On Oct 3, 1:34 pm, wrote:
There are some real whoppers in your list, and critical omissions too. I'll
concentrate on the USA, which I know best:

USA

On 2-Oct-2007, Eunometic wrote:

P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
armour.

TOTALLY WRONG. The P-38 was a FAILURE in the ETO, due to poor high altitude
performance from defective engines and unreliable turbosuperchargers. Its
unheated cockpits were another significant liability because of their effect
on pilot performance. It was a long-range wonder in the Pacific, where it
fought at lower altitudes, but was a failure in the ETO.

This problem got down to california being warmer in winter than
germany at 25,000ft. The coolant oil congealed due to excess cold.
There was predetonation at altitude due to excess cooling in the
intercoolers forcing to much air into the engines. Both problems were
sovled.


One one think that improving cockpit heating should have been easier
than converting the P-51 to take a merlin or to add a bubble canopy
and a rear fueselage tank. P-47 water ethanol injection system blew
up due to ice formation for similar reasons and was unusable.

The real reason the P-38 was transfered to the Pacific theater is
because it was in high demand over the not becuase it was a
failure.

In the end the the P-38L-1-LO, could claim a combat radius of nearly
1,500 miles under ideal conditions which was far further than any P-51
could conceivably achieve.


In parallel with this is your assertion that the P-51 was "not essential."
Only the P-51 had the necessary escort range. Without it the daylight
bombing campaign would have failed in late 1943. Moreover, the 51
outperformed virtually all-prop driven Axis fighters. This aircraft won the
air war for the Allies in the ETO.

One statistic says it all. In 1945 the only 8th AF fighter group still
flying the P-47 was the 56th FG. All others flew the 51. This wasn't an
accident. BTW, the "wet wing" P-47Ms you tout had huge engine reliability
problems, which kept them grounded most of the time.

I actually meant the P-47N as this was the model with the wing
tankage. It could fly 2000 miles with 300 miles and 20 minutes
combate at full power and 5 minutes a WEP. Further than any P-51.

The P-38 and P-47 were available earlier. The P-51C carried its fuel
in its wings; the P-51D added a big tank in the tail that made it
unstable and uncombatworthy to fly. The P-47 carried its tankage in
its fueselage. This was increased progressively in the latter P-47D
models and when the P-47N arrived it to carried fuel in wings that
must have been as thick as the P-51s and had a better range to boot.

As far as I can tell Happy Arnolds directive to Spaatz to develop long
range escorts didn't specify Mustangs.

The Mustang was a fine plane but I think the P-38 and P-47 could have
done the job if pressed a little more than they were.



A truly essential aircraft you overlook was the C-47 transport. "General
Dwight Eisenhower described the C-47 as one of the four machines that won
World War II, along with the bulldozer, 6x6 truck, and the landing craft."http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avc47.html

The Germans built 3000 transports while the Allies about 50,000.
Logistics wins.



In the Pacific the early "essentials" were the Wildcat and the Dauntless.

JAPAN

In addition to the A6M Zero, I think you also need to include the two other
carrier aircraft Japan possessed at the outset: the "Val" dive bomber and
the "Kate" torpedo/level bomber. All three were essential to Japanese naval
air power, even after defeat at Midway.

I'm not sure any Japanese twin engine bomber was "essential." They all had
fatal design flaws (lack of armor and flammability) that made them little
more than flying targets. The Japanese air war was first won, then lost, by
their single engine aircraft.

Speaking of which, I don't see the Army Ki-84 as essential. IMHO that
plaudit goes the the Nakajima Hayabusa Ki-43, which like the Zero served
throughout the entire war.

USSR

I don't think you can exclude the Yak fighters, especially the Yak-9. I
will also include a surprising choice for an "essential" Soviet A/C: the
Bell P-39. It is remarkable how many Soviet aces not only flew that
aircraft, but greatly favored it.

If you placed a russian or german aircraft next to a US one the build
quality of the US one would show in beautifull detail such as the
clarity of the plastic and glass.



My comments, FWIW.

Brian