Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Max on September 15, 2015, 09:30:29 AM
-
I rarely fly a P38 so here's a question for those who do:
P38 J, 75% fuel, no bombs or rockets...How many minutes would it take you to climb to 24K from a 0 level airfield, traveling 1.5 sectors? Assume WEP was used.
:aok
-
Rough guess: perhaps between 7 and 8 minutes.
-
That's roughly what I came up with using the climb rate chart. Seemed a bit quick but I'll defer to you're expertise...thanks.
-
The P38 can actually climb vertical very well, especially right after take off. If you climb manually going a bit slower than the climb charts you can actually climb much more steeply compared to if you hit altX, however you will be going a bit slower once you level out. I like to take off, circle the base 2 or 3 times using a spiral climb, and be about 10K in under 5 minutes. So I'd recommend manually climbing almost to stall limits to gain alt, then level out after you climb to gain speed the rest of the way.
-
The P38 can actually climb vertical very well, especially right after take off. If you climb manually going a bit slower than the climb charts you can actually climb much more steeply compared to if you hit altX, however you will be going a bit slower once you level out. I like to take off, circle the base 2 or 3 times using a spiral climb, and be about 10K in under 5 minutes. So I'd recommend manually climbing almost to stall limits to gain alt, then level out after you climb to gain speed the rest of the way.
You do not have to manually do anything if you don't want to. Just type ".speed XXX" where X is the speed you want the autopilot to hold
-
At default climb, a P-38J at 75% fuel, using WEP from the start until it runs out, reaches 24k after almost exactly 8 minutes and a horizontal travel of about 27 miles. (No wind conditions)
-
At default climb, a P-38J at 75% fuel, using WEP from the start until it runs out, reaches 24k after almost exactly 8 minutes and a horizontal travel of about 27 miles. (No wind conditions)
Did it take about 9 minutes total to test that? :D
-
what fighter is the King of climbing to 24K fastest? I assume the K4? Of course not counting any of the perk planes.
-
The p38... Every major airforce had to learn the hard way that twin engine fighters are a bad idea. Poor historians, that's the term I like to use to describe individuals who like to learn things the hard way.
-
The p38... Every major airforce had to learn the hard way that twin engine fighters are a bad idea. Poor historians, that's the term I like to use to describe individuals who like to learn things the hard way.
Like the F-15 ?
:devil
-
what fighter is the King of climbing to 24K fastest? I assume the K4? Of course not counting any of the perk planes.
I would be surprised if the K4 wasn't the quickest including the perk planes. That 10 minute monster WEP lasts all the way up to 24K and beyond. The two top Spitfires are almost as good in performance but they'll run out of WEP after 5 minutes.
-
The p38... Every major airforce had to learn the hard way that twin engine fighters are a bad idea. Poor historians, that's the term I like to use to describe individuals who like to learn things the hard way.
That's an unhistorical view. The twins got an undeserved bad reputation early in the war because of how the 110 performed in the battle of britain, and the P-38's problems in europe. People got it wrong. The real historical fact is that in 1940 the spitfire and 109 were in a class of their own and ALL other fighters no matter the number of engines and seats, were obsolete. The 110's performance was better or on par with all other fighters in the world at that time. The hurricane, the P-39, the P-40, the french fighters, the dutch fighters, all the russian fighters, the italians, you name it. The 110 in 1939-1941 and P-38 in 1942-1943 were at least as good if not better than all the single engine fighters in the world EXCEPT the spitfire and 109.
History should reflect that the spitfire and 109 were EXCEPTIONAL in their time, not that the twins were sub par.
-
You understand that your argument that the twin engine fighter was not a bad idea is that the much cheaper spitfire and 109 were exceptionally good? I just want to be clear.
-
The KI44 of 1942 beats the P38.
-
The twins was not a bad idea. The P-38 and 110 were not designed to replace single engine fighters, but to provide an additional capability as long range fighters. Only very late in the war did single engine long range fighters become practical due to advances in engine design and aerodynamics. The top two US aces flew twins.
@icepack lol I don't think so!
-
And the most awesome, groundbreaking, devastatingly superior fighter of WWII was a twin! :devil
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Messerschmitt_Me_262A_at_the_National_Museum_of_the_USAF.jpg)
-
Why do people insist to measure a fighter in a duel. This has been proven many times as a folley. A single engine plane is better in a duel. If all you want from your Fighter is to take off, fly a few miles into a scrap and quickly RTB, a one engine Fighter is your cheaper and better solution. This was sufficient for 109 and spits over the canal and for the Russian fighters with their vodka bottle size fuel tanks.
Once range got into the equation, the singles suffered. 109s could not do much beyond the channel. Then it was the spits turn to not reach far enough. The spits were nearly out of work for the 2nd half of the war and were thrown into attack roles for which they are not well suited. The only fighters with the range to do anything meaningful were the 38s, until finally the p51 with DTs arrived. Still the 38 was the most successful land-based Fighter in the PTO mostly thanks to its range.
The nights fighters were entirely dominated by the twins. As Fighter bombers the twins are superior to the singles in almost every way. Generally, the twins are much more versatile and could perform or be easily adjusted to perform a wide array of tasks that singles could not do as well, or at all.
On paper the F4U is a much better Fighter than the F6F. On real carrier decks in the real world, the F6F proved otherwise. There is more than one metric to consider when evaluating which is better and usually a mix of models is better overall than a single model that tries to do everything. An airforce of twin fighters is a foolish idea, and an airforce of singles is limited.
-
Why do people insist to measure a fighter in a duel. This has been proven many times as a folley. A single engine plane is better in a duel. If all you want from your Fighter is to take off, fly a few miles into a scrap and quickly RTB, a one engine Fighter is your cheaper and better solution. This was sufficient for 109 and spits over the canal and for the Russian fighters with their vodka bottle size fuel tanks.
Once range got into the equation, the singles suffered. 109s could not do much beyond the channel. Then it was the spits turn to not reach far enough.
Bozon you taking it to other extreme which ins't right as well.
Unless you are carrier fighter operating in pacific or running strategic deep bombing campaign over seas in Douhet style (that its results are still controversial) you do not really need that long range aircraft.
Neither Russians nor German actually needed long range fighters - most of activity was on short tactical ranges. Only small amount of sorties were long range ones. For example LW hadn't even had strategic bomber force because to be honest it would be time waste - you still couldn't get to factories at Ural Mountains, you couldn't bomb factories in USA, even in Britain it would be virtually impossible due to RAF strength. So LW had good tactical bomber forces, Russians as well.
Russians and German forces operated against tactical target in great efficiency - and it didn't required long range and BTW not high altitude.
Interesting notes regarding what considered best and what needed:
- There was Yak-9D - long range Yak-9 variant at field extra fuel tanks were disabled because there were rarely needed. There were Yak-9DD that had range of ~2,300km - and without external fuel tanks by design to reduce the drag (somewhat between P-38 and P-47 with tanks) but not many of 9DDs were produced due to limited need.
- MiG-3 in 1941 had very good high altitude performance - better than German counterparts. Yet its production stopped because it wasn't needed and all planes were optimized for low altitude performance.
This is exactly the opposite to what was done by USAF. Not because Russians couldn't produce good planes - but quite the opposite - they actually did wonders considering the situation: lack of aluminium, poor production facilities and poorly trained work force.
On paper the F4U is a much better Fighter than the F6F. On real carrier decks in the real world, the F6F proved otherwise. There is more than one metric to consider when evaluating which is better and usually a mix of models is better overall than a single model that tries to do everything. An airforce of twin fighters is a foolish idea, and an airforce of singles is limited.
F4U came too late - it was useless for carriers until Brits sorted it out how to operate them. But heh... Brits operated Seafires - I suggest to read what Eric Brown things of British carrier based planes. (He BTW admires F4Fs for carrier capabilities)
Also at PTO F6F was more than enough against Zeros. At the time F4U arrived Japanese air forces and were virtually none - only Kamikaze could operate with some success.
-
Artik, the 110 was an invaluable asset for the germans in the med, africa, middle east and russia. The mosquito was also invaluable for the RAF in the long range fighter/bomber role.
This is the kind of job the 110 was designed for. Long range escort. A job no 109 or spitfire could do:
(http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/7850-7/agr.jpg)
-
Artik,
Germans complained a lot about the short legs of the 109 during BoB. Later the LW action was almost exclusively defensive, and for that you need interceptors. I do not know why the Russians did not use long range bombers/fighters. It seems that the role of their airforce was mostly to support the ground troops and not to engege in a war of its own. Therefore the ranges were short and singles were sufficient. Besides, the Soviet doctrine seemed to prefer masses of cheap units. On such terms twins bring nothing new to the table.
The F4U first flew in 1940. In went into trials in 1941 before the US even joined the war. The reason it came too late was that Vaught built the best plane to win a dogfight and forgot that it is supposed to operate from carriers. The first production F6F first flew in late 1942, much later than the F4U. It made it to carriers before the F4U and made the latter the second USN Fighter just because Grumann did not build it to be the best plane in a duel, and had their priorities almost reversed of Vaught's. Eric Brown landed a mosquito on a carrier. That still does not make the mossie a good carrier plane. Same goes for the F4U. There are many parameters to consider and context above all. Twin fighters are not for everyone.
-
With the distinctive 900 liter droptanks (three times as large as the normal german DT) the 110D extended range version was one of the longest ranged twin engined aircraft of the war. Here flying top cover for an axis convoy in the med.
(http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g188/mutanthippie/Bf-110D-9ZG26-3U-T-Sicily-1941-01-1.jpg)
-
With the distinctive 900 liter droptanks (three times as large as the normal german DT) the 110D extended range version was one of the longest ranged twin engined aircraft of the war. Here flying top cover for an axis convoy in the med.
(http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g188/mutanthippie/Bf-110D-9ZG26-3U-T-Sicily-1941-01-1.jpg)
Thanks, I forgot convoy escort as a major role for twin engine fighters, both German and British (whirlwind, beufighter, mossie).
-
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. And yeah they were ok as fighterBOMBERS since that's really what they were anyway, bombers. And the argument about long range single engine fighters not existing until late war would be valid, except that it's not true. There were very good long range single engine fighters at the beginning of the war. The B-239 is one example of many. Hell the zero started the war in the pacific and it had longer range than the p51D ever would.
Like I said from the beginning, every major airforce tried to make a twin engine fighter that they thought would be a world beater as an air supremacy fighter. And in the end each one of those twin engine supposed fighters were relegated to a different more suitable role. Sure out of pure necessity some of them were used as long range escorts even though they weren't particularly good at it(p38 eto). But as soon as it was possible they were replaced with something that wasn't a bad idea.
-
The P-38 was originally designed as a high altitude interceptor. The 110 was not designed as a 'jager' like the 109, but as a 'zerstorer' - a destroyer. A multi-purpose long range fighter bomber.
-
The P-38 was probably the best overall fighter in the pacific war bar none. That's why the two top scoring U.S. aces flew 38s. That second engine is a life saver when operating over open water. Sounds to me you're just holding on to your preconceptions without any supporting evidence at all.
-
Just one more picture to give a sense of scale to those massive drop tanks on the 110D. Each carry more than twice the fuel of a P-51's torpedo tanks.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KLSOJ1PbJu4/U9bPi4yxpoI/AAAAAAABFJw/mmOHTiyfTmc/s1600/Me-110D.jpg)
-
...
I do not know why the Russians did not use long range bombers/fighters. It seems that the role of their airforce was mostly to support the ground troops and not to engege in a war of its own.
...
Besides, the Soviet doctrine seemed to prefer masses of cheap units. On such terms twins bring nothing new to the table.
...
There is no "war of its own"
The reason Russian AF didn't required high altitude capabilities and range is the same reason it didn't required at Middle-East/North Africa.
Air Force operated together with ground forces in offensive/defensive - you can't run an offensive without supply lines of ammunition, fuel and food. Airforce can be very effectively used in interdiction role. Any offensive can be virtually stopped if you have enough air-power and have air-superiority. But air-force does not win wars on its own...
Now clearly twins age great advantage in such interdiction missions, but as air-superiority fighter only P-38 had success that could stand on its own against modern single engine fighters.
...
Besides, the Soviet doctrine seemed to prefer masses of cheap units. On such terms twins bring nothing new to the table.
...
You are missing one very important Soviet versatile twin... Pe-2
It has much more in common with Bf 110, Mosquito, Beaufighter than with other twin bombers. It was fast versatile, highly accurate dive bomber. It used in both land and naval operations - about 11,500 were produced.
It was almost as important as IL-2 in Soviet air force. Also IL-2 operated against targets that were closer to a front line Pe-2 operated into deeper territory and over water.
Look at this thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,374086.msg4983574.html#msg4983574
Note it also operated as night fighter.
-
This is the kind of job the 110 was designed for. Long range escort.
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.
-
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.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/F7F-3P_Tigercat.jpg/1024px-F7F-3P_Tigercat.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/North_American_XP-82_Twin_Mustang_44-83887.Color.jpg/1920px-North_American_XP-82_Twin_Mustang_44-83887.Color.jpg)
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!"
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/De_Havilland_Hornet_F1.jpg)
-
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 designed as an escort fighter, it failed at that and throughout it's service the luftwaffe tried to find a suitable role for it and it's descendants (210, 410). From fighter, to interceptor to maritime patrol to interceptor then radar platform and finally night interceptor. It's most successful role was as interceptor against unescorted bombers, something even the ju88 could do. When escorts showed up on the scene things changed drastically for the 110s though. Galland's view, correct imo, was that the p38 was the american attempt at an improved 110 which he viewed as a failure and a waste. Escort p38s in eto were safer prey than the bombers, indeed american p38 pilots felt that the luftwaffe fighters were targeting the p38s rather than the bombers.
-
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.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/F7F-3P_Tigercat.jpg/1024px-F7F-3P_Tigercat.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/North_American_XP-82_Twin_Mustang_44-83887.Color.jpg/1920px-North_American_XP-82_Twin_Mustang_44-83887.Color.jpg)
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!"
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/De_Havilland_Hornet_F1.jpg)
None of those aircraft were particularly good fighters and certainly not better than available alternatives. They were more expensive though.
-
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. "
-
None of those aircraft were particularly good fighters
Yes they were. I'm not going to take your word for it.
-
Yes they were. I'm not going to take your word for it.
You don't have to.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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, 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?
-
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.
-
Careful artik. If you keep responding with logic and factual data he will insult you and then put you on his ignore list. :aok
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Again? I never said that short range interceptor was the only role for a fighter, that's an interceptor's role. Straw man argument.
What fighters could do the job better than the p38? Besides most of the japanese, german, soviet, uk and italian single engine fighters, the p47, the f4u, the f6f. Even for photo recon peeps didn't like the p38. Even if a twin engine fighter was able to compete with a single engine fighter it would still be a bad idea. Imagine if all the time and resources that the americans wasted on trying to make the p38 into something were instead put into developing and manufacturing the viable single engine fighters already available. How many p47s could have been made for every p38 that was built?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,373106.0.html
Yep, p38 was caca.
-
Floob sounds like one of those players that always gets his arse out flown by someone in the P-38 and is lashing out.
-
Floob sounds like one of those players that always gets his arse out flown by someone in the P-38 and is lashing out.
You are hearing me now? Ack-Ack seems like one of those schizophrenic players who hears voices and always plays a p38 and uses the word arse even though he's american. You should be medicated man!