P-38 Lightning: The Best Plane From World War II?

[IndyFan]

Very true upon further reflection. I'm not sure Merlins could even have been retrofit into the P-38 like they were with the P-51.

Probably not easily. Had there been a need, I'm sure they could have figured it out quickly, though. But the P-51 was designed from the start with the Merlin in mind. I doubt Kelly Johnson ever gave the Merlin a thought. But even so, I think the P-38 was already set up for high altitude performance, so I doubt the Merlin would have made even a slight difference.

As it turned out, with hindsight being pretty clear, I think the P-51 was the right plane at the right time and it got the job done.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

The statistics don't support that, in fact the P-39 shot down as many Zeros (probably some were Ki43 Oscars) as were lost...

Unfortunately, those statistics were based on erroneous and inflated pilot reports. Accepted statistics now indicate the P-39 suffered a loss rate as bad as 3 to 1 against the Japanese (on the losing side) considering all verified kills and loses. That includes kills against bombers, seaplanes, observation planes, etc. Against Zeros only, the loss rate is far worse.

The Wildcat could get above the Zeros, engage, then use dive speed to disengage if at a disadvantage. In New Guinea, the P-39s didn't have the performance to get above ingressing Japanese fighters and bombers. Similar problem on Guadacanal and one of the many reasons it was relegated to ground attack. Yeah, the Navy had pilots with more experience and better tactics, but there were no tactics that could make up for the P-39's many shortcomings against the Japanese. One of the reasons pilots transitioned out of it at their first opportunity (reference reports from 67th Fighter Squadron pilots in Guadacanal).

Guess what is the only US WW2 fighter that has no fan club (reunions, pilot associations, etc.). Hint, it's also the only one not included in the fighter memorial at the Air Force Academy.

As to the Soviets, they did love the P-39. The Germans came in low, in the P-39's sweet spot, with worse turning airplanes (at low altitude, the P-39 could out turn a ME-109). It was a one trick pony and the Germans let that trick be repeated over and over. Pulling their best pilots back to Germany to defend against Allied air attacks didn't help them.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

Unfortunately, those statistics were based on erroneous and inflated pilot reports

No. No they weren't. Post your source please. If it was based on "inflated pilot reports", then what were loss ratios of the P-51 or any other aircraft based on? Then

Again, the P-39 was not good at high altitude, but at lower altitudes (where much of the jungle air war took place) the Airacobra could turn and burn with anyone, Zeros included.

. Accepted statistics now indicate the P-39 suffered a loss rate as bad as 3 to 1 against the Japanese (on the losing side) considering all verified kills and loses. That includes kills against bombers, seaplanes, observation planes, etc. Against Zeros only, the loss rate is far worse.

What "Accepted statistics" where? From whom? It sort of sounds like you are making that up. You could say that about any US aircraft then like Wildcats or Mustangs!

The Wildcat could get above the Zeros, engage, then use dive speed to disengage if at a disadvantage. In New Guinea, the P-39s didn't have the performance to get above ingressing Japanese fighters and bombers.

I don't how many times you enjoy being wrong, but while the Wildcat had to rely on tactics using shifty teamwork, its ruggedness, and weight, the P-39 could actually dogfight with the Zekes at low levels. Much like over the Soviet Union, the Airacobras simply could use their excellent maneuverability and speed when operating at low level strafing ground targets and the Zeros/Oscars have to meet them. BTW, the Airacobra was actually a very rugged aircraft that was not easy to bring down, and it's 20mm or 37mm cannon could blast nearly anything out of the sky. A couple 20mm Hispano rounds would probably disintegrate a Zero!

Again, if you put a Merlin/Packard/Rolls engine in it, the P-39 is nearly the equal of the P-51 at all levels. It was a very good if somewhat ugly airframe and could fly nearly 400mph, the P-63 Kingcobra was over 400mph and could fight at high level as well, but not as well as the three main USAAF fighters ahead of it. That doesn't mean it was a bad aircraft and the 3-to-1 loss ration is just crap!

Similar problem on Guadacanal and one of the many reasons it was relegated to ground attack. Yeah, the Navy had pilots with more experience and better tactics, but there were no tactics that could make up for the P-39's many shortcomings against the Japanese. One of the reasons pilots transitioned out of it at their first opportunity (reference reports from 67th Fighter Squadron pilots in Guadacanal).

It's "Guadalcanal" actually. What "reference report" of the 67th are you referring to? What do you mean by "first opportunity'? They got to choose? LOL okay.

No, the P-39/400 had somewhat of a bad name because it wasn't a "sexy" P-38 nor the newer generation of fighters coming like the P-47. P-39/400 pilots also had a long period of flying out of Alaska and Western Canada in appalling conditions for grueling attacks on the Aleutians and patrols. This contributed to the distaste for the P-400. It was being transitioned out of the USAAF inventory in the PTO because the P-38J would take care of the long patrols and Naval aircraft were the primary fighters for close support after Guadalcanal...

Guess what is the only US WW2 fighter that has no fan club (reunions, pilot associations, etc.). Hint, it's also the only one not included in the fighter memorial at the Air Force Academy.

IDK, fighters don't have fanclubs, the have fanbois! Pilot associations are based on units, not individual aircraft. Most units transition from various fighters during the war and many US pilots flew the British Spitfire for a time but so what? The P-51D was the best overall solution towards the end of the war but that doesn't mean other aircraft were "bad" or deserved their less than stellar reputations. The P-51 was also thought of as a limited if useful fighter for a time and was even used as a dive bomber in its A-36 Apache variant prior to the Merlin engine. Many pilots did not like the P-47 Thunderbolt "Jug" as a fighter and thought the Mustang much superior. But the final rendition of the P-47 was probably better than the P-51 in some metrics, and was better suited to long missions over the Pacific as they were gearing up to be the primary fighter in the PTO...

Postwar, the P-39/63 was one of the favored racing aircraft, piloted mainly by vets!

As to the Soviets, they did love the P-39. The Germans came in low, in the P-39's sweet spot, with worse turning airplanes (at low altitude, the P-39 could out turn a ME-109). It was a one trick pony and the Germans let that trick be repeated over and over. Pulling their best pilots back to Germany to defend against Allied air attacks didn't help them.

WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT REGARDING GUADALCANAL AND NEW GUINA!!!! Thank you!! The P-39 probably couldn't outturn a Mitsubishi Zero, but the Zero probably couldn't outturn them either. They could outrun the Zeros though, being faster at lower levels...

 

[IndyFan]

Here's a neat article on the P-39.

The P-39 Airacobra

America’s unsung aerial hero.

warfarehistorynetwork.com

And here is a quote in it that was attributed to Chuck Yeager.....

Most of the “rumors about the P-39 were from pilots who never flew the airplane,” contends Brig. Gen. Chuck Yeager. “It’s hearsay,” he concludes.

I remember reading several times that Yeager liked the P-39.

 

[Malo83]

Too late for the war how would the F7F Tigercat stack up against the 38, both twin-engine designs.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Well Slugger, you are correct. I did misspell Guadalcanal. On every other point you disagreed with me you are wrong. I don't disagree with you on your P-47/P-51 statements.
I'll work on getting shoot down stats to you. I have found sources that will show how kills have been massively overclaimed when compared to verified enemy losses. That includes Allies in the ETO, Germans and the Soviets, as well as New Guinea.
During the relatively short time P-39s were used for air-to-air combat in New Guinea both General Kenney (5th AF Commander) and General MacArthur had a vested interest in overclaiming kills. They used these kill claims in their arguments for additional resources - Kenny specifically said send me airplanes because I can use them more effectively than anyone else using inflated numbers in his argument. He had to, as Europe was the priority and the Pacific was, by policy, only to be a holding action.. Every source I've seen that compares awarded kills during specific battles with actual enemy losses in the Australia/New Guinea/New Britain campaigns indicates kills were overclaimed by a factor of 2 to 4, sometimes even more. I have not found specific information on the reported 80 P-39 kills vs. approximately 80 losses (I will do some more research) but if it is anything like all other reports from that theater and time, only the P-39 losses are accurate.
My statement about pilot associations was correct.
I'll attach some references when I get to my computer. Haven't figured out how to cut and paste on my phone yet. And it's New Guinea so we cancel out on our misspellings, lol.

As to Chuck Yeager, he was an excellent pilot, but he never flew the P-39 in combat.

 

[jhs914]

Ironically, the P-38 was a better ground attack aircraft and excellent dive-bomber with redundant engines that were not liquid-cooled like the P-51's,

Not unless someone figured out how to air cool a V12 Allison liquid cooled engine or install two radial air cooled Pratt and Whitney's.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

Not unless someone figured out how to air cool a V12 Allison liquid cooled engine or install two radial air cooled Pratt and Whitney's.

Correct. But having two helped...

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

I keep on thinking of the video game 1942. Always felt kind of weird that a Japanese company would create a game where the object is to destroy Japanese targets. I would have thought that they would have stayed away from it.

https://gifer.com/en/DroU

 

[IndyFan]

As to Chuck Yeager, he was an excellent pilot, but he never flew the P-39 in combat.

With all due respect, I'm going to give the nod in this debate to General Yeager, and leave it at that.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

...

As to Chuck Yeager, he was an excellent pilot, but he never flew the P-39 in combat.

I'm a bit tipsy and it's late, so I'll tear apart your "I'm gonna post sources once I get to my sources and all these books I've never ever read" stuff tomorrow. But why are you referencing Yeager? I never mentioned him. I CGAF what he flew or didn't fly in combat or after..

 

[IndyFan]

I'm a bit tipsy and it's late, so I'll tear apart your "I'm gonna post sources once I get to my sources and all these books I've never ever read" stuff tomorrow. But why are you referencing Yeager? I never mentioned him. I CGAF what he flew or didn't fly in combat or after..

He mentioned him because I brought it up that Yeager liked the P-39. Somehow he thinks he knows more than Yeager did about the aircraft.

 

[wpod]

I like the Mustangs as they are Tiny.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

He mentioned him because I brought it up that Yeager liked the P-39. Somehow he thinks he knows more than Yeager did about the aircraft.

Never said nor implied I know more than Chuck Yeager about the P-39. I simply and correctly remarked he never flew it in combat.
The P-39 was the first fighter Yaeger flew. He flew it in the States, learning to be a fighter pilot. Most of that flying was against squadron mates, learning how to max perform the aircraft without actually shooting real bullets. Very good times for him, learning how to fight before he went to war in the P-51. When he went into combat he already had the advantage of over 500 hours fighter time.
Indy, you don't know the whole context of his statement. He wasn't asked if he would prefer to take that plane to war. I don't disagree with his statement that it was a great little dogfighter. Under very specific circumstances it was. My position (and the position of the entire Army Air Force staff at the time) was that the limitations of the aircraft made it the worst choice of available fighters in every theater we fought in. Which is why it was replaced in our inventory as soon as better (and they all were better) aircraft were available. Which is also why all the P-39s not kept in the States for advanced fighter training ended up being given to the Soviets, the French and the Italians. Not the Brits though. They refused them after buying a few, and flying 4 missions.

Slugger, I'm done with you. I know more about fighter aviation than you ever will even if you spend the rest of your life studying it. You are rude and be proud in the fact that you are first person on this forum I've put on ignore.

 

[IndyFan]

Never said nor implied I know more than Chuck Yeager about the P-39. I simply and correctly remarked he never flew it in combat.
The P-39 was the first fighter Yaeger flew. He flew it in the States, learning to be a fighter pilot. Most of that flying was against squadron mates, learning how to max perform the aircraft without actually shooting real bullets. Very good times for him, learning how to fight before he went to war in the P-51. When he went into combat he already had the advantage of over 500 hours fighter time.
Indy, you don't know the whole context of his statement. He wasn't asked if he would prefer to take that plane to war. I don't disagree with his statement that it was a great little dogfighter. Under very specific circumstances it was. My position (and the position of the entire Army Air Force staff at the time) was that the limitations of the aircraft made it the worst choice of available fighters in every theater we fought in. Which is why it was replaced in our inventory as soon as better (and they all were better) aircraft were available. Which is also why all the P-39s not kept in the States for advanced fighter training ended up being given to the Soviets, the French and the Italians. Not the Brits though. They refused them after buying a few, and flying 4 missions.

Slugger, I'm done with you. I know more about fighter aviation than you ever will even if you spend the rest of your life studying it. You are rude and be proud in the fact that you are first person on this forum I've put on ignore.

Post deleted.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Indy, sorry if I misled you. I don't have a problem with anything you said. That part was for another individual.

 

[IndyFan]

Indy, sorry if I misled you. I don't have a problem with anything you said. That part was for another individual.

Ok, sorry then. I truly am enjoying the discussion with you. I've deleted my post.

I'd buy you and anyone else here a beer if we were together. I love talking WWII airplanes with you, and learn a lot from the discussion.

When I'm an A-hole, it does sometimes take me a few to realize it after being called out. But I do ultimately realize it.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Let me put it this way concerning combat vs. training. The US used to use Aggressor F-5s to fly against F-4 Phantoms, simulating smaller Soviet planes like the Mig-21. The Aggressor units handpicked their pilots, taking only the best of the best, usually only the F-4 pilots that could beat them. Training scenarios were set up to advantage the Aggressors and it was a rare F-4 crew that could be routinely beat them.
The F-5 was a great little plane, and the pilots that flew them loved them. Probably loved flying them better than anything else.
But taking them into combat was something else. They only had a range only radar for the lead computing gun sight and with that no ability to find targets. Minimal to no EW equipment. Little range and endurance capability. Tiny bombload capability, little guns (low rate of fire), no radar missiles, etc. Great for training, but very limited capability in the actual scenarios the US would find in combat. Because of this (besides Aggressor training), the F-5 was only used for foreign military sales. Just like the P-39 after the opening stages of the war.
No matter what it looks like on paper, or in testing, there is nothing like actual combat to establish what works and what doesn't. To think we know more now than they did during WW2 about this subject is a big mistake.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

I'll attach some references when I get to my computer. Haven't figured out how to cut and paste on my phone yet. And it's New Guinea so we cancel out on our misspellings, lol.

Well Slugger, you are correct. I did misspell Guadalcanal. On every other point you disagreed with me you are wrong. I don't disagree with you on your P-47/P-51 statements.

I know, I was actually going to mention this but obviously someone told you and threw it in as an afterthought. It didn't look right but spell check doesn't work on all caps for some reason. My bad.

I'll work on getting shoot down stats to you. I have found sources that will show how kills have been massively overclaimed when compared to verified enemy losses. That includes Allies in the ETO, Germans and the Soviets, as well as New Guinea.

Sure, but the overstated losses weren't actually on the New Guinea campaign, you are conflating the Philippines here. More on that below. But your statement brings up the main chink in your armor here: did the P-51D Mustang suck too because the pilots exaggerated kills?

I am well aware that excited young pilots often overclaim on kills (like the Japanese pilots that sank all the American carriers at Pearl harbor). And yes, some of the early war unit histories are a bit unreliable..

During the relatively short time P-39s were used for air-to-air combat in New Guinea both General Kenney (5th AF Commander) and General MacArthur had a vested interest in overclaiming kills.

Really? Does that make any sense? They were basically saying "we're doing great with these **** aircraft, send us more **** aircraft! Really?

You are wrong here. You are conflating MacArthur's abortion in the Philippines where he went full catatonic and did not react for hours after being informed that the Japanese Imperial Navy had attacked Pearl and thusly left his own aircraft unalerted and on the ground to be destroyed. He did go on a campaign to inflate the numbers shot down by his USAAC units but it was more of a CYA than anything and we are talking mainly about P-40's. The aircraft credited were mainly P-40 Toma/Warhawks not P-39's AFAIK....

They used these kill claims in their arguments for additional resources - Kenny specifically said send me airplanes because I can use them more effectively than anyone else using inflated numbers in his argument. He had to, as Europe was the priority and the Pacific was, by policy, only to be a holding action.

Yes, there was a Europe/Mediterranean first policy but it is hard to really gauge as to how it was adhered too and many now think the initially things were equal in resources distributed since there was little in the way of targets against Germany and Italy to exploit. In any case the point is moot. As the great military genius Donald Rumsfeld once said (paraphrasing) "you go to war with the (aircraft) you have and not the (aircraft) you want". Faking kills was not going to get Kenny more aircraft and in fact they did allocate new P-38's of various types to replace the P-39s and 40's in the PTO. But inflating kills wasn't going to get him Mustangs and Thunderbolts that didn't quite yet exist then...

. Every source I've seen that compares awarded kills during specific battles with actual enemy losses in the Australia/New Guinea/New Britain campaigns indicates kills were overclaimed by a factor of 2 to 4, sometimes even more. I have not found specific information on the reported 80 P-39 kills vs. approximately 80 losses (I will do some more research) but if it is anything like all other reports from that theater and time, only the P-39 losses are accurate.
My statement about pilot associations was correct.

...

Funny. But I can't find any source that says anything close to what you are. I think it is generally accepted that the P-39 Airacobra achieved about 288 kills in the PTO for a similar or lower number lost in direct air-to-air combat overall. The loss ratio is about 1:1, not a big bragging point for the pilots. But overall analysis done after the fact and not pilot fishtails during the war is what we are discussing here. In any case killing as many as one lost is not exactly the great boast of the century. As for the "80" give and take, check the Wiki link. If that's not enough there are plenty of "war bird" forums citing the same statistics over and over...

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

Never said nor implied I know more than Chuck Yeager about the P-39. I simply and correctly remarked he never flew it in combat.
The P-39 was the first fighter Yaeger flew. He flew it in the States, learning to be a fighter pilot. Most of that flying was against squadron mates, learning how to max perform the aircraft without actually shooting real bullets. Very good times for him, learning how to fight before he went to war in the P-51. When he went into combat he already had the advantage of over 500 hours fighter time.
...

I guess you know more that Yaeger though!

Slugger, I'm done with you. I know more about fighter aviation than you ever will even if you spend the rest of your life studying it. You are rude and be proud in the fact that you are first person on this forum I've put on ignore.

LOL Keep watching the History Channel buddy!