Comments by "Caseytify" (@Caseytify) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters"
channel.
-
No, the Buffalo would still be a second rate aircraft, alas, with only its cold weather performance in Finland to redeem it.
I would be hesitant to make claims about which plane was better, no matter which two you're comparing. AAF pilots, for the most part, didn't know how to fight the Zero effectively.
A pity; the P-40 was always the bridesmaid, never the bride. It fought under the shadow of the P-38, P-47, and P-51, not to mention many excellent Navy designs. An unappreciated aircraft.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The North African invasion diverted a large number of fighter & bomber groups from the 8th AF. That's where the Lightnings went. Also, the USAAF had terrible twin engine training.
Compressibility was fixed with speed brakes (distinct from Fowler maneuvering flaps, thank you), as was the roll issue, when they added hydraulic boosting. Basically the J model was a beast, but by the time that had been developed, about half the P-38s made were pre-J models. Also by that time Mustang production was in full swing, so the P-38s went to North Africa & the Pacific, while the 8th AF got P-51s. 9th AF (IIRC) got the P-47.
To paraphrase Martin Caidin, the German ace sees the Lightning as easy meat after he's shot down a half dozen of them. A Brit pilot sees the Bf 110 as an easy kill for the same reason. Is that the machine, or the man? A late model Lightning didn't have to worry about compressibility, roll rate, and had excellent maneuverability with intelligent use of the Fowler flaps.
They never did put a decent heater in that plane, and the Allisons were a constant PITA.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1