P-38 v P-51 interesting read

It's always interesting to read aircraft comparisons made by people who've actually flown them in combat.

There were some really good points brought out in some of those posts regarding why some fighter groups and fighter types were able to rack up higher scores than others. I think you must cosider the circumstances they operated in as much as anything.
 
pfflyers said:
It's always interesting to read aircraft comparisons made by people who've actually flown them in combat.

There were some really good points brought out in some of those posts regarding why some fighter groups and fighter types were able to rack up higher scores than others. I think you must cosider the circumstances they operated in as much as anything.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Still, I liked this quote:

About the 38 and the 190, the 38 could handle the 190 at any altitude. All the 190 had going for it was a great split-S. But that was an escape maneuver. If the kraut wants to run away, let him. The early J could not do a good split-S. About all it could manage was a jenny immelman. But the models with dive flaps and aileron boost could follow a 190 through a split-S, surprising the bejesus out of Herr Uberman.

George

:d :d
 
Werry werry interesting!

It would be fascinating to have some comments from some of the Pacific veterans! In many ways the Pwas a much better airplane in that theater. However the leading P-38 ACE (before Bong) McGuire, made a fatal snap out of a low level tight turn. With lots of water underfoot, it's centerline firepower and it's relative speed it was a formidible weapon against the lightly armored Japanese planes.

T.
 
What a great read about spinning the 51' and recovering like it was just another manuver. And then flying it right up to the edge again! I remember reading about this years ago when the standard policy was that you you need 10,000 feet of altitude to spin a 51' and live to tell about it, and then upon reading all the real stories that yes, you can recover in less than 500 feet.. Does anyone remember the story about that avation jounalist from "flying?" magazine, who went down IIRC, in the early 80's to the domincan rebublic, and interviewed a pilot that had like ten thousand plus hours in a D model 51, with six .50's a full load of ammo and armour plate with a full wing and fuselage tanks, and took this guy for a ride? Power on stalls, spins and real short field takeoffs on dirt roads, and most everything you can't do in a mustang.
 
This rang a bell for me...

I recall reading this some time ago, and yes, it was interesting reading. But then I later came across accusations that someone was fraudulently representing himself as LtCol George Ceullers, and posting on various warbird discussion sites.

No doubt this fella had done his homework, for there is a lot of detail and a sense of verisimilitude, but some became suspicious of the author, so his posts became suspect as well.

Here is something quick I found regarding the accusations: ftp://193.138.147.22/2/pub/docs/unix/yarchive.net/mil/cdb.html
Search for "ceullers51" on the page and you will see the gist of it near the bottom of the page.

I still enjoy reading the post, whether or not it was actually authored by a real WWII 10.5-kill ace who was active on chat forums 10 years ago.
 
Many of the WWII piston fighters had unenviable spin recovery reputations. The 'trick' is to recover before the spin really developes. After gettng the feel of the thing, it is possible to approach the edge very closely. All that said, it's not a good place to be for energy management. It might be enough to get the snap shot.

Cheers: T.
 
fliger747 said:
Many of the WWII piston fighters had unenviable spin recovery reputations. The 'trick' is to recover before the spin really developes. After gettng the feel of the thing, it is possible to approach the edge very closely. All that said, it's not a good place to be for energy management. It might be enough to get the snap shot.

Cheers: T.
Click to expand...
Yes your right, I remember reading about the F4U corsair had an bad spin recovery reputation, and if you went more than seven turns, it was time to jump.
 
Always said that the P-51 was "twitchy". At least in CFS and FS. Give me a P-38 any day.
 
The more neutral stability of the 'twitchy' plane usually results in greater transient manuverability. This can be important in preforming both escape manuvers and 'getting the shot'.

This is not the same as say, the sustained turn rate which can be related to wing and power loading. The ultimate roll rate, and the rapidity with which that rate can be achieved can be just as important.

For this reason larger, and especially multi engine aircraft are more suited to energy tactics rather than angles tactics. Implicit in energy tactics is the factor of initial surprise as a nimble target capable of high transient manuver may be able to execute a guns defense manuver which the energy fighter may not be able to follow.

Both great airplanes when utilized to advantage.

Cheers: T.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top