P-38, 2nd best US plane?

Even if the P-38's flew at 25,000ft its still lower than they needed to fly in order to provide escort for the bombers of the 8th Air Force, and they wouldn't need to fly at that height for long periods.
I've also checked on the campaign in the Aleutions and there seems to have been very little air to air combat, as the Japanese had no airfields there, the inital support for their invasion coming from naval aircraft operating from carriers. The P-38's shot down two Japanese seaplanes early on in the campaign, but after that they seemed to have been used mainly in the ground support role.
http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/aleutians/Aleutians/html/aleutians-wwii.htm

I've just read that report in full, and I'm even less convinced that this fuel was the cause of the P-38's problems. The report clearly states that if the fuel was used it would cause spark-plug related problems on Allison engines. However, the sources I have don't show that any of the problems of the P-38J in the 8th AF are related to problems with the spark-plugs, and further more, the problems caused by this 5.5cc blended fuel would not be affected by the height the aircraft flew at.

 

COMMENT: OK but apparently one group did solve the problem. In fact they wanted to keep their P-38 versus replacing with P-51's.

 

In what I've uncovered one FG solved alot of the problem just by moving a switch so the pilot could/would remember to close/open the intercooler doors . In other words it seems the P-38 was very complicated to fly comparatively speaking,i.e. one needs more training in operating it. I wonder just how much maybe that entered into the picture of engine failures? One constant theme I keep coming across is one either loved the plane or hated it with absolutely no middle ground it seems.

 

Just out of interest, what FG was this ?

 

am assuming the 15th Af as the 9th P-38 units were not offered the P-51 except the Pioneer group the 354thfg which loved the crate (P-51)

 

The 474th. Yes I know they belonged to the 9th AF BUT Colonel Lloyd Wenzel made the statement pertaining to this. it's on page 115 of "P-38 Lightning at war". He also mentions about them petitioning to keep their P-38's versus recieving P-51's.

 

Outside the role of long range high altitude escort the P-38 does seem to have been an excellent fighter,

 

they were not to receive the P-51 at all according to pilots of the fg. only the 354th fg and then these were taken away from them to be outfitted to the fg's in the 8th, only in February of 45 did they receive new mounts, to hell with the thunderbolts was the cry from the 354th.

let me state in true US Army Airforce bizarro fashion the 9th AF 363rd also had P-51's but as was the case in the 9th at least, this unit became a Tac Recon in September 44 before they could really start scoring in a big way, joining the ranks of the other P-51 TRS units under the 9th AF belt

 

The 9th AF was a tactical air force who's primary duty was the support of the Allied ground forces, and in that role their aircraft would tend to operate at a far lower level, and as such I can fully understand why they wouldn't want to transfer to the P-51, with the knowledge how vulnerable the P-51 was to ground fire ( they both had inline engines, but at least the P-38 had two engines)

 

Oh I know that. I'm just saying ,that from what I've read,the late model J's & L's appeared to have solved the problems of the earlier models. Of course those models never really got to prove it in the long range escort role. That the early models up to the J-15 certainly had engine problems over Europe ,that is absolutely indisputable. The sad thing is it probably could have been prevented.

 

I have got to say, to answer OP's question, the P-47 was at least as strong a contender to the 2d best a/c as the P-38. When attacking ground targets, P-47 strafed in a deeper dive than the P-38 and hit its target accurately. The toughness of the Thunderbolt made it better suited for CAS than the P-38 and it was a better superiority and escort fighter.

 

Good point..Again it's very debatable the P-51 was the best US fighter and maybe even more debatable that the P-38 was 2nd.best. However the US certainly had quite a few first rate models like the P-51,P-38, P-47, F4U ,F6F ,then you have some capable niche planes like the P-39,P-40 and F4F. The US certainly had more capable choices then anybody else it seems.

 

If my life was on the line and I had to climb into WW2 plane I'd take a P-47 over anything. I'd want the utmost in protection.

 

Depending on the model I could almost ague the F4u-4 was every bit as good as the P-47. It was just as tough when absorbing damage, was very fast, very manueverable and carried 4000 lb warloads. The P-47 would out dive it, and with 8 .50s it could lay down a lot of lead in a strafing run.
Some of the Corsairs had the 6 .50s armament, some had 4 20mms, either way that is a hard hitting ground attack weapon. Add the fighter capabilities and you have one of the best all round fighters of the war.
I think when you get to the level of these aircraft, the pilot and positioning when the attack starts makes the difference.
Joe Foss did things with an F4F Wildcat a lot of pilots said he shouldn't have been able to do.
My brain hurts just thinking about all the different models and capabilities of the different fighters of WWII. My opinion is a little scewed because I am ex-navy, and I have spoke personally with many WWII and Korean Corsair pilots who wouldn't trade their plains for anything. ( One was a test pilot who flew the P-51, P-47, F6F, F4F, F8, and a few others. He actually chose the F4U-4 over the F8.)
I have never flown any of these, so my choice is purely speculation and armchair comparisons.
Are there any pilots who flew more than one type out there who could help?

 

Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown RN is a retired test pilot who holds the record for the most number of aircraft types flown, 487, and this figure doesn't include variants of of the same design. He has written a number of books in which he compares the flying characteristics and abilities of the various WW2 fighters which he has flown.
The best two fighters of WW2 in his view (in terms of if he had to go into combat in) were the Spitfire XIV and Fw 190D-9, while the best US fighter was the P-51D, with the best US carrier fighter being the F6F. He is very unhappy with the handling qualities of the F4U especially in regards carrier landings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_(pilot)

 

There is no reason the Corsair couldn't have done as good a job as the P51. It had the range to get the job done and was an excellent fighter all round. I would argue that the Corsair is in fact the best US fighter of the war and the P51 is the next best. The radial design is more rugged.

 

How this for an overgeneralisation of a blanket statement? The Western Allies produced the best warplanes of the War; with few exceptions, the US and UK produced the best bombers, fighter-bombers, fighters, and reconnaissance aircraft of any of the major belligerents during World War II. The P-38, P-47, and P-51 were truly great fighters, and particularly so while no German product could come close to a P-51; these aeroplanes would have continued in service well beyond the duration of WWII had it not been for the advent of jet military aircraft. Earlier in the War, the Supermarine Spitfire was an excellent aircraft and a superbly stable gun platform for the eight (8) 0.303-in. Browning m.g.s she used in giving the Bf 109 (which only had 30 minutes' worth of fuel over England) and the various patterns of German bombers a marvellously sound beating over the skies of southern England in 1940. And when Britain and the US returned the serve and started the strategic bombing of German cities and towns, no German night- or dayfighter could match the technological advances of the RAF and USAAF bomber fleets (with improved radar, for example, produced out of the 'battle of the beams'). The British and Americans won air superiority over Germany and German-occupied Europe and with or without their fighter escorts, the Allies' bomber fleets were unstoppable in Germany's skies, no matter how costly to the Western Allies some of these great raids on German cities were.

 

I would have to say yes, but only in the Pacific Theater.

Pacific:
Vought F4U Corsair
P38 Lighting

European:
P51 Mustang
P47 Thunderbolt

 

The German NF force was never actually defeated and they flew intruder missions over the British for the duration of the war. The British never achieve air superiority in the night skies over Germany. It was just to hard and they didn't have enough quality NF's with adequate radar.

The Allies did achieve daytime air superiority over the Germans, but it wasn't easy and it came at a huge cost. The Luftwaffe was no walkover, the FW190, Me109 and JU-88 were superb aircraft that were certainly a match for the US and British planes. It wasn't so much the quality that won the battle for the US and British, but rather the quantity. The Allies could produce an replace far more planes.