a USAAF B-17 four-engine bomber to record his 30th victory. He recorded his 38th, and last, victory, another B-17, on 20 February 1944. Tratt was shot down and killed with his Bordschützen Ofw. Gillert in combat near Nordhausen in the Harz mountains on 22 February 1944, flying Me 410 A-1 (W.Nr. 420 410) “3U + Blue 1”. He was posthumously awarded the Eichenlaub (Nr 437) on 26 March and promoted to the rank of Major. He was the highest scoring Zerstörer pilot of the war.
    Eduard Tratt was credited with 38 victories having flown over 350 missions. He recorded 18 victories over the Western front, including at least four four-engine heavy bombers and at least five Lightnings. In addition he claimed 24 tanks and 26 aircrafts destroyed on the ground. "

[WaffenVW]

None of those aircraft were particularly good fighters

Yes they were. I'm not going to take your word for it.

[FLOOB]

Yes they were. I'm not going to take your word for it.

You don't have to.

[WaffenVW]

No the p38 was demonstrably not the best fighter of the pacific. The 110 was not designed to be a multi-role fighterbomber. Destroyer is a name they came up for the plane.

It was demonstrably the best and it demonstrated it by creating the two highest scoring american aces of the war. Ok, you clearly know next to nothing. Destroyer was not the name of the plane, but the role it was designed to fill in the luftwaffe.

You seem like the kind of person that's just too intolerable to bother with trying to educate.

[artik]

@WaffenVW

Personal record says nothing. Pilot is virtually always more important than plane:

IL-2 pilots time-to-time shut down 190s and 109s..
Rudel had an air-to-air victory(s) in Ju-87
Good pilots in Zeros shut down average pilots in F6Fs

And yes 110 is formidable opponent that shouldn't be disregarded. Believe me if I met Bozon's Mosquito in Yak-3 my survival chances aren't high while Yak-3 is clearly superior to Mosquito in pure dog-fight - but Bozon is just much better pilot.

If you can claim that this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_110_operational_history#Battle_of_Britain  is incorrect - i.e. an average LW pilot could fight in 110 on equal terms against Hurricanes then would you please provide good reliable sources for such claims.

[FLOOB]

It was demonstrably the best and it demonstrated it by creating the two highest scoring american aces of the war. Ok, you clearly know next to nothing. Destroyer was not the name of the plane, but the role it was designed to fill in the luftwaffe.

You seem like the kind of person that's just too intolerable to bother with trying to educate.

Don't resort to personal insults. Airplanes don't create aces, the stuka was obsolete crap, look what Rudel was able to do with it. The F6f far surpassed the p38 as a more effective fighter. With a 13:1 kill ratio and by the way having the most ace pilots of any american fighter.

The U.S. Navy's all-time leading ace, Captain David McCampbell USN (Ret), scored all his 34 victories in the Hellcat. He once described the F6F as "... an outstanding fighter plane. It performed well, was easy to fly and was a stable gun platform. But what I really remember most was that it was rugged and easy to maintain."

Pretty much the opposite of the p38.

[WaffenVW]

Artik, you cannot describe a machine as 'could not compete' and 'formidable opponent' at the same time. Those two statements are pretty mutually exclusive. From your avatar I take it you're israeli and we may have some language barrier issues here.

In the battle of britain the 110 did well against hurricanes right up to the infamous 'stay with the bombers' edict from Goering, robbing the 110 of its greatest performance advantages over the hurricane: speed and altitude, and allowing the hurricanes to exploit the 110 greatest weakness: acceleration.

[WaffenVW]

Fun fact: Pat Pattle one of the greatest RAF aces (may have had as many as 50 kills in total) was shot down in his hurricane over Greece and killed by a 110.

[artik]

Artik, you cannot describe a machine as 'could not compete' and 'formidable opponent' at the same time. Those two statements are pretty mutually exclusive. From your avatar I take it you're israeli and we may have some language barrier issues here.

Formidable opponent - one that can give you some sweat while fighting it and one that can eat you when you make a mistake.
Can compete - is one that can fight on equal or almost equal terms.

I don't think I wrong in my English that much

In the battle of britain the 110 did well against hurricanes right up to the infamous 'stay with the bombers' edict from Goering, robbing the 110 of its greatest performance advantages over the hurricane: speed and altitude.

It has nothing to do with tactics. The problem of close escort vs aggressive escort were always around - 109s, P-51s, Yaks suffered from such a problem as well so?

[WaffenVW]

That's why the USAF didn't fly close escort, but you're missing the essential point: The 110 did well against hurricanes before Goerings edict.

[FLOOB]

Careful artik. If you keep responding with logic and factual data he will insult you and then put you on his ignore list. 

[WaffenVW]

Not trying to be an bellybutton here Artik but:


formidable
[fawr-mi-duh-buh l]

adjective
1.
causing fear, apprehension, or dread:
a formidable opponent.
2.
of discouraging or awesome strength, size, difficulty, etc.; intimidating:
a formidable problem.
3.
arousing feelings of awe or admiration because of grandeur, strength, etc.
4.
of great strength; forceful; powerful:
formidable opposition to the proposal.

[FLOOB]

It was demonstrably the best and it demonstrated it by creating the two highest scoring american aces of the war. Ok, you clearly know next to nothing. Destroyer was not the name of the plane, but the role it was designed to fill in the luftwaffe.

You seem like the kind of person that's just too intolerable to bother with trying to educate.

Zerstorer was the name of the role invented in conjuction with the 110. The 110 being the first and sole zerstorer aircraft in the new role designated zerstorer. Not that any of this quibbling over vocabulary is really relevant.

[bozon]

Couple of things. Saying that the 110 and the p38 were never purpose built to be a good pure fighter isn't true, that's exactly what they were built for. And it would be pretty dumb to replace single engine fighters with planes that sucked and were more expensive and required twice as many crewmen in the case of the 110, which by early war required single engine escort fighters to protect it.

Again, you think that a short range interceptor is the only role for a fighter. That is one role for a fighter and the one at which single-engine fighters excel. No one would design a twin-engine plane to fill a role that a single does as good or better, and no airforce will buy it. Both the 38 and the 110 were built for roles for which the singles were considered inadequate. The 38 started out as a high alt interdceptor, to be used mainly against bombers. For this reason it has a cannon (atypical for american planes) and turbo super-chargers which make little sense at low altitudes. It was the best climbing american plane for almost the entire war. Who would compete with it in 1942? The P40? P39? Even the first P-47s were no as good. Unfortunately for the 38s German bombers were a null factor by the time the US joined the war.

So they made it into an escort fighter, because no other allied plane could fly as high and have the required range. Finally, 2 years later the P-47s matured and carried 2, then 3 DTs. another year past and finally the P-51 showed up. All that time, the allied had no single engine fighter able to escort bombers all the way to the target. Except for mosquitoes that is, but they were twins too, never intended to be day fighters, and needed even more in other roles. PTO - any suggestion for a single engine fighter that could do the P-38s job better before late-44/early 45? F4Us were there (land based), P-47s were there, but most of the time could not reach the action.