Re: Sabre vs MiG-15; similar to Bf 109 vs Spitfire

[Love Shack <Home@DanSources.com>]

The problem with ethe P38 was the Turbo..Everything else was Supercharged.  This
took a lot of retraining and slapping around to get pilots to understand what the
engine systems were doing.

It was a disappointment in Europe because the engines were blowing up.  Mostly
because the lead would precipatate out of solution in the cold air.  This could
have been resolved by running the engines leaner and hotter. In the Pacific where
it was warmer it never became a serious issue. Athe same time the problem was
found.

The P38 was maintenance PITA.  The the prototype plane that crashed was the only
example so they never designed a production version.  Not until the later J and L
version did you have a robust plane the pilot know how to get the most advantage
out of.  Just the fact you could reverse the aircraft in the vertical with rudder
and throttle control. This was not easily taught.

The P39 was an excellent plane.  Similar to a Bf109 as it was faster and could
climb faster then the P40.  Very underated plane.  Again the study of how to best
use the plane was not fully realized.  Especially against and emeny that had been
at war for almost 10 years.  Their 20mm cannon was better then the Zeros.  The
37mm was trashed until the newer models got the problem fixed.

This 37mm concept on the Mig came from the US made P63 an P39.  In Korea for some
reason we were worried they were using our P63's against us.  Must have been a
real reason for that.  The P63 was a more capable aircraft then the P51, except in
top speed.

As speeds rose quick hard hitting weapons were very desired.  The USN converted
everything to 20mm.  The USAF was still retarded.  Spurt and out. Hit and Run.
British, French and Russian already converted from Machine guns to Cannon.

Regarding diving bombers.. well .. all the combatant did that. One of the reasons
the  La9/11 were pulled, according to Cookie, out of bomber attack was the the B29
could out pace them. Enter the Mig....In fact the Russians did not even bother to
use anything less.  They learned their lesson shooting down our slower jet
aircraft.

Regarding the FW190 D.. yeah it was a good plane. Our H -Model was slated for the
Pacific.  The P47M would have created a challenge.  The D 190's were beaten up by
British Typhoons. Do339 would have been a bigger challenge.

As any great pilot will tell you he who has the advantage can kill you.  He who is
the better pilot will get you on your first mistake.

Dan Fahey


RonaldS842@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/8/02 10:08:56 PM, Home@DanSources.com writes:
>
> << Not until the Mustang really did the Allies have competive long
>
> range fighterplane >>
>
> Hi Dan-
>
>    How about the Lockheed Lightning P-38?  Boy, there are some good stories
> about that airplane, the favorite of Charles Lindberg. And then there was the
> Bell AeroCobra P-39 :-( A friend had the misfortune of flying one.
>    Bit of trivia. You know what the average fighter plane cost during WWII?
> $38,000. I wonder what it was during Korea.
>    Comparing fighter planes is really no win but my German fighter pilot
> friends insist that the FW 190 (the last model) was the best prop fighter
> ever built ....comfort and effectiveness. P-51s didn't want to mess with them.
>    The Nazi aircraft industry of WWII is a crazy story unto itself. They were
> seriously trying to develope a heavy bomber that would dive :-)
>    Sorry, back to Korea...
>
> Ron