Was the P-51 really that good?

[Takao]

Same as the P-51 and all other fighters

So were all of them fitted with four K-17 aerial photography cameras?

The F-6 Mustang photo reconnaissance models were fitted with two K-17 or K-27 cameras for high altitude recon, or else, two K-24 cameras for low altitude work.

But, I believe that Chris was referring to "Such tanks would be a bit of a disadvantage during dogfights."
Which is true for fighters across the board, and standard procedure was to drop the tanks just prior to entering combat or immediately after being bounced.

Thus, if drop tanks were used strictly for ferry flights or photo recon, it would be early in the war(1942ish) before a reasonable supply of drop tanks had been produced.

[Mil-tech Bard]

I have the following range setting for P-38, P-47 & P-51 fighters from a series of official USAAF test reports between March & June 1945 for the "Escort a B-29 formation within 300-miles of Japan flight" flight regime.

This regime escorted B-29 1/2 hour both to the target and leaving, w/20-min full military power in this "magic escort hour".

The B-29 escort flight regime incorporates 400 or more miles at optimum fuel conserving power setting below 20,000 ft, AKA the "Fuel lean, low engine RPM, low Prop RPM" settings Charles Lindberg pioneered for the 5th Air Force P-38's in early 1944.


1. P-38J-25 & P-38L
825 mile combat radius at 25,000 feet
1635 total air miles
1650 ground miles
425 Gal internal fuel
330 Gal External fuel (2x165 Gal tank)
Fuel Consumed 705 Gal
Fuel Reserve 50 Gal (45 Min)


2. P-47D-25

800-mile radius of action
Full internal full
330 Gal external fuel (2x165 gal drop tanks)


3. P-47N
900-mile radius of action
Full Internal Fuel
330 Gal External fuel (2x165 gal external tank)

1050-mile radius of action
Full Internal Fuel
440 Gal External fuel (2x165 gal and one 110 Gal external tank)

1100-mile radius of action
Full internal fuel
630 Gal external fuel (2x310 gal drop tanks overloaded by 5-gal ea.)


4. P-51D-20

800-mile radius of action
Full internal fuel
150 Gal External fuel (2x75 gal drop tanks)

850-mile radius of action
Full internal fuel
200 Gal External fuel (2x100 gal drop tanks)


With the replacement of one 165-gal tank with a 300-gal tank, a P-38L could reach 950-miles in the B-29 escort regime, but like the Zero fighter at Guadalcanal, it had to keep thje 165-gal fuel tank to get back.

The P-47N with two 300 gallon tanks or two 165 gallon and one 100 gallon tank outranged a P-51D with two 100 gallon tanks.

The P-51H could carry two 165 gallon tanks into combat, but it lacked the large 85-gal central tank of a P-51D, so had the same 850-mile range as the P-51D.

The folks at North American wanted to change that per the folowing:

HEADQUARTERS, ARMY AIR FORCES
WASHINGTON

4 April 1945

MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF, REQUIREMENTS DIVISION

SUBJECT: Fighter Cover for VLR Operations

[snip]

f. An automatic pilot will be in the P-47N's and subsequently in the P-51H.

[snip]

2. For your further information, the following projects are underway:

a. Installation of a Hammock Seat, a device which is hoped will materially lesson pilot fatigue.

b. Installation of thermos type containers for liquid nourishment.

c. Installation of an Anti-G suit with a valve which provides pulsation pressure (this provides massaging action to alleviate fatigue).

d. Collapsable rudder pedals which will enable the pilot to stretch his legs are being incorporated on all production P-47N's.

e. Under procurement from the Navy is a navigational computer used by Navy fighter pilots. This item was requested by the 301st Wing, and a basis of issue of one per pilot for that Wing has been requested.

f. Two (2) of the first seven (7) P-51H's are being modified to carry 305 gallons internal fuel. This is accomplished by increasing the capacity of the fuselage tank from 50 to 100 gallons. North American Aviation thinks that this aircraft, so modified, will be better balanced with respect to the CG than the present "D" series which incorporates the 85 gallon fuselage tank. This will give the airplane a radius of approximately 1400 miles, and if tests prove satisfactory, it is possible that all future P-51H's will be so modified.

S/
HENRY VICCELLIO
Colonel, Air Corps
Chief, Fighter & Air Defense Branch

Which would have pushed the range of the P-51H w/2 ea 165-gal tanks to 950 miles of the P-38L with a 300-gal plus 165-gal external tankage.

This 100-gal internal tankage P-51H would not have arrived in time for Operation Olympic in Nov 1945.

[Stiltzkin]

So...like this?

[Mil-tech Bard]

That pretty much covers it, save you need a June 1945 date -- when the tests were completed -- for the red range line.

[Mil-tech Bard]

Stiltzkin,

You really need to go and download this document --

History of the VIII United States Army Air Forces Fighter Command.

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/comp ... 17/rec/116

[Stiltzkin]

Good stuff, thanks Bard.

[Nickdfresh]

....
1) Unlike the P-47 and P-51, the P-38 couldn't' dive well. Its "do not exceed speed" was very low compared to the other two planes. As a result, the FW 190 and ME 109 could dive and escape from the P-38 - but they couldn't from the P-47 and P-51.
...

Hmmm...

Perhaps you can tell us why the P-38J and P-38L (the final versions with near all faults corrected) were used as a precision dive-bomber, then? The earlier versions were beset by problems, not least of which being outnumbered by the Luftwaffe Jagdwaffe unlike either the 51 or 47, as the P-38 soldiered in a period where the Western Allies had not yet achieved air superiority/supremacy. Perhaps you didn't realize the final version(s) of the P-38 had special dive-flaps installed? Yes, it was a complex aircraft with a lot of teething problems, but it was never employed well in the ETO and the final versions arrived a bit too late as the P-51D's were coming online. The P-51 was also a fine aircraft, but that doesn't make the P-38 shit....

And of course, the P-38 suffered from the usual drawbacks of a 2 engine fighter. It was more complex, was harder to fly, and required more training that a single engine fighter. It was also a bad strafer, since all its firewpower was in the nose, and its large size and strung out cooling system made in vulnerable to AAA.

As I stated, it was harder to fly, more complex, and expensive making the P-51 a better overall choice. However, you again manage to contradict yourself here as a twin-engine aircraft is LESS vulnerable than a single engined, water-cooled aircraft such as a Mustang - in fact this is one of the few sustainable criticisms of the Packard/Merlin powered P-51D's was they were vulnerable to ground fire. Some even called for using the P-38L as a ground attack aircraft in Korea precisely because of the twin-boom made it more survivable. It was also the reason that the Lightening was chosen as the USAAF Pacific fighter, because its twin-boom engine design could get pilots home over the ocean after long flights suffering battle damage and failures of one of the engines.

And, um, it was one of the best strifing fighters we had BECAUSE of the nose mounted firepower and the 20mm cannon!

[Nickdfresh]

I can't remember where I read it, but some pilots thought the P-38L was a better pure fighter than the P-51D - but only in the hands of a very experienced pilot. But the P-51 was easier to learn to fly and cheaper and easier to produce...

People say all sorts of stuff. Have read some comments from an American advisor to the Nationist Chinese Airforce saying that the P40N was better than the P51D as it was easier to fly well and P40N was already way faster than anything the Japanese were flying over China at that time.
...

I agree people "say things". But the P-38 was flown by Richard Bong, America's highest scoring ace and was a continual work in progress. The Lightenings were constantly improved and even Lucky Lindy was able to tweak the aircraft improving range and performance. There is some "proof in the pudding" here. Although some interesting results were achieved upgrading the P-40 and P-39 Aerocobra with Packard/Merlin engines...

I might at that the P-38 Lightenings had only marginally higher rate of a loss than the P-51 Mustang, and all while fighting a highly trained, more numerous Luftwaffe that would be dramatically eroded by a two-front war by the time the P-51D's began to arrive...

[Nickdfresh]

From an excellent, comprehensive article online at: http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html

(USAAF Captain) Arthur Heiden observed first-hand how tight a well flown P-38 could turn.

"I remember an amusing incident, Apr '44. We had run into a real mess and the Luftwafe was bouncing everybody. My flight had just been bounced, did the break, and the Luftwaffe kept on going. While I was on guard, I saw this other flight get bounced. While the rest of that flight did a halfhearted break, old tail-end Charlie's P-38 emitted a cloud of exhaust smoke (thought he had been hit), saw his nose come up and wrap up his turn. Before I could think, old #4 was in the lead of that flight. Impressed the hell out of me. Turned out to have been Fiebelkorn -- he was off to a good start."
...
The decision to replace the P-38J in the 8th AF with the P-51, rather than the P-38L, meant that the 8th never got to exploit the full performance and combat potential of the P-38.

Capt. Heiden makes some further interesting observations.

"The P-51 was a new airplane and we were eager to fly it and were happy with it. It was so easy and comfortable to fly. The P-38 had kept us on our toes and constantly busy--far more critical to fly. You never could relax with it. We were disappointed with the 51's rate of climb and concerned with the reverse stick, especially if fuel was in the fuselage tank, the rash of rough engines from fouled plugs, and cracked heads which dumped the coolant. With the 38 you could be at altitude before landfall over the continent, but with the 51 you still had a lot of climbing yet to do. The 38 was an interceptor and if both engines (were healthy), you could outclimb any other airplane, and that's what wins dog fights. When you are in a dog fight below tree tops, it is way more comfortable in a 38 with its power and stall characteristics and, for that matter at any altitude."
...
"The 8th was, at last, being flooded with Mustangs and well trained pilots. The Mustang was a delight to fly, easier to maintain cheaper to build and train pilots for, and had long legs. In those respects you can rightfully call it better, but it could not do anything better than a P-38J-25 or L. Just remember who took the war to the enemy and held on under inconceivable odds. Enough of the crap."

[Pips]

That is a fascinating link Nickdfresh. Thank you for posting it.

[Nickdfresh]

You are welcome...

[aghart]

The Mustang was produced to British specifications, as a fighter with the Spitfire's strength's and it's weakness's eradicated. Increased pilot visability, increased fire power, improved range, it did what it was supposed to do. Was the P51 really that good? yes it was.

[Sheldrake]

From an excellent, comprehensive article online at: http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html

(USAAF Captain) Arthur Heiden observed first-hand how tight a well flown P-38 could turn.

<snip> "The 8th was, at last, being flooded with Mustangs and well trained pilots. The Mustang was a delight to fly, easier to maintain cheaper to build and train pilots for, and had long legs. In those respects you can rightfully call it better, but it could not do anything better than a P-38J-25 or L. Just remember who took the war to the enemy and held on under inconceivable odds. Enough of the crap."

The debate about the relative merits of the different American WW2 fighters has endured far longer than the war. The evidence is not that one was better than the other. The P38 P47 and P51 were all good aircraft. You can try them in one of the online combat flight sim games - though the discussion forums are as divided.

What interests me is the factors that influenced the reputations and employment of these aircraft.

The comparison is not between the ultimate version of each aircraft, but the versions available at specific times and the characteristics of the operations.

The P38 had a particularly troubled development. It was so bad that the RAF in desperate need of fighters abandoned its order for over 600 aircraft after nearly three years of development. When eventually arriving In the ETO there were reliability problems and its limiting mach number were a disadvantage.

In the ETO the opposing Me109 and Fw190 fighters maneuvered in the vertical plane. A P38F could not easily escape or pursue.

In the PTO the A6M and ki43 were turn fighters with very heavy controls at high speed. Even with its limitations the P38 outperformed both at speed.

The red lines on the map of Europe are irrelevant. The only lines that mattered were those in 1943-44.

[LineDoggie]

The P38 had a particularly troubled development. It was so bad that the RAF in desperate need of fighters abandoned its order for over 600 aircraft after nearly three years of development. When eventually arriving In the ETO there were reliability problems and its limiting mach number were a disadvantage.

In the ETO the opposing Me109 and Fw190 fighters maneuvered in the vertical plane. A P38F could not easily escape or pursue.

RAF 322B's had (At RAF request) no Turbochargers, non-counter-rotating props.

P-38H's were introduced in the ETO in September 1943

[LineDoggie]

The Mustang was produced to British specifications, as a fighter with the Spitfire's strength's and it's weakness's eradicated. Increased pilot visability, increased fire power, improved range, it did what it was supposed to do. Was the P51 really that good? yes it was.

Actually the BPC wanted NAA to license build the P-40, Kindleberger said he could design a better aircraft with the specified Engine.