armored warfare in the PTO during WW2

[tater]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That was true in the air of the P-38 as well. The highest-scoring US aces ever flew them against the Japanese. In Europe and North Africa they were average at best.

Another major plus with the P-38 was two engines. In the Pacific, long flights over water were required. Loss of an engine was very very dangerous. That's why the bulk of PTO aircraft were radials, since air-cooled engines are far more robust. The '38 got around that by having a spare engine. So any trade offs were worth it in terms of pilot survivability.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by tater

Another major plus with the P-38 was two engines. In the Pacific, long flights over water were required. Loss of an engine was very very dangerous. That's why the bulk of PTO aircraft were radials, since air-cooled engines are far more robust. The '38 got around that by having a spare engine. So any trade offs were worth it in terms of pilot survivability.

IIRC they made a pod (basically a converted drop tank) that was hung under one of the wings of the P-38 so that could carry a mechanic with the plane to service it on isolated airstrips.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

IIRC they made a pod (basically a converted drop tank) that was hung under one of the wings of the P-38 so that could carry a mechanic with the plane to service it on isolated airstrips.

Now that is extremely interesting....never knew that

[tater]

The Zero is as grossly over rated in popular history as Admiral Yamamoto, or General Patton are.

It was a fine aircraft against lesser air forces (in quality or numbers), but it was effectively the ultimate plane for the wrong war. It was like a ww1 plane on steroids.

It NEVER sustained a positive kill ratio vs the USN/USMC, for example, not over any period of time long enough to include a decent number of engagements (read both of Lundstrom's excellent First Team books for details of virtually every single encounter for the first year of the war). The rest of the world was already moving to higher wing-loading, faster planes—"energy" fighters, not turn and burn.

[Raptor1]

The Zero is certainly overrated in popular culture, but it certainly had it's advantages. For example, the Zero outclassed all Allied carrier aircraft in range, a critical factor in carrier warfare.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

IIRC they made a pod (basically a converted drop tank) that was hung under one of the wings of the P-38 so that could carry a mechanic with the plane to service it on isolated airstrips.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

Standard Lightnings were even used as crew and cargo transports in the South Pacific. They were fitted with pods attached to the underwing pylons, replacing drop tanks or bombs, that could carry a single passenger in a lying-down position or cargo. This was very uncomfortable way to fly; some of the pods weren't even fitted with a window to let the victim see out or bring in light. One fellow who hitched a lift on a P-38 in one of these pods later said that whoever designed the damn thing should have been forced to ride in it.

Source:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38_2.html

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Source:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38_2.html

Well, ok, than.

Sounds like a strange way to travel, and possibly dangerous.

I couldn't find any images of it w/a quick Googling.

[Task Force]

Just imagine if the pilot pulled the release switch.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Pulled the release switch? Imagine if the landing gear failed!