Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!pacbell.com!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Air-to-air refueling Message-ID: <1990Nov27.044525.3091@cbnews.att.com> Date: 27 Nov 90 04:45:25 GMT References: <1990Nov16.054115.23709@cbnews.att.com> <1990Nov20.021615.27073@cbnews.att.com> <1990Nov21.221654.20431@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington IN. Lines: 83 Approved: military@att.att.com From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) *>Both P-47s and P-51s, with drop tanks, had the range to escort *>bombers all the way in and back to German targets. The later *>P-47s with the bubble canopy were in perpetual contest with the *>P-51D as highest-scoring American fighter type. *>The P-38 with drop tanks had the range, but were not considered *>competitive against later Luftwaffe fighters. Most P-38s were *>assigned to North Africa and Italy anyway. *>It's not that the P-38J-LO wasn't all that good...it's mostly *>that earlier variants couldn't turn with the Germans, and being *>as big as they were, could be spotted from quite a bit further *>out than single-engined fighters. This last was a real disadvantage. Well, actually, earlier in the war, the P-47s and P-38s didn't have the range to escort bom- bers all the way into Germany. The later model Jugs were probably a little better as far as range was concerned, but accounts of the frus- trations felt by allied fighter pilots watching as German fighters waited just beyond their range are numerous. Of course, this does not begin to compare with how the bomber crews felt. (!) The P-38 eventually did turn into a fantastic fighter when used properly. It could (in some situations) turn inside german fighters by using its maneuvering flaps - a button, when depressed, would lower the flaps to a pre-de- termined setting. It was mostly deficient in roll rate. The biggest problems early on were reliability (those Allisons kept blowing up and were a real pain to repair) and the lack of the compressibility flap fitted to later models - the airplane would, in a dive, sudden- ly lock its controls solid and tuck its nose under, often tearing the wings off. Not very nice when German pilots went into a dive to escape - you couldn't follow one in an early model Lightning. (The Jug, on the other hand, could dive faster than anything else and scored heavily on German pilots attempting to flee.) In the Pacific and North Africa/Italy the P-38s really shone. Against the Japanese navy fighters the tactic was to attack in a shallow dive, then escape in a climb, as the Zeroes could turn inside any fighter the allies had, but could not catch a Lightning in a climb (very few airplanes could). As far as high visibility was concerned, the odd configuration of the Lightning was either a blessing or a disadvan- tage. It gave ones' away at long range. If it was to enemy fighters, it was a disadvantage, if to friendly bomber crews, an advantage. The F-15 has been said to have a similar problem. Its size makes it visible from miles away, earning it the nickname "Twin Tailed Tennis Court". On a side (very unrelated, actually) note.. The British decided, at one time, to teach the Zero pilots a lesson by sending over, from Eu- rope, a crack Spitfire squadron to Northern Australia. The Spitfire pilots decided to use turning tactics against the Zeroes and ended up losing 17 pilots out of 27 in two raids. This was mentioned in passing in Martin Caidin's book about the early war in the Pacific (I forget the title). Does anyone know more about this incident? Which squadron? What mark of Spitfire were they flying? When exactly did this take place? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS !