PDA

View Full Version : Skychimp, et al



chris455
08-22-2004, 03:24 PM
Skychimp,
which was generally considered to be the better high-altitude ship, my beloved Jug or the ever deadly P-38?
I know that both were competent at extreme altitudes, but I always beleived that the Jug was the high-speed, high altitude killer bar none. However, while reading "Kearby's Thunderbolts" I am getting the consistent impression that many in the USAAF regarded the P-38 as the better high altitude ship.

Enlighten me Chimpster.
Chris

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

chris455
08-22-2004, 03:24 PM
Skychimp,
which was generally considered to be the better high-altitude ship, my beloved Jug or the ever deadly P-38?
I know that both were competent at extreme altitudes, but I always beleived that the Jug was the high-speed, high altitude killer bar none. However, while reading "Kearby's Thunderbolts" I am getting the consistent impression that many in the USAAF regarded the P-38 as the better high altitude ship.

Enlighten me Chimpster.
Chris

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

Fliger747
08-22-2004, 03:42 PM
The P38 had one terrible defect for high altitude work, one which does not show up in the performance figures! It had just about no cockpit heat! For those of you who have not experienced COLD, by which I mean -40 to -50F, it's at best a serious performance inhibitor! Having flown recripocating powered prop planes at temps down to -60F without a lot of heat, it's a challenge, and would be a much bigger challenge to fly and fight! This was a more serious problem in Europe where combats could and were conducted at high alttiude. In the Pacific combats were more frequent at "mid" altitudes and the upper air was a bit 'warmer'.

The P38 vrs. P47 equation was more in the P38's favor in the Pacific.

p1ngu666
08-22-2004, 04:08 PM
hm
for me, i do better in jug so thats where id stick my hat
both capable for sure

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
<123_GWood_JG123> NO SPAM!

RAC_Pips
08-22-2004, 05:12 PM
The higher the P-47 went, the better it's performance. Up high it even outperformed the Mustang, except in range. Which is why it excelled in combat over Europe, and why the 56th FG refused to change over to the Mustang.

Poor cockpit heating and less effective engine performance of the Allison engine at altitude (over 25,000ft cooling, supercharger impellor or turbine speeds were limited) lead to it being less favoured by the 8th Air Force.

In the Pacific though it was the reverse. Lower ambient temperatures and fights at lower altitudes let the P-38 shine. And having two engines was a definite plus.

The fighting style too was different in the Pacific than in Europe. Over Europe the P-38 fought against aircraft that could climb and turn better than it - so there was no clear advantage for the P-38 pilots. Over the Pacific though the Japanese were primarily angles fighters, and the P-38 was a born and bred BnZ master. High speed, deadly fire power and excellent climb let it excel over the Japanese aircraft.

When the 9th FS of the 49th FG were re-equipped with the P-47 in New Guinea (P-38's being very limited supply) in early 1944they hated it. there kill rate dropped considerably and morale dropped. then it shot skyward again once they transitioned to the p-38 a couple of months later. Only Kirby's 348th FG seemed to enjoy flying th P-47 - but they had trained on it form the word go and could fully utilise it's strengths.

Korolov
08-22-2004, 06:24 PM
I'm no Skychimp, but from what I know, the P-47 was a better performer if you're talking about 30,000ft+ altitude.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

SkyChimp
08-22-2004, 06:43 PM
You're right. You're no SkyChimp. I'm much, much hairier.

I dunno that answer to the question. I'd suggest the P-47 was better way up high, over 25,000 feet. But the P-38 entirely sufficient. I sort of think its a wash.

The two-engine advantage of the P-38 apparently gave pilots a lot of comfort. Two engines were good insurance against loss due to mechanical problems. Statistics suggest, however, that the P-38 and P-47 survived battle damage roughly equally. This is probably owed to the great strength and durability of the radial engine of the P-47, and the multiple in-lines of the P-38.

Which was better? The P-38 or P-47? That ain't been answered in 60 years. I don't think we'll answer it now. But that's good. If we knew all the answers to all the questions we have about WWII planes, they'd get boring real fast.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg

Blutarski2004
08-23-2004, 09:35 AM
I cannot recall the name of the author, but he is the English historian who has written several well regarded books on the 8AF. In one of his books, THE MIGHTY EIGHTH WAR MANUAL, he states that the high altitude woes which beset the P38 in the ETO were never satisfactorily resolved - even in the J and L models. He claims that even late model P38's were operationally restricted to no higher than 22,000 ft altitude.

Hence, laurels for high-altitude performance must go to the P47.

This does contradict certain popular wisdom on the topic, but the author has done a great deal of archival research and is quite well regarded. his comments cannot easily be dismissed.

BLUTARSKI

VFA-195 Snacky
08-23-2004, 10:31 AM
Found this on the web. Guess it depends on who you ask.
"It was a marveleous aircraft! It was the best aircraft I flew in the war by far. I never flew the P-51, its been one of my life regrets, but I flew just about everything else there was. I liked the P-38s rate of climb, its speed, the way it handled, and its firepower directly out the nose. The P-38 would turn with almost anything, in fact it would out turn the P-47, out climb it, and out maneuver it. The P-38 was one of the great aircraft of WWII."...Charles MacDonald, P-38 Ace

If you rely on FB to make a decision as to which is best then it's a no brainer the P47 in FB is much better all around than the P38. Not trying to turn this into a whine thread, but the more you read about how great the P38 was the more it is clear there are serious problems with the FB version.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."

SKULLS Virga
08-23-2004, 11:18 AM
"If you rely on FB to make a decision as to which is best then it's a no brainer the P47 in FB is much better all around than the P38. Not trying to turn this into a whine thread, but the more you read about how great the P38 was the more it is clear there are serious problems with the FB version."

I have flown both aircraft in FB quite a bit - while I don't claim to be an ace I have found the opposite to be true. I can make the P-38 do amazing things compaired to the lethargic Jug.

http://img68.photobucket.com/albums/v206/SKULLS_Virga/Signature_2.jpg

geetarman
08-23-2004, 01:43 PM
I'm with Skulls. In FB, I think the 38 has an edge on the 47, although I love the T-bolt.

Other than high alt engine problems with the 38, I think the problem with the 38 in the ETO was that the 109, and to a lesser degree the 190, were just better performers than the 38 at higher altitudes. The same could not be said for most of the Japanese aircraft. Alternatively, the 47 did very good up high.

I fly the 38 almost all the time in FB. I think it's the best overall US aircraft. That said, the German aircraft bested it up high. Now down low, I don't think I've read a single account from a US pilot who said they could not handle a 109 or 190.

VFA-195 Snacky
08-23-2004, 03:33 PM
Well I take your word for it, but my experience has been disappointing with the P38 so far. I try to spend more and more time with it, but in all honesty it is not an airplane you can fly alone and be productive. Another problem is a lot of the servers I go into are filled with 50ft alt furballs involving Yaks and KIs.lol
The few times I did find myself above 6000m in a fight with the P38 I found it very sluggish and feeling underpowered compared to the P47 which seems to float up there in orbit. I'm not giving up on it because it is such a cool airplane, but it sure is tough to stay alive in it. I think if it had just a little more top end speed or was able to zoom climb a little better that would make all the difference in the world.


http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."