# Wasn't the P-51 the best escort fighter of the war?



## Jank (Mar 21, 2005)

Well, let's hear it.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 21, 2005)

*P-47N Thunderbolt*






Sighting in its guns.











Performance of the P-47N-5-RE included a maximum speed of 397 mph at 10,000 feet, 448 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 460 mph at 30,000 feet. Top speed, 467 mph at 32,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2770 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2550 feet per minute at 20,000 feet. 

When maximum external tankage was carried, this brought the total fuel load of the P-47N up to an impressive 1266 US gallons. This fuel load make it possible for a range of 2350 miles to be achieved. 

Armanent included six or eight 0.50-inch machine guns with 500 rpg and up to 2,500lbs. of bombs and 5-inch rockets. 

Weights were 11,000 pounds empty, 16,300 pounds normal loaded, and 20,700 pounds maximum. 

Dimension were wingspan 42 feet 7 inches, length 36 feet 4 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, and wing area 322 square feet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 22, 2005)

As I know the Mustang was quite a good escort plane... It was manouvrable, it had a great range, it was also fast... It could follow the bombers to their destination, engage enemy aircraft and return home safely without the worries of remaining without fuel...so I agree... The Mustang was a great escort plane...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jank (Mar 22, 2005)

Are you sure about those speed numbers davidicus? Didnm't think the Thunderbolt held a candle to the Mustang. Sure is a big plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 22, 2005)

but she also had a huge engine, she was very fast..........

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 22, 2005)

The P-47N was significantly superior in every area to the P-47D, and, I would argue, superior to the P-51D Mustangs that actually saw service.
From: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html

The XP-47N took to the air for the first time on July 22, 1944. Test comparisons were made with a P-47D-30-RE throughout the early portion of the evaluation period. Much to everyone’s surprise, the XP-47N, with its greater wingspan and higher weight actually proved to have better roll performance than the D model. At 250 mph TAS, the N attained a maximum roll rate just over 100 degrees/second. The P-47D-30-RE could manage but 85 degrees/second at the same speed. At higher speeds, the N widened the gap further. 

In mock combat with a P-47D-25-RE, the new fighter proved to be notably superior in every category of performance. In short, the XP-47 waxed the venerable D model regardless of who was piloting the older fighter. The new wing was part of this newfound dogfighting ability, however, the more powerful C series engine played a role too. The additional horsepower allowed the N to retain its energy better than the older Thunderbolt. 

Perhaps the greatest performance increase was in maximum speed. Though not as fast as the stunning P-47M, the heavier N was fully 40 mph faster than the P-47D-25-RE and could generate speeds 30 mph greater than its principal rival, the Mustang. Scorching along at 467 mph @ 32,000 ft., the N could not be caught by any fighter in regular service with any air force on earth with the single exception of its M model sibling. This combination of wing and engine had pushed the N model up to the top rank of the superlative prop driven fighters then in existence. 

The testing program included determining the maximum range of the fighter. This was done with various combinations of fuel loads and external drop tanks. Ultimately, a test flight was made from Farmingdale to Eglin Field in Florida. The XP-47N took off with two 315 gallon drop tanks hanging from the under-wing hardpoints. Usable fuel in these tanks totaled 600 gallons. Added to the internal fuel load, the N eased off the runway with 1,170 gallons of fuel (usable). At a gross weight of 20,166 lbs., the Thunderbolt headed south in company with a P-47D chase plane. 

Arriving off the coast, east of Elgin in 3 hours, 44 minutes, the external tanks were dropped. Another P-47D, already waiting at Elgin, took on the N in a mock dogfight that lasted for twenty minutes. The throttle was advanced to military power for 15 minutes of this time, with an additional five minutes in the War Emergency Power (WEP) detent. After these fun and games were concluded the N was turned around and flown back towards Farmingdale. Heavy weather over Long Island caused the plane to divert to Woodbine, New Jersey. Having flown 1,980 miles, total fuel usage was measured at 1,057.5 gallons. There was still more than 112 gallons of usable fuel remaining in the main fuselage tank, enough for another 330 miles @ 1,700 rpm in auto-lean. 

The XP-47N was now the king of long-range single engine fighters (the all time leader of long range escorts was the P-38L-1-LO, which could claim a combat radius of nearly 1,500 miles under ideal conditions). 


It began service in the PTO in September of 1944. Total production exceeded 1,800 before the war's end.
From: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_13.html

The XP-47N flew for the first time on July 22, 1944. Such was the USAAF confidence in the Thunderbolt design that they went ahead and ordered 1900 P-47Ns in June 20, 1944, even before the first XP-47N had flown. 

The P-47N was destined to be the last version of the Thunderbolt to be manufactured. The first P-47N-1-RE appeared in September of 1944, and 24 were delivered by year's end. The P-47N-5-RE and subsequent batches had zero-length rocket launchers added. The R-2800-77 engine was installed in late production models such as the P-47N-25-RE. 

The P-47N gave excellent service in the Pacific in the last year of the War, particularly in escorting B-29 Superfortress bombers in raids on the Japanese mainland. P-47Ns were able to escort the bombers all the way from Saipan to Japan and on many other long, overwater flights.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

P-38 - first fighter to fly escort to Berlin and back 8)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 22, 2005)

The P-51 was a good excort fighter with good attributes in each area. When compared to the P-47 it had a longer range but the P-47 was generally faster. The P-38 with its slighter shorter range and twin engines made although fast slightly less manouverable. I would agree that the P-51 was the best escort fighter of the war, although late war P-47s such as the N version where up there with the P-51s at the end of the war.
Stats on all 3 can be found here :http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~wingman/ or in the aircraft database on this site


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 22, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> The P-51 was a good excort fighter with good attributes in each area. When compared to the P-47 it had a longer range but the P-47 was generally faster. The P-38 with its slighter shorter range and twin engines made although fast slightly less manouverable. I would agree that the P-51 was the best escort fighter of the war, although late war P-47s such as the N version where up there with the P-51s at the end of the war.
> Stats on all 3 can be found here :http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~wingman/ or in the aircraft database on this site



The early P-38s shorter range was because of the smaller droptanks used in the ETO and improper flight procedures. It could outmanuever/manuever with anyaircraft it encountered especialy below15,000/20,000ft. 
The P-38 suffered from several issues in the Early days of escort flying
1) Improper training/procedures sometimes pilots with only 20 hrs in fighters and no twin time were given P-38s
2) Because of need, It was the only plane the US had that could fight 1/1 with the german planes and had the range, it was pressed into an area it was not designed for and developed in combat. Problems included Fuel, Training, aircraft heat, because of the altitude cold and fuel the engines were a problem.
3) Early on Odds of 10 German to 1 P-38 were normal and these were the best the German pilots ever.
4) Tactics Close escort and ground attack.

The later P-38s were compettitive with anything in the sky, had more range, faster climb, faster acceleration, faster high speed roll rate, tighter turn higher WEP speed than either the P-51D or the P-47 D though it would have taken the P-38K to stay fairly close speed wise with the H model mustang and M/N P-47s 
. These P-38s showed up about the time the P-51Ds showed up.

Durring the war the P-38s while flying either close escort or about half were mossions of ground attack flew 130,000 sorties to the P-51s 214,000 free ranging escort (they got to chase the German aircraft down) score 2,500+ awarded claims during the war to the P-38 and 4,939 awarded to the P-51. The P-38 had a much larger percentage of ground attack than the P-51.

In the other theaters of war with 300 gal drop tanke the P-38 flew missions of over 2,000mi the furthest of any other fighter in the war.

Chech out the following web pages: Planes and Pilots of WWII and http://p-38online.com/index.html they both have some great stuff on the P-38.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jank (Mar 22, 2005)

So I gather the P-47 N was the best escort fighter in combat service? You blokes made me llose a bet.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 23, 2005)

wmaxt,

The P-38K was a prototype that never went into production and consequently never saw combat service. That takes it out of the running for the "best fighter escort of the war." That leaves us with the "J" model.

You said, _"The later P-38s were compettitive with anything in the sky, had ... faster high speed roll rate, ... higher WEP speed than either the P-51D or the P-47D."_

I thought the P-47D could outroll the P-38J and that both the P-51D and P-47D had higher war emergency power speeds. I seem to recall that the roll rate for the P-38J was about 80 degrees per second and that both the P-47D and P-51D were faster under emergency power. Am I mistaken? 


The P-38J, was a good escort but I think its performance fell short of the P-47N.

From: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_13.html

The P-38J was the fastest variant of the entire Lightning series--420 mph at 26,500 feet. Maximum speed at 5000 feet was 369 mph, 390 mph at 15,000 feet. 

Range was 475 miles at 339 mph at 25,000 feet, 800 miles at 285 mph at 10,000 feet, and 1175 miles at 195 mph at 10,000 feet. Maximum range was 2260 miles at 186 mph at 10,000 feet with two 250 Imp gall drop tanks. 

An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 2 minutes, 15,000 feet in 5 minutes, 10,000 feet in 7 minutes. Service ceiling was 44,000 feet. 

Weights were 12,780 lbs empty, 17,500 lbs normal loaded, 21,600 lbs maximum. Wingspan was 52 feet 0 inches, length was 37 feet 10 inches, and height was 9 feet 10 inches. Wing area was 327.5 square feet. 

Armament consisted of one 20-mm Hispano M2(C) cannon with 150 rounds plus four 0.50-inch Colt-Browning MG 53-2 machine guns with 500 rounds per gun. In addition two 500, 1000, or 1600-lb bombs or ten five-inch rockets could be carried on underwing racks.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 23, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> It {the P-47N} *began service in the PTO in September of 1944*. Total production exceeded 1,800 before the war's end.
> From: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_13.html
> 
> The XP-47N flew for the first time on July 22, 1944. Such was the USAAF confidence in the Thunderbolt design that they went ahead and ordered 1900 P-47Ns in June 20, 1944, even before the first XP-47N had flown.
> ...



As you can see there is a conflict here. The first production P-47N was delivered in Sept. 1944, but they did not see service in the PTO until May 1945, with the 318th Fighter Group. I think that they were delivered earlier (January/Febuary '45) to the 456th FG in Europe, where they served alongside the existing P-47M's, but I'd have to re-research it to confirm that date.

I agree the P-47N was probably the best escort fighter of WWII, but the P-51 was clearly the more significant of the two.

=S=

Lunatic

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 23, 2005)

WMax - the P-38K did not have much of a speed advantage, if any, over the P-38L. It was a better climber. It would never have matched the raw speed of the P-47M/N or P-51H.

DAVIDICUS,

The late P-38J and all P-38L's had hydrolically boosted ailerons and were the fastest rolling of all planes at high speeds - even faster than the FW-190. It was simply possible to apply more aileron deflection for aileron surface area than any human could muster the strength for at such speeds. Furthermore this was very usuable for high-speed combat, as it took almost no pilot effort to execute a maximum roll. The late model P-38's were the only fighters of WWII to have such power assist ailerons.

That being said, the P-47N (and later P-47D's and the M, and the F4U-4 Corsair, and possibly others) had some kind of automatic balance tabs, I'm not sure of the details of how these worked, but they did give it an exceptional high speed roll rate.

Your climb rate figures for the P-38J are wrong:

"An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 2 minutes, 15,000 feet in 5 minutes, 10,000 (assume this should read 20,000) feet in 7 minutes."

The P-38J could reach 20,000 feet in 6.6. BTW: the P-51B could reach 20k in 6.2 mintues. I believe the later P-38J's matched this climb.

=S=

Lunatic

Note: climb times below are "from start of takeoff run" - many climb figures are from "wheels up".


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

Yes...the P-47N was a good escort plane but as Gnomey pointed out, it only saw service at te end of the war, not completely forfilling it's purpouse... The P-51 served for much of the war time and it was one of the planes the USAF relied on...


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 23, 2005)

Roving Guns:

I don't see the conflict in what I wrote. (Was I self contradictory?) The information I read says that the P-47N entered service in the PTO in September of 1944 and thus:

"began service in the PTO in September of 1944."

"The first P-47N-1-RE appeared in September of 1944, and 24 were delivered by year's end."

You have indicated that they didn't actually see service until May of 1945. I didn't know this. Where does this information come from? At any rate, it did definitely see combat, shot down a lot of Jap planes and even made a number of pilots aces.

My information on the P-38J came from the source I cited. At any rate, what was the roll rate of the P-38J? I thought it was about 80 degrees/second. The P-47D could do 85 and the P-47N did better than 100. Do you have reliable figures for these three aircraft that say different? 

That chart you posted lists the P-47D-10. Out of curiosity, do you have any climb figures for P-47D's with paddle blades?


Hellmaker,

The topic was the best escort fighter of the war. Of all the escort fighters that were in combat service (war) as escort fighters, the P-47N was clearly the best. I would also agree that the P-51 had more of an overall impact as an escort fighter in the war. Accordingly, had the topic been "Which escort fighter had the most significant impact on the war," I too would have said, "The P-51."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2005)

however combat history plays a part in deciding the best..........


----------



## Jank (Mar 23, 2005)

Davicus hit the target here gents. Asked for the best escort of the war. Looks like the P-47 N filled the ticket.


----------



## Erich (Mar 23, 2005)

nope, P-51 D and K friend. the original question is too broad.

should of been staed what theater of ops

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 23, 2005)

So Jank (the poster of his own question), clarifies the question he was asking and you are going to overrule him and say that he meant something other than what he just said he meant? 

For what it's worth, I stand by my assertion that the P-47N was the best escort fighter to see combat service in WWII. Better than the P-51D and obviously better than ther P-51K which was inferior to the "D" model. (I understand that the "K" stood for Krap.)


Before everyone jumps on me, THAT WAS A JOKE, as in a feeble attempt at humor.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Mar 23, 2005)

go interview some ETO vets of the 8th AF smart guy. The K variant was excellent. As I said this all is wrapped in what theater. First thing you cannot even compare the two on the ETO front anyway.

We can come up with scales as some posters like to do but until you can interview a vet first hand and get his views on flying both Jug and Mustang variants you will all have your own personal opinions.

v/r E


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 23, 2005)

Erich said:


> go interview some ETO vets of the 8th AF smart guy. The K variant was excellent. As I said this all is wrapped in what theater. First thing you cannot even compare the two on the ETO front anyway.
> 
> We can come up with scales as some posters like to do but until you can interview a vet first hand and get his views on flying both Jug and Mustang variants you will all have your own personal opinions.
> 
> v/r E



I go with the late P-38s which were flying the longest fighter missions in the war. There is a large number that prefered their P-38s to the others. Preddy's logbook had these comments "P-38 wonderful flying ship, P-47 excelent flying ship...later... sure getting dissappointed in the Jug, P-51 is a good flying ship", the 474th group fought for and kept their P-38 through the war.

The P-51H and P-47M/N had potential but didn't get to show if they were or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Mar 23, 2005)

ah but the 474th the only 9th AF fighter unit to keep the P-38 till war's end flew ground attack missions for most of the 1945 year. the 354th fg on the other hand started out with the P-51 and then changed over to the Jug which they hated and then back to the P-51 in December of 44 till wars end thus being the highest scoring fighter group in the ETO.

Again I point out this question could be really about operational theaters.

the only 8th AF to keep the P-47 which they did till wars end was the 56th when everyone else had traded in the P-38/P-47 for the P-51.


----------



## Jank (Mar 23, 2005)

Thanks Davidicus and gents. Got my answer.


----------



## Jank (Mar 23, 2005)

Really gents the question was wich plane of the entire war was trhe best escort fighter. The fastest, longest range, best of everything. I gather she was the P-47 N.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 24, 2005)

wmaxt said, "The P-51H and P-47M/N had potential but didn't get to show if they were or not."

I beg to differ with respect to the P-47N. It proved it's potential well. RG_Lunatic was right about the P-47N's entering combat service in the PTO on Le Shima in May of 1945. By June 8th, their record was 79 Japanese air to air kills for one loss of their own. (Yes, I know that by this time most all the Japanese pilots were inexperienced.) In all, about 30,000 sorties were flown with P-47N's.

For an interesting account (brought to my attention by RG_Lunatic) of the 318th's P-47N's on Le Shima, read:

http://home.earthlink.net/~atdouble/~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html 

Here are some points of interest. The P-47N was the first to drop napalm in combat, a P-47N was the first aircraft to destroy another, air to air, with a rocket and the very last hostile aircraft shot down in WWII fell to two P-47N's when they splashed two "renegades" on the night of August 14th, after the cease fire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 24, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Here are some points of interest. The P-47N was the first to drop napalm in combat, a P-47N was the first aircraft to destroy another, air to air, with a rocket and the very last hostile aircraft shot down in WWII fell to two P-47N's when they splashed two "renegades" on the night of August 14th, after the cease fire.



Was not napalm used in Europe?

The Germans had been using a2a rockets since 43 to shoot down e/as. The Russians before that iirc.

Asking for clarification.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 24, 2005)

I have seen video of a P-47 dropping napalm, but it wasn't an N model. I am sure that the P-47N was NOT the first to drop napalm in combat. They used napalm on several Pacific islands before the N ever entered service. I am with KK on the rockets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 24, 2005)

KraziKanuk: It was not a rocket designed for air to air but an air to ground rocket. I should have been clearer. See the link I posted.

Evanglider: The 318th was the first to drop napalm. Perhaps they were using "D" models before they received "N" models for that. My mistake again.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 24, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Roving Guns:



Please, call me Lunatic - Roving Guns is my FA squadron 



DAVIDICUS said:


> I don't see the conflict in what I wrote. (Was I self contradictory?) The information I read says that the P-47N entered service in the PTO in September of 1944 and thus:
> 
> "began service in the PTO in September of 1944."
> 
> ...



The first production unit was delivered in Sept. 1944, and 24 were indeed delvivered by years end. But that is not the same thing as seeing service. The first to see service in the PTO were with the 318th FG in May 1945. I don't know when the first was delivered to the 456 FG in the ETO, but I believe it was in late Jan/Feb. of 1945 (very hard to tell, but this is when the M's stopped flying anti-V1 missions), though a few might have been deployed earlier.

IIRC 106 Japanese planes were shot down in aerial combat by the 301 Fighter Wing (318, 414, and 507 FG's), for one combat loss - you can check at one of the sites listed in my other post.

Please see my post at:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61632#61632



DAVIDICUS said:


> My information on the P-38J came from the source I cited. At any rate, what was the roll rate of the P-38J? I thought it was about 80 degrees/second. The P-47D could do 85 and the P-47N did better than 100. Do you have reliable figures for these three aircraft that say different?



The following is from Lockheed:









DAVIDICUS said:


> That chart you posted lists the P-47D-10. Out of curiosity, do you have any climb figures for P-47D's with paddle blades?



Unfortunately, thus far I've not been able to find figures for the paddle prop climb. If you find them, please send them to me! 

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 24, 2005)

The chart indicates a roll rate of less than 100 degrees a second for the P-38 with boosted ailerons. I believe the P-47N exceeded 100 degrees per second.

From: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html 

The XP-47N took to the air for the first time on July 22, 1944. Test comparisons were made with a P-47D-30-RE throughout the early portion of the evaluation period. Much to everyone’s surprise, the XP-47N, with its greater wingspan and higher weight actually proved to have better roll performance than the D model. *At 250 mph TAS, the N attained a maximum roll rate just over 100 degrees/second. The P-47D-30-RE could manage but 85 degrees/second at the same speed. At higher speeds, the N widened the gap further. *

**********

I've always been curious how much of an improvement the paddle blade props were for the P-47. Maybe someone else will know.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 24, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> The chart indicates a roll rate of less than 100 degrees a second for the P-38 with boosted ailerons. I believe the P-47N exceeded 100 degrees per second.
> 
> From: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html
> 
> The XP-47N took to the air for the first time on July 22, 1944. Test comparisons were made with a P-47D-30-RE throughout the early portion of the evaluation period. Much to everyone’s surprise, the XP-47N, with its greater wingspan and higher weight actually proved to have better roll performance than the D model. *At 250 mph TAS, the N attained a maximum roll rate just over 100 degrees/second. The P-47D-30-RE could manage but 85 degrees/second at the same speed. At higher speeds, the N widened the gap further. *



Yes, but the P-38 with boosted ailerons rolled better at high speeds. I forgot to say "high speeds" in my post above. Also, it was easier to work the ailerons quickly, a huge factor in actual combat.

**********



DAVIDICUS said:


> I've always been curious how much of an improvement the paddle blade props were for the P-47. Maybe someone else will know.



I would like to know too. All I've ever seen is that it was much better after the paddle prop and ADI was added (supposedly it rivaled the Spit IX according to some pilots).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 24, 2005)

Somehow, I'm not following you.

"Yes, but the P-38 with boosted ailerons rolled better at high speeds. I forgot to say "high speeds" in my post above. Also, it was easier to work the ailerons quickly, a huge factor in actual combat."

Are you saying that the P-38 with boosted ailerons rolled faster than the P-47N?

The chart indicates that at 450mph (I don't think the J could go that fast), the roll rate was less than 100 degrees/second.


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 24, 2005)

Planes and Pilots of WWII (web Page) has some other charts on speed and climb of P-38L models Climb clean WEP 4.9min to 20,000ft this is also stated in the web page p38(CCJordon). They also show the top speed of the P-38L again clean half load of fuel and full ammo/gun ballast of 443 @ WEP (the 414 often shown is METO power as are all other P-38 specs.) and no I never ment the P-38 was in the leauge of the P-51H or P-47N in the 470 region.

I never mentioned the K model as it was never produced though it's top speed was est to be over 450mph.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 24, 2005)

I understand that the top speed of the "K" model was below 450mph, and that in terms of general performance, was inferior to the "D" model.

Perhaps someone who knows can put this issue to rest once and for all.


----------



## Erich (Mar 24, 2005)

OT but the Bf 109G-10 could hit well over 460 mph.......


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 24, 2005)

Erich said:


> OT but the Bf 109G-10 could hit well over 460 mph.......



At what boost, Erich?

The claim for the K-4's top speed required C3 and MW50 at 1.98ata. C3 was rather scarce for 109 units, was it not?

On the K-4 and 1.98

_'Die angegabenen Leistungen werden mit gut gebauten Serienmachinen sicher erreicht.', 

or 

'The above given performances are certainly going to be reached with well-built serial production machines.' _

translation of a German doc

_1.)Boost 1,8ata with B4 fuel
Reason for the meeting were the problems in “field” and at the serial production facility “Genshagen” because of the “white flame” effect during the use of the
Higher output. First it is shown by Hr. Dr. Scherenberg how the “white flame”
followed by burned pistons, develop. Because of the results of the engine knocking test the lower quality of the fuel is the main reason for the problems.
DB has allready solved the problem with adjusting the ignition timing by 5°(???) .
This allowes the use of “Sondernotleistung” and the 1.45 and 1.80ata settings.
But because of later ignition , 50PS are lost during the “Sondernotleistung”,
Where the 1,45 ata setting doesn’t lose power.
DB although mentions the problems with the bad fit of the valvesitrings or
the plug thread , that where reasons for the glow-ignition too. But because
of improovments in the production these failurs are said to be canceled.
All agreed and the decision was done, that all engines should get the new ignition time. The lose of power is not so critical. But, because of hints from DB (DaimlerBenz), there should be test flight with 5 planes within all alts, but especially above rated alt, to get knowledge about the power loose above rated alt.
END SHEET ONE
This will be done at II/JG11. It is asked, if the ignition timing can be set on old value
if better fuel quality is back. Answer is delayed till it is for sure that only better fuel is used, and if it is shown, that later ignition does have no influence on the planes perfromance. DB mentions that the later ignition point although is better for the plugs that have a thermal problem at all.
It is mentioned too, that the performance lose will be decrease with increasing engine run time , means with less oil lose. It indicates too, that new engines with less oil usage are better in performance than the ones with at first high usage and the lower usage of oil. From the troop should be taken 1 engine with 15-20h for oil consumption and performance tests to be done in Genshagen. Because the b4 fuel is mostly used in the east, the order for the new ignition point/time should get out asap by…

2.)1.98 boost with c3 fuel
the first report shows, that the test with the 1.9, and 1.98 boost had negative results.
Then a telegram from Rechlin was shown (they tested 4 engines) that criticized the
clearing of the Sondernotleistung by Gen. Ing. Paul direct from the company to A.Galland bevor sufficient tests were done. Rechlin although defend themselves, that
they did NOT give the new boost free for the Troop. (looks like some thought they did). DB on the other hand shows their positive test results for the 1.9 , 1.98 usage.
They say, that the clearance for the 1.98 boost was given with the same TAGL (?)
(think a kind of order) as the 1.8 ata boost was cleared..both on the same day!.
SHEET THREE

It was then decided (after hearing all the reports) than currently only II/JG11 should test the 1.98 boost and that the 1.9ata engine test should be finished when the engines failed. (so no more test after them). The JG should then only get 1.8 ata engine supplies. Heavy punnishment is threaten when this order is not followed. The 1.98 clearance decission may only come from department 4 of general staff.
It is suggested that some recon planes should be equiped with 1.98 boost. Decission was not done. To disburden the current 1.98 and 1.9 engines it is suggested to give them the new ignition time too. So, all engines flowen with the sondernotleistung will
Be set to the new ignition point/time.

The JG’s in field complain about the plug failurs. Especially in the last time the number of failurs increased. DB reports about improoved plug modells and better
quality control e.g. with x-ray controlling. Again DB points out that the cooling of the
109 is insufficient and wishes that the LW will solve this problem asap. This was mentioned by Gen.-Ing Paul and arrangements where done instandly.
DB points out that the performance of the “cell” (fuselage/wings) is extremely bad,
and even worser J. It makes no sense to increase the power output of the engine when on the other side the plane quality is decreasing dramatically. Is is reported that a coparison of a 109 with a mustang was arranged for Mr. Sauer, but he failed to come.
The result of the comparison was, spoken of produktion quality only, shocking for the 109.

SHEET FOUR
At the end of the meeting, from Mr. Dr. Scherenberg points out that DB allready is testing a boost up to 2.3ata (J). But it can be not juged in any way because of only a low test base at the moment. _

After all that, it is said the G-10 was a better performer overall compared to the K-4.

Note my underlined sentances.


----------



## Erich (Mar 24, 2005)

KK:

The G-10 had the MW 50 as standard equipment, one reason why there is a diversity in opions whether there was a G-10/AS or not............there wasn't. the G-10 variant was the fastest 109 in existance during the war


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 24, 2005)

Erich said:


> KK:
> 
> The G-10 had the MW 50 as standard equipment, one reason why there is a diversity in opions whether there was a G-10/AS or not............there wasn't. the G-10 variant was the fastest 109 in existance during the war



I guess I should have bolded this as it seems to have got lost.

"After all that, it is said the G-10 was a better performer overall compared to the K-4. "

Was the G-10 restricted to 1.8ata?


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 24, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Somehow, I'm not following you.
> 
> "Yes, but the P-38 with boosted ailerons rolled better at high speeds. I forgot to say "high speeds" in my post above. Also, it was easier to work the ailerons quickly, a huge factor in actual combat."
> 
> ...



Sure the J could go that fast, in a mild dive.

Yes, the P-38L would roll faster than the P-47N at very high speed, after the roll rate of the P-47 starts going down. The P-47N is going to have a roll curve of similar shape to that of the P-51, it will peak at some speed (250 IAS?) and then begin to drop, as the pilot looses the ability to move the stick far enough to fully deflect the ailerons. The P-38L pilot can always fully deflect the ailerons since it's done by a hydrolic booster not muscle power.

=S=

Lunatic

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 24, 2005)

Thanks. I should have thought first before I wrote. It hit me a couple of minutes after I posted that.


----------



## Conslaw (Jan 5, 2020)

wmaxt said:


> Planes and Pilots of WWII (web Page) has some other charts on speed and climb of P-38L models Climb clean WEP 4.9min to 20,000ft this is also stated in the web page p38(CCJordon). They also show the top speed of the P-38L again clean half load of fuel and full ammo/gun ballast of 443 @ WEP (the 414 often shown is METO power as are all other P-38 specs.) and no I never ment the P-38 was in the leauge of the P-51H or P-47N in the 470 region.
> 
> I never mentioned the K model as it was never produced though it's top speed was est to be over 450mph.



P-38L's WEP top air speed of 443 MPH, was what- 25,000, 26,000 feet? What is the P-38's compressibility speed at that altitude? It seems to me that they may have been at a "coffin corner".


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 5, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> P-38L's WEP top air speed of 443 MPH, was what- 25,000, 26,000 feet? What is the P-38's compressibility speed at that altitude? It seems to me that they may have been at a "coffin corner".


Id have to dig out my copy of Americas 100,000 to be sure but as best I can remember compresability for the p38 was about 500 mph at 25,000 feet. I think slightly in excess of that.
I remember thinking up to about 25,000 feet youd really have to be cookin to get into trouble but abouve that things deteriorate quickly.


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 5, 2020)

As to the title of the thread I think the p51 was indeed the best escort fighter of the war all things considered. The later p47s could certainly give it a run for its money but at twice the cost. 
The p38 probably not as good overall but an earlier design so not sure if its really a fair compairison.
Of course there are various situations where other choices may be better. If, for example, you are flying 3 hrs each way over shark infested waters on said escort mission the two engines of the p38 may be very desirable indeed but overall for most escort missions with great performance at minimum cost don't see how you can beat a Mustang.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 6, 2020)

wmaxt said:


> The early P-38s shorter range was because of the smaller droptanks used in the ETO and improper flight procedures. It could outmanuever/manuever with anyaircraft it encountered especialy below15,000/20,000ft.
> The P-38 suffered from several issues in the Early days of escort flying
> 1) Improper training/procedures sometimes pilots with only 20 hrs in fighters and no twin time were given P-38s
> 2) Because of need, It was the only plane the US had that could fight 1/1 with the german planes and had the range, it was pressed into an area it was not designed for and developed in combat. Problems included Fuel, Training, aircraft heat, because of the altitude cold and fuel the engines were a problem.
> ...



The P47N certainly had excellent high altitude performance and range. However if we look at its speed it’s performance at sea level to 15000ft that it falls well short of the Mustang. Not only was the P47N slower than a P51D let alone a P51H it was slower than the Allison engined P51A Mustang of 1942. Nothing could beet the Mustang in the thick air at low altitude not the Griffon Spitfire nor even the P47M. Every other aircraft needed to be a in thin air to overcome its imperfections. The Tempest was the only aircraft competitive at low altitude. This may not matter when escorting B29 at 25,000ft but it could matter in some circumstances. The P47 to an extent owes its reputation to its ruggedness. No American ace ever lost his life in a jug.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 6, 2020)

Is it just me or was a 15 year old thread just resurrected?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 6, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Is it just me or was a 15 year old thread just resurrected?


Seems to be the trend lately

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 6, 2020)

Some resurrections are needed as new info has been made available but *most *are not

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 6, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> Some resurrections are needed as new info has been made available but *most *are not


I like the resurrection as I've only been on the forum for a few years, so this is interesting for me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 6, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> Some resurrections are needed as new info has been made available but *most *are not



Not sure if serious or trolling...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 6, 2020)



Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 6, 2020)




----------



## Milosh (Jan 6, 2020)

A new thread with the same topic could have been started instead of resurrecting an old thread.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 7, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The P47N certainly had excellent high altitude performance and range. However if we look at its speed it’s performance at sea level to 15000ft that it falls well short of the Mustang. Not only was the P47N slower than a P51D let alone a P51H it was slower than the Allison engined P51A Mustang of 1942. Nothing could beet the Mustang in the thick air at low altitude not the Griffon Spitfire nor even the P47M. Every other aircraft needed to be a in thin air to overcome its imperfections. The Tempest was the only aircraft competitive at low altitude. This may not matter when escorting B29 at 25,000ft but it could matter in some circumstances. The P47 to an extent owes its reputation to its ruggedness. No American ace ever lost his life in a jug.



Please site that last statistic !!
"No American ace ever lost his life in a jug"
I seriously doubt it !!


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 7, 2020)

Colonel Neel E. Kearby for starters

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 7, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> P-38L's WEP top air speed of 443 MPH, was what- 25,000, 26,000 feet? What is the P-38's compressibility speed at that altitude? It seems to me that they may have been at a "coffin corner".



420-425 mph with war emergency power. It was redlined due to compressibility at ~450 mph TAS at 25000 ft.



michael rauls said:


> Id have to dig out my copy of Americas 100,000 to be sure but as best I can remember compresability for the p38 was about 500 mph at 25,000 feet. I think slightly in excess of that.
> I remember thinking up to about 25,000 feet youd really have to be cookin to get into trouble but abouve that things deteriorate quickly.



This might be of use: link

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Jan 8, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The P47N certainly had excellent high altitude performance and range. However if we look at its speed it’s performance at sea level to 15000ft that it falls well short of the Mustang. Not only was the P47N slower than a P51D let alone a P51H it was slower than the Allison engined P51A Mustang of 1942. Nothing could beet the Mustang in the thick air at low altitude not the Griffon Spitfire nor even the P47M. Every other aircraft needed to be a in thin air to overcome its imperfections. The Tempest was the only aircraft competitive at low altitude. This may not matter when escorting B29 at 25,000ft but it could matter in some circumstances. The P47 to an extent owes its reputation to its ruggedness. No American ace ever lost his life in a jug.


I can't imagine any version of the P-47 being better at anything other than diving and absorbing punishment than the P-51. It was twice its size and weight...that's like comparing the flight performance of a B-25 to a B-17...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 8, 2020)

grampi said:


> I can't imagine any version of the P-47 being better at anything other than diving and absorbing punishment than the P-51. It was twice its size and weight...that's like comparing the flight performance of a B-25 to a B-17...


It doesn't matter if the Thunderbolt is slower than the Mustangs if your opponents are slower than you. If you're escorting and fighting between 20 and 30 thou feet and your speeds are the same then you're just as good as one another. Surely, in the Pacific, flying from Okinawa to Kyushu, your better off in a Thunderbolt for ruggedness and the Lightning for twin engine safety, than in a less structurally strong Mustang? Iwo Jima is different as you need more range, therefore, late model Mustangs.


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 8, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> It doesn't matter if the Thunderbolt is slower than the Mustangs if your opponents are slower than you. If you're escorting and fighting between 20 and 30 thou feet and your speeds are the same then you're just as good as one another. Surely, in the Pacific, flying from Okinawa to Kyushu, your better off in a Thunderbolt for ruggedness and the Lightning for twin engine safety, than in a less structurally strong Mustang? Iwo Jima is different as you need more range, therefore, late model Mustangs.


The p47 N that was used yo escort B29s had greater range than the p51.


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 8, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> The p47 N that was used yo escort B29s had greater range than the p51.


I thought the P-47N flew from Okinawa and the P-51D from Iwo Jima.


----------



## grampi (Jan 8, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> It doesn't matter if the Thunderbolt is slower than the Mustangs if your opponents are slower than you. If you're escorting and fighting between 20 and 30 thou feet and your speeds are the same then you're just as good as one another. Surely, in the Pacific, flying from Okinawa to Kyushu, your better off in a Thunderbolt for ruggedness and the Lightning for twin engine safety, than in a less structurally strong Mustang? Iwo Jima is different as you need more range, therefore, late model Mustangs.


Speed isn't the only thing that was good to have in a fighter. Turning radius, climb, and general maneuverability are also attributes that are necessary when in combat, and I can't see the P-47 matching the P-51 in any of these categories...and yes, ruggedness mattered too, but was it the most important factor?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 8, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> I thought the P-47N flew from Okinawa and the P-51D from Iwo Jima.


The p47N also flew from I believe La Shima( may be spelled wrong).
They did, at least from every source I have ever read, have a longer range than the p51d by about 150 miles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Jan 8, 2020)

Speaking of Lockheed and compressibility, another Lockheed product that had issues regarding compressibility was the U2 spy plane: "One problem that had been addressed was that the first-generation U-2 had become so heavy that the margin between stall buffet and compressibility at high altitudes was only 6 knots. With improved wings and engine, the U-2R had a comparatively generous 20-knot window, greatly improving the airplane’s flying qualities." _Unlimited Horizons Design and Development of the U-2_, Merlin, Peter (pg 77-78)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 9, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> It doesn't matter if the Thunderbolt is slower than the Mustangs if your opponents are slower than you. If you're escorting and fighting between 20 and 30 thou feet and your speeds are the same then you're just as good as one another. Surely, in the Pacific, flying from Okinawa to Kyushu, your better off in a Thunderbolt for ruggedness and the Lightning for twin engine safety, than in a less structurally strong Mustang? Iwo Jima is different as you need more range, therefore, late model Mustangs.



But is the Mustang less structurally strong? Also, escorting bombers and fighting in the 20-30,000 foot band is right in the Mustangs wheelhouse, not so much for the Thunderbolt.

Also much is always said of the twin engine P-38 for safety, I hate to spill it but you're not there to be safe, you're there to find, fight and kill the enemy, the P-38 is an excellent platform, but when the chips are down and my ass is on the line, I'd take the higher performance of the Mustang any day of the week.

Hell, they flew 8 hour flights from Iwo to the Empire and back and I don't see Mustangs just dropping into the Pacific because they only have one engine or aren't "rugged" enough. I could be wrong but here's a pretty good site about long range ops from Iwo 506th Fighter Group Home: 506th Fighter Group, 457 Fighter Squadron, 458 Fighter Squadron, 462 Fighter Squadron Iwo To Japan 

Also, not trying to sound like a dick so please don't take it as an attack, just a different point of view.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 9, 2020)

cheddar cheese said:


> P-38 - first fighter to fly escort to Berlin and back 8)


And unlike the P-51, the P-38 has an autopilot and a roomy cockpit. Those two alone reduce pilot fatigue and workload. If I'm sitting in a chair for 8-10 hours I'd choose the P-38. I imagine the unique profile also makes it less likely the B-17 or B-24 gunners will accidentally shoot you down.

Hmmm.... I may need to retract the above, I can't see the autopilot switch.


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 9, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> But is the Mustang less structurally strong? Also, escorting bombers and fighting in the 20-30,000 foot band is right in the Mustangs wheelhouse, not so much for the Thunderbolt.
> 
> Also much is always said of the twin engine P-38 for safety, I hate to spill it but you're not there to be safe, you're there to find, fight and kill the enemy, the P-38 is an excellent platform, but when the chips are down and my ass is on the line, I'd take the higher performance of the Mustang any day of the week.
> 
> ...


By the time P-51D Mustang reached Iwo, all its structural problems had been resolved.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 9, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> And unlike the P-51, the P-38 has an autopilot and a roomy cockpit. Those two alone reduce pilot fatigue and workload. If I'm sitting in a chair for 8-10 hours I'd choose the P-38. I imagine the unique profile also makes it less likely the B-17 or B-24 gunners will accidentally shoot you down.
> 
> Hmmm.... I may need to retract the above, I can't see the autopilot switch.



Cockpit of the P-38 was rated was worst among all US-made fighters at the 1944 'Fighter conference'. Mentioned at the pg.164 of the AHT book, along with: 'Cockpit comfort was miserable'; 'The cockpit had otten lousier and lousier...'. Cockpit heating was apalling until early 1944.
It's profile should remove a lot of friendly fire possibility, however that will also represent an instant cue to the enemy it will encounter. Big size = easier to spot on the 1st place.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 9, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Cockpit of the P-38 was rated was worst among all US-made fighters at the 1944 'Fighter conference'. Mentioned at the pg.164 of the AHT book, along with: 'Cockpit comfort was miserable'; 'The cockpit had otten lousier and lousier...'. Cockpit heating was apalling until early 1944.
> It's profile should remove a lot of friendly fire possibility, however that will also represent an instant cue to the enemy it will encounter. Big size = easier to spot on the 1st place.


Would the P-47D be rated the best for cockpit comfort? With that giant engine in front and supercharger ducting below and plenty of space to move about, it must have been warm enough even on the coldest European winter missions. Bf 109 pilots must have been shocked at the roominess when inspecting captured 'Jugs.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 9, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Would the P-47D be rated the best for cockpit comfort? With that giant engine in front and supercharger ducting below and plenty of space to move about, it must have been warm enough even on the coldest European winter missions. Bf 109 pilots must have been shocked at the roominess when inspecting captured 'Jugs.



From what I've read, there was no problems with cockpit heating on the P-47.
Same source as above says that Germans (including Galland) stated that cockpit was huge. Indeed, once you step out the Bf 109 into P-47 that is no surprise.
FWIW - seems that most pilot-friendly cockpit was that of the F6F, out of US-made fighters.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 9, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> And unlike the P-51, the P-38 has an autopilot and a roomy cockpit. Those two alone reduce pilot fatigue and workload. If I'm sitting in a chair for 8-10 hours I'd choose the P-38. I imagine the unique profile also makes it less likely the B-17 or B-24 gunners will accidentally shoot you down.
> 
> Hmmm.... I may need to retract the above, I can't see the autopilot switch.
> 
> ...


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 9, 2020)

I've heard the same thing, IE the P47N had an autopilot. It would be interesting to see it's capabilities but expect it was nothing more than altitude & attitude hold (surprisingly enough exactly what the F-15A-D has).

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 9, 2020)

Erich said:


> ah but the 474th the only 9th AF fighter unit to keep the P-38 till war's end flew ground attack missions for most of the 1945 year. the 354th fg on the other hand started out with the P-51 and then changed over to the Jug which they hated and then back to the P-51 in December of 44 till wars end thus being the highest scoring fighter group in the ETO.
> 
> Again I point out this question could be really about operational theaters.
> 
> the only 8th AF to keep the P-47 which they did till wars end was the 56th when everyone else had traded in the P-38/P-47 for the P-51.


Resp:
Yes, the 56th did keep them . . . and as the bombers flew further, their air-to-air combat diminished. The 78th FG was reluctant to give up their P-47s but it didn't take long for them to realize that the P-51 was just the ticket for air-to-air kills. The P-47 was an important fighter in the ETO, just reached its zenith until units transferred to the Continent where its role changed to ground support w air-to-air engagements became secondary. Although New Years Day 1945 7 P-47s enroute to drop ground ordinance turned into @ 25 FW-190 (?) after jettisoning their bombs. If I remember correctly, only one P-47 was lost with a pretty significant kill ratio on their part. P-51s soon joined the melee.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Csch605 (Jan 9, 2020)

Jank said:


> Well, let's hear it.


Yes


Jank said:


> Well, let's hear it.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 9, 2020)

That P-47N was fast and could go a long way. The tests of 9/27/46 show top speed only 423mph but climb was dismal at 1700 feet per minute at 20000'. A P-51B would climb at 2750fpm at 26000'.
Didn't really matter, even if the -N got into combat in September '44, it had missed the brunt of the war. Air superiority over Europe was attained in Feb/March 1944. The Pacific saw the Great Marianas Turkey shoot in June of '44. Proof that the Japanese were pretty much done in the air. After that there was a lot of ground attack in Europe and in the Pacific the B-29s went to low altitude night bombing in early '45. 
If we compare planes we should compare those in service at the same time. Otherwise we're comparing SPADs to F-22s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 9, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> I've heard the same thing, IE the P47N had an autopilot. It would be interesting to see it's capabilities but expect it was nothing more than altitude & attitude hold (surprisingly enough exactly what the F-15A-D has).
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


I read a quite favorable discription of the P47Ns cockpit by a pilot that flew them out of Le Shima. Good heat and ventilation, a cup holder right by some kind of ventalation port( said it kept his soda cold) lots of room, auto pilot as we already mentioned,and the seat sounded like it was just this side of a barka lounger.
Sounded like the only thing that could have made it more comfortable would be a toaster oven and a mini-bar.
Maybe those were comming in the next variant but the war ended before Republic could get the toaster oven and mini- bar equipped version into production

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jan 9, 2020)

Jank said:


> So I gather the P-47 N was the best escort fighter in combat service? You blokes made me llose a bet.



Noble Frankland, Director of the Imperial War Museum, founder of Duxford, WW2 bomber crewman and co-author of one (four volume) book in the official British war histories covering Bomber Command says the Mustang without a doubt.

He also says that those who were not there can get things terribly wrong based only on documented performance (and peoples long term memory). He was referring to the H2S navigation radar in the first statement to that effect but the same message is repeated often in his book _History at War. _

As an aside he was invited to give a lecture at one of the USAF staff colleges in the 50s and after he was introduced General Eames stood up and said he was not going to sit around and be lectured by someone who was not there. He started his presentation with - I WAS there.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 10, 2020)

grampi said:


> I can't imagine any version of the P-47 being better at anything other than diving and absorbing punishment than the P-51. It was twice its size and weight...that's like comparing the flight performance of a B-25 to a B-17...



The P-47 was not that much more rugged than the P-51. 
A hell of a lot of them were shot down.

The only issue with ruggedness with the Mustang was getting hit in the radiator.
Then again had about 15 minutes to get out.
If the Thunderbolt got hit in the oil cooler or reservoir it would be in flames. 
You had to get out.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Jan 10, 2020)

DAVIDICUS said:


> The P-47N was significantly superior in every area to the P-47D, and, I would argue, superior to the P-51D Mustangs that actually saw service.
> From: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html
> 
> *The XP-47N took to the air for the first time on July 22, 1944. *



It was a fantastic fighter. One that was developed far too late to make a significant difference to the war effort in any meaningful way. Had it been available in August of 1943, IMO it would have been perhaps the most important fighter of the war. As it stands, it's sorta like the ME-262. A fantastic, groundbreaking aircraft-available in too few numbers and too late in the war to make a significant difference.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Jan 10, 2020)

I'm going way outside The Box here but would nominate
The F6F
and F4U
as best escort fighters
because they lost so few bombers to enemy aircraft. (The numbers are available, but I'd have to dig thru the massive USN stats published in 45.) Yes, the strategic-tactical situation was different than the ETO-MTO but still...Helldivers and Avengers loved Hellcats & Corsair!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 10, 2020)

I am going to be controversial and say none of them are, the only reason the escort fighters were effective was because the opposition was weak, by 1944-45 both the LW and Japanese air forces were shadows of their former selves. Hypothetically speaking, if the P51D's and P47M/N's flew from Germany to England they would be picked up by chain home when they are still over France, as soon as they hit the channel Spitfire XIV's and 21's combined with Spiteful XIV's and XVIII's would hit them above 25,000ft, Tempest II and V's below that. The British integrated defense system was world best and using Parks peeling away the defenses tactic with fighters with equal too or better performance than the escorts its not going to be an easy ride, remembering too that the Hispano was a mature weapon by that stage and being caught in a burst by two or four depending on the plane loaded with SAPI rounds will test the robustness of even the P47. The BoB is proof of what happens when escort fighters meet a defending force equal to them equipment performance, pilot skill and ground to air co-ordination.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> No American ace ever lost his life in a jug.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 10, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> The P-47 was not that much more rugged than the P-51.
> A hell of a lot of them were shot down.
> 
> The only issue with ruggedness with the Mustang was getting hit in the radiator.
> ...


Resp:
From everything I've read, the P-47 was a lot more rugged than the P-51. The US 8th AF lost a lot of P-47s in air-to-air engagements in the beginning for several reasons; outdated training, lack of experience . . . due to coming into the war late. Tactics took time to develope. There are many stories of P-47 pilots returning to base with aircraft so badly damaged . . . the aircraft were written off. The P-51 gave a pilot, especially an experienced pilot, significantly better manuverabilty against the Luftwaffe. Range brought them into areas the P-47 couldn't tread until the Allies bases advanced across Europe.


----------



## Timppa (Jan 11, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> I've heard the same thing, IE the P47N had an autopilot. It would be interesting to see it's capabilities but expect it was nothing more than altitude & attitude hold (surprisingly enough exactly what the F-15A-D has).



Indeed it had.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 14, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> From everything I've read, the P-47 was a lot more rugged than the P-51. The US 8th AF lost a lot of P-47s in air-to-air engagements in the beginning for several reasons; outdated training, lack of experience . . . due to coming into the war late. Tactics took time to develope. There are many stories of P-47 pilots returning to base with aircraft so badly damaged . . . the aircraft were written off. The P-51 gave a pilot, especially an experienced pilot, significantly better manuverabilty against the Luftwaffe. Range brought them into areas the P-47 couldn't tread until the Allies bases advanced across Europe.



NO it was not a lot more rugged than the Mustang.
It had critical faults such as bursting into flames being hit in the engine and hitting the Oil Cooler and Tank.
May have been able to escape small arms fire but the Germans were tossing 20mm, 30mm and 40mm AAA.
All the German planes had 20mm cannon that would make short work of any fighter.

The only thing going for the Thunderbolt was a fast dive with a decent Mach number, decent zoom, great roll.
But pathetic Climb, Fuel Economy and Needed a slight dive to get to decent level speed.
It was not a very aerodynamic plane.

They were not that well protected with lots of oil lines going to the Turbo, tank and cooler.
Hit any of them the Turbo overheated and oil flaming.
Corsair had the same problem.

When the P51 B/C/D arrived the Luftwaffe was at its peak and the Thunderbolt could not get to the fight.
Had to wait until the Bombers returned where they picked up the escort.
Or they lead them out with the Mustangs picking them up.

For all the Performance of the M had - Thunderbolt it fought under 20k Feet.
It really never was flown as an high altitude fighter at the time.
Then again the M's 2800 P&W was very problematic only in combat a couple months.
Still the Mustang was faster, better climb more maneuverable.

It was not until the P72 with the P&W 4360 or the Hemi Chrysler V16 that the Thunderbolt came alive.

Now if the Thunderbolt like the N model which used twice the fuel of a Mustang they could shoot down a few planes.
Short-Medium range the Thunderbolt was great.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 14, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> NO it was not a lot more rugged than the Mustang.
> It had critical faults such as bursting into flames being hit in the engine and hitting the Oil Cooler and Tank.
> May have been able to escape small arms fire but the Germans were tossing 20mm, 30mm and 40mm AAA.
> All the German planes had 20mm cannon that would make short work of any fighter.
> ...


Agree. And then it didn't get into combat until May '43, and then with no provision for mounting drop tanks. Could barely get to the coast of France before it had to turn around. 

First drop tanks were in August, one small 75 gallon belly tank at first, then 110 gallon tanks. The P-38H would be arriving in October and the P-51B in December. Air superiority achieved after Big Week in February. P-47 was used as escort about 6 months and then only out to about 375 miles. 

A really big expensive fighter that was fast but couldn't do much else. Still better than a P-38 at keeping the pilot alive. Good at ground attack though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 14, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> NO it was not a lot more rugged than the Mustang.
> It had critical faults such as bursting into flames being hit in the engine and hitting the Oil Cooler and Tank.
> May have been able to escape small arms fire but the Germans were tossing 20mm, 30mm and 40mm AAA.
> All the German planes had 20mm cannon that would make short work of any fighter.
> ...


Resp:
We agree to disagree.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 14, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> NO it was not a lot more rugged than the Mustang.
> It had critical faults such as bursting into flames being hit in the engine and hitting the Oil Cooler and Tank.
> May have been able to escape small arms fire but the Germans were tossing 20mm, 30mm and 40mm AAA.
> All the German planes had 20mm cannon that would make short work of any fighter.
> ...


Poor climb was only an issue with the very early p47s. Once they got the " proper" propeler on them it had a climb of 3000 to 3500 fpm depending on the exact model, what source you want to believe etc.
This is equal to or in excess of many planes commonly given credit for a good or excellent climb rate i.e. p51, A6m etc.
The word alot is subjective so what constitutes being alot more rugged than the p51 is up individual interpretation of what constitutes " alot". However, don't think anyone would argue that the p47 was not to some degree more rugged so in this aspect it holds an edge. That doesn't make it a better plane of course but it does mean it was to some degree better in some aspects.
You say the only thing going for the Thunderbolt was fast dive, a good mach number, a decient zoom climb( actually it was great), and a great roll rate............well that only thing you listed is 4 things and 4 pretty important ones at that.
Kinda like saying the only thing the Mustang had going for it was speed, moaenuverability, climb, range, low cost, ease of pilot training, good dive, good cockpit visability, an excellent gun sight,decent load carrying capacity, and armament, so meh.
Also the range of the p47 being short is well.........sort of.........if your compairing to the p51 or p38( but the p51 and the p38 were exceptional in this regard) and looking at early models. The range progressed as the war went on until they were going all the way to Berlin.
You can put a time stamp so to speek on almost any plane and make it come out looking unreservedly poor.
For example one could say as another poster noted here that air suppirriority was achieved durring big week( although some may disagree)..... Well the vast majority of those kills were not by Mustangs but by cutting off the time line at this point we would fail to recognize the huge difference the p51 made in the final year and a half of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 14, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> Poor climb was only an issue with the very early p47s. Once they got the " proper" propeler on them it had a climb of 3000 to 3500 fpm depending on the exact model, what source you want to believe etc.
> This is equal to or in excess of many planes commonly given credit for a good or excellent climb rate i.e. p51, A6m etc.
> The word alot is subjective so what constitutes being alot more rugged than the p51 is up individual interpretation of what constitutes " alot". However, don't think anyone would argue that the p47 was not to some degree more rugged so in this aspect it holds an edge. That doesn't make it a better plane of course but it does mean it was to some degree better in some aspects.
> You say the only thing going for the Thunderbolt was fast dive, a good mach number, a decient zoom climb( actually it was great), and a great roll rate............well that only thing you listed is 4 things and 4 pretty important ones at that.
> ...


Resp:
I am a major P-51 fan. From the misunderstood Allison variants to the Merlin P-51B/C and D/K. Part of the problem/issue with the P-47 falls on USAAC/USAAF prohibition against manufacturers (that made fighters for their Air Corps) making them drop tanks capable (no external fuel stores) that put the P47 at a major disadvantage until @ March/April 1944 when wing pylon Thunderbolt began to appear in England. There were many other improvements, namely an improved propeller. I could go on, but you seemed to be pretty well versed on the P-47. So I won't try to out do you. I have great respect for the 78th FG who flew with ferry tank fitted on the P-47s centerline . . . just to get about 10 min more flying time before turning home. Most of the tanks would not release when the pilot attempted to release them prior to meeting the enemy. Most of the pilots knew of the possibility . . . but flew with them anyway . . . in an attempt to protect their B-17s/B-24s. The 56th FG's Zemkie realized early that in order to survive/win . . . tactics required adjustments . . . with strict adherence. The US did not fly combat with the Merlin Mustang until Dec 1943, and it certainly didn't supplant the P-47 until well into 1944. Name a fighter the USAAF (8th, ?) could have used before the Merlin P-51 in the ETO? 
If the P-38 hadn't been forwarded to the Med in early 1943 would/could Lockheed have satisfactory addressed its high altitude issues? We will never know.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:

1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 14, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> It was not until the P72 with the P&W 4360 or the Hemi Chrysler V16 that the Thunderbolt came alive.




Both were late and no more than 2 airframes flew with either engine. and the Chrysler engine was no longer needed. 

Please try checking out the Performance of a P-47D with the 2nd water injection modification before jumping to rash conclusions.
2535hp on 100/130 fuel, 64in of Manifold pressure. 

BTW some sources say the first flight of the P-47H with Chrysler engine was on July 26, 1945 which is way too late for it to have any influence on anything. 
P-47Ns were already in action in the Pacific. 

Some sources claim it only got up to 414mph and that is without military equipment like guns. Seems to me that is a lot deader than a bog stock P-47C.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> We agree to disagree.



I think the rest of the forum agrees with you as well...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 15, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> Poor climb was only an issue with the very early p47s. Once they got the " proper" propeler on them it had a climb of 3000 to 3500 fpm depending on the exact model, what source you want to believe etc.
> This is equal to or in excess of many planes commonly given credit for a good or excellent climb rate i.e. p51, A6m etc.
> The word alot is subjective so what constitutes being alot more rugged than the p51 is up individual interpretation of what constitutes " alot". However, don't think anyone would argue that the p47 was not to some degree more rugged so in this aspect it holds an edge. That doesn't make it a better plane of course but it does mean it was to some degree better in some aspects.
> You say the only thing going for the Thunderbolt was fast dive, a good mach number, a decient zoom climb( actually it was great), and a great roll rate............well that only thing you listed is 4 things and 4 pretty important ones at that.
> ...




Not amatter of BELIEF....Matter of Facts
The Paddle Prop P-47 never got to 3000 fpm
It did improve from 2500 fpm to 2800 fpm.
The M- Model best was 3500 fpm but that was with a 2800 Water Methanol injection.
After it was used up was just as fast as a normal P47.

P-47 cost twice as much to build, maintain and fly.
The only country willing take them was General Chennault for Taiwan.
There they battled the Chinese over Que Moy Islands.
They Claimed a Mig but several were shot down.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 15, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Both were late and no more than 2 airframes flew with either engine. and the Chrysler engine was no longer needed.
> 
> Please try checking out the Performance of a P-47D with the 2nd water injection modification before jumping to rash conclusions.
> 2535hp on 100/130 fuel, 64in of Manifold pressure.
> ...



YEAH both were late entries..
The Pilot test reports on the P-72 were very happy about the performance.
Jet engines were already taking over.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 15, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I am a major P-51 fan. From the misunderstood Allison variants to the Merlin P-51B/C and D/K. Part of the problem/issue with the P-47 falls on USAAC/USAAF prohibition against manufacturers (that made fighters for their Air Corps) making them drop tanks capable (no external fuel stores) that put the P47 at a major disadvantage until @ March/April 1944 when wing pylon Thunderbolt began to appear in England. There were many other improvements, namely an improved propeller. I could go on, but you seemed to be pretty well versed on the P-47. So I won't try to out do you. I have great respect for the 78th FG who flew with ferry tank fitted on the P-47s centerline . . . just to get about 10 min more flying time before turning home. Most of the tanks would not release when the pilot attempted to release them prior to meeting the enemy. Most of the pilots knew of the possibility . . . but flew with them anyway . . . in an attempt to protect their B-17s/B-24s. The 56th FG's Zemkie realized early that in order to survive/win . . . tactics required adjustments . . . with strict adherence. The US did not fly combat with the Merlin Mustang until Dec 1943, and it certainly didn't supplant the P-47 until well into 1944. Name a fighter the USAAF (8th, ?) could have used before the Merlin P-51 in the ETO?
> If the P-38 hadn't been forwarded to the Med in early 1943 would/could Lockheed have satisfactory addressed its high altitude issues? We will never know.



Certainly did supplant the Thunderbolt almost right away.
Mustangs and Lightnings (that could make it) went all the way into Germany.
Thunderbolts escorted them to the edge of their range. 
Landed and Fueled up to receive the remaining bombers.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 15, 2020)

Michael mentioned Big Week so I went looking up fighter numbers, the much suspect Wiki has this which I condensed to the missions they had listed with fighet claims:

_*Sunday
20 February 1944*_
_escorted by 94 P-38 Lightnings, 668 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47 Thunderbolts and 73 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51 Mustangs
Total losses included 74 Bf 110s, Fw 190s and Bf 109s and a further 29 damaged

*Monday
21 February 1944*
Escort for Mission 228 is provided by 69 P-38s, 542 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s and 68 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s
P-38s claim 0-1-0 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-47s claim 19-3-14 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-51s claim 14-1-4 Luftwaffe aircraft

*Tuesday
22 February 1944*
escorted by 67 P-38s, 535 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s, and 57 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s
P-38s claim 1 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-47s claim 39-6-15 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-51s claim 19-1-10 Luftwaffe aircraft

*Thursday
24 February 1944*
Escort is provided by 81 P-38s, 94 P-47s and 22 P-51s
P-51s claim a single German aircraft on the ground

*Friday
25 February 1944*
Escort is provided by 73 P-38s, 687 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s and 139 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s
P-38s claim 1-2-0 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-47s claim 13-2-10 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-51s claim 12-0-3 Luftwaffe aircraft_

Not sure if these are correct numbers, would love to see actual data but looking at this, a few things come to mind.
1. The P-38 was not getting it done kill wise.
2. Even thought the Thunderbolt outnumbered the Mustang sometimes almost 10 to 1, kills don't seem to be that far apart.

Again being Wiki these numbers are suspect so as I said, would love to see some vetted data on this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 15, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Michael mentioned Big Week so I went looking up fighter numbers, the much suspect Wiki has this which I condensed to the missions they had listed with fighet claims:
> 
> _*Sunday
> 20 February 1944*_
> ...


Resp:
Sure looks like P-47s are in the majority; in more ways than one. Never mind the ratio, they were getting more kills. Again, name a US made single engine fighter in 1943 that could have supplanted the P-47. What pilot was worried about the cost to make an aircraft? The US 5th USAAF General (Kenney?) agreed to take -5 and -6 
P-47D variants (since he was told all P-38s would go to the 8th AF) that were not drop tank capable. Within 60 days of the P-47s arrival, his P-47s were flying long range missions. He tasked his engineers to build a single 200 gallon flat belly drop tank, and to plum/make a centerline rack for these tanks. All in less than 60 days! Handling was a chore with these less than aerodynamic tanks. The tanks were made by Ford Motor Co of Australia. Gen Eaker had placed an order (so he thought) with British industry, only that he failed to follow up until it was months too late. And in so doing, he cancelled a US request for drop tanks for his P-47s! Just shows you how getting creative . . . gets thing done!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Jan 15, 2020)

Hello Peter Gunn

It certainly looks like the P-38 wasn't getting the job done when one looks at the claims. However, to score claims, one must be in the area of action. It appears that at least one group (the 20th) was assigned target support, which I understand means joining the bombers 3 to 5 minutes before they bombed, and then escorting them back to England after coming off the target. Thus, they would not be involved in combat with the initial German interception, and would be themselves relieved about the time the refueled and rearmed German interceptors were attacking the homeward bound bombers.
Please see
Missions 001 - 025 

for Big Week mission reports for the 20th FG.

To summarize, it appears that at least half of the P-38 force was placed in an area, where German fighters were less likely to be encountered (not that they would not be encountered). This may be one reason that the P-38 did not make as many claims.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 15, 2020)

I've also read that at least some of the time when there was a mix of escorts the p38s were assigned close escort duty( to stick right by the bombers) while other types were given wider latitude.
This is probably the right call as you want the most effective high altitude aircraft to have more leeway on a high altitude escort mission and that would be Mustangs and Thunderbolts but may be another reason for a comparatively poor showing by the p38s in this theater.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Jan 15, 2020)

Yes,

If you read the Briefing notes for Mission 25 you will find that the 20th FG was assigned as close escort with the 354th FG flying top cover. Under those conditions it becomes difficult to run up any significant scores if you are a P-38 jockey.

Eagledad


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2020)

The chart below is in mid final draft format, extracted from flight test data supplied by both Mike Williams and Kurfurst. There are still errors on the chart including labels. i.e. the Bf 109G-6 curves are for a DB605AS, the P-47D is a D-10 w/R2800-63 w/WI @56" and correct through the -16 series as far as Hp although the succeeding P-47D grew in weight. The plots for both the P-38J-15 and P-47D-10 for speed and climb are optimistic as the only test flights are at ~97% full combat load out (internal) Gross Weight. The P-51 is with full load out including full internal 269 gallons. ALL performance plots are shown without wing racks. The Bf 109 is the least affected with the Schlob 503, next is the Single C/L rack for the P-47D, next is the P-51B, then Fw 190A w/ETC 501, then last the P-38 J with twin pylons. With Wing Rack mods the P-47D was worst of all.

All of my plots are extracted from AAF and LW flight test data, clean, to provide a common benchmark for comparisons. It may be interesting to note that the P-51D compared to P-51B-15 *w/1650-7 at the same Gross Weight* (i.e full internal fuel -269gal for P-51B @9600 lbs WITHOUT RACKs, 184 gal internal for P-51D @9600lbs WITH racks) The D outclimbed the B and was faster at all altitudes.

For all that express comparative performance beliefs based on Max Speed or Max ROC, note from the chart that 'It Depends' - also note the for the ETO battles for control of German skies what the comparisons are for 15-30K altitudes.

Loss Rate comparison - before getting giddy in comparing ETO combat losses wrt to P-51 vs P-47, ponder a bit on these thoughts; The oil cooler vulnerability of the P-47 was about the same as the F4U and the P-47 was also vulnerable to a hit to the turbo. The ranges flown and the range to return to base for a Mustang was 50% greater on the average when strafing heavily defended ground targets for both the P-47D and F4U (WWII and Korea). Yet the per sortie loss of the P-51D was about the same as F4U in Korea - in perhaps a more lethal flak environment in Korea.

Big Week comparisons: First - the number of P-47D FGs = 11, P-38J = 2, P-51B =2. Second, the experience levels of only four P-47D FG's was less than the most experienced (354th FG) Mustang Group. The least experienced FG in Big Week was the new 357th FG Mustang group with 9 days under its belt.

Feb 20 thru 25 - - P-38 9-2-5 for 4 losses; P-47 137.5-14-29 for 17 losses; P-51 66.5-8-32 for 9 losses. VC Sources Dr Frank Olynyk PhD which also is supported by USAF 85. Loss Source Freeman's Mighty Eighth War Diary. The last time the cumulative totals of all 8th and 9th AF P-47D in escort roles exceeded the P-51B was March 15, less than three weeks afterwards.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2020)

Note - the above comparison II as shown does not include Bf 109G-6AS @ 1.42ata. Shift the existing curve to inflect at 22,000 feet - 409mph - and for climb, move the curve to 3750fpm for the 109G-6AS at SL

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2020)

eagledad said:


> Yes,
> 
> If you read the Briefing notes for Mission 25 you will find that the 20th FG was assigned as close escort with the 354th FG flying top cover. Under those conditions it becomes difficult to run up any significant scores if you are a P-38 jockey.
> 
> Eagledad


I wonder. First there weren't enough P-38 and P-51 groups to devote to escort of more than one BD or Task Force striking deep targets. Second, 'close escort' was defined then as being specifically assigned to one or two boxes of up to 10-12 BG. A 'normal' briefed plan for the three squadrons for Lead box would be one at or around the same altitude on the side where attacks were forecast, one flying high over the middle Box and one out in front. For the middle position (post D-Day when there were enough escorts to assign two+ to a single Task Force, then one squadron was high, one on one side and one 'roving' on the other side.

It would have been very strange for Two FGs (one P-51, one P-38 with total of six squadrons protecting less than an entire BD and certainly not concentrated into 'escort and high cover'. I wonder..

The 8th AF Field Orders for VIII FC (which included operational control of IX FC P-47s and P-51s) from Feb 20th to 25th were F.O. 245 through F.O. 251. The February 20th mission for 20th FG was ~#20 (interesting). According to 8th AF F.O. 226 the 20th never made R/V with 2BD for Brunswick target and 55th was also assigned to Brunswick for 1BD. The 354th and 357th P-51s were assigned to cover 1BD in Leipzig/Bernburg - way off to the east.

If this was the mission reference, the 354th could have been proceeding to R/V for 1st Task Force headed to Leipzig at an altitude higher than the B-24s headed to Brunswick on the same track but behind the 1TF.

Or this analysis is worthless..

EDIT - I re-read your post as mission 25, not 20 so I'll go with Worthless

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 16, 2020)

drgondog said:


> The chart below is in mid final draft format, extracted from flight test data supplied by both Mike Williams and Kurfurst. There are still errors on the chart including labels. i.e. the Bf 109G-6 curves are for a DB605AS, the P-47D is a D-10 w/R2800-63 w/WI @56" and correct through the -16 series as far as Hp although the succeeding P-47D grew in weight. The plots for both the P-38J-15 and P-47D-10 for speed and climb are optimistic as the only test flights are at ~97% full combat load out (internal) Gross Weight. The P-51 is with full load out including full internal 269 gallons. ALL performance plots are shown without wing racks. The Bf 109 is the least affected with the Schlob 503, next is the Single C/L rack for the P-47D, next is the P-51B, then Fw 190A w/ETC 501, then last the P-38 J with twin pylons. With Wing Rack mods the P-47D was worst of all.
> 
> All of my plots are extracted from AAF and LW flight test data, clean, to provide a common benchmark for comparisons. It may be interesting to note that the P-51D compared to P-51B-15 *w/1650-7 at the same Gross Weight* (i.e full internal fuel -269gal for P-51B @9600 lbs WITHOUT RACKs, 184 gal internal for P-51D @9600lbs WITH racks) The D outclimbed the B and was faster at all altitudes.
> 
> ...





eagledad said:


> Hello Peter Gunn
> 
> It certainly looks like the P-38 wasn't getting the job done when one looks at the claims. However, to score claims, one must be in the area of action. It appears that at least one group (the 20th) was assigned target support, which I understand means joining the bombers 3 to 5 minutes before they bombed, and then escorting them back to England after coming off the target. Thus, they would not be involved in combat with the initial German interception, and would be themselves relieved about the time the refueled and rearmed German interceptors were attacking the homeward bound bombers.
> Please see
> ...


Resp:
I like your two cents!
I wonder how many of the P-51 pilots got combat experience in another fighter before migrating to the P-51?
And conversely, how many P-38s pilots did not have the benefit of prior combat experience in another type? James Howard flew P-40s in Burma before joining the first ETO Mustang unit in late 1943. Just thinking out loud.

This may be a little off topic, and I have no actual data to support what I'm about to say. A US Marine, who is still living, flew FM-2s, F4U-Ds in 1944 and 1945, respectively . . . and F4U-4s Korea as ground support for NATO forces . . . said the F-51 had a greater loss rate than the F4U. He also said the F-51 pilots normally would not get low enough to accurately place their ordinance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 16, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I like your two cents!
> I wonder how many of the P-51 pilots got combat experience in another fighter before migrating to the P-51?
> And conversely, how many P-38s pilots did not have the benefit of prior combat experience in another type? James Howard flew P-40s in Burma before joining the first ETO Mustang unit in late 1943. Just thinking out loud.
> ...



In response to what the Marine pilot said, and this is why I do not trust anecdotal types of evidence but here's what I've seen posted for loss rates in Korea:

Combat Losses:
F-51 = *341*
F4U
.............145 Navy
.............164 Marines
..............16 AU1 - Not sure if Navy or Marines
=======
Total *325*

Total Losses (To all causes):
F-51 = *474*
F4U
.............267 Navy
.............206 Marines
..............21 AU1
=======
Total *494*

I have no clue/evidence of whether or not the Mustangs did not get low enough to accurately place their ordinance, which, considering loss rates etc., sounds a bit of a disservice to the F-51 jocks.

I'm not too good at statistics but I don't see a whole percentage point difference there.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 16, 2020)

I'll go through this later if I find the time...239 pages, alphabetical order. Right off the get-go, 3 Corsairs down

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 16, 2020)

drgondog said:


> The chart below is in mid final draft format, extracted from flight test data supplied by both Mike Williams and Kurfurst. There are still errors on the chart including labels. i.e. the Bf 109G-6 curves are for a DB605AS, the P-47D is a D-10 w/R2800-63 w/WI @56" and correct through the -16 series as far as Hp although the succeeding P-47D grew in weight. The plots for both the P-38J-15 and P-47D-10 for speed and climb are optimistic as the only test flights are at ~97% full combat load out (internal) Gross Weight. The P-51 is with full load out including full internal 269 gallons. ALL performance plots are shown without wing racks. The Bf 109 is the least affected with the Schlob 503, next is the Single C/L rack for the P-47D, next is the P-51B, then Fw 190A w/ETC 501, then last the P-38 J with twin pylons. With Wing Rack mods the P-47D was worst of all.
> 
> All of my plots are extracted from AAF and LW flight test data, clean, to provide a common benchmark for comparisons. It may be interesting to note that the P-51D compared to P-51B-15 *w/1650-7 at the same Gross Weight* (i.e full internal fuel -269gal for P-51B @9600 lbs WITHOUT RACKs, 184 gal internal for P-51D @9600lbs WITH racks) The D outclimbed the B and was faster at all altitudes.
> 
> ...


Very interesting chart. If I'm reading it properly it says the best climb for the p47d is about 2300 fpm?
All the other types on the chart are about what is commonly cited but the p47D is way different than the usual. Doesn't nescesarily mean it's wrong but I do find it a curiosity.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 16, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> In response to what the Marine pilot said, and this is why I do not trust anecdotal types of evidence but here's what I've seen posted for loss rates in Korea:
> 
> Combat Losses:
> F-51 = *341*
> ...



If you go to COWAR archives built by Cookie Sewell....the Mustang had a slightly less Loss ratio per sortie than the Corsair.
Mustangs could stay on station longer because of their range. Corsairs launched from Carriers and traveled to land targets. 
Corsair did better on land but had several accidents on takeoff RTCarrier. Mustangs began as an attack aircraft as the A36 and were very accurate.
So the comment the Mustang was not accurate is proven otherwise. Both Corsair and Mustang were damn effective destroying way more than their respective losses. The Mustang also had a higher cruise speed and could get to targets a bit faster. 

One other observation..the P47 would not been suitable because even just fully fueled and machine guns took a longer airstrip to takeoff from than a fully loaded Mustang loaded up with ordinance. The airfields the Mustangs flew out of the first year were built by the Japanese and were very short. P47s would have required a bomber length field. Would have been just as vulnerable to AAA as the Corsair and Mustang.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 16, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> Very interesting chart. If I'm reading it properly it says the best climb for the p47d is about 2300 fpm?
> All the other types on the chart are about what is commonly cited but the p47D is way different than the usual. Doesn't nescesarily mean it's wrong but I do find it a curiosity.



To be fair, the climb rate given for the P-47D-6 on the chart is what one would see under MILITARY power settings (52" Hg) and not with water injection. With 56" Hg boost the climb rate of the P-47D-10 on Mike Williams' website is substantially higher but still lower than most of it's contemporaries shown on Bill's chart.

P-47 Performance Tests

P-47D-10 / AAF No. 43-75035/ Report Date: 11 Oct 1943/ 56" Hg

P-47D-6 / AAF No. 42-74616/ Report Date: 28 Sep 1943 / 52" Hg

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 16, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Note - the above comparison II as shown does not include Bf 109G-6AS @ 1.42ata. Shift the existing curve to inflect at 22,000 feet - 409mph - and for climb, move the curve to 3750fpm for the 109G-6AS at SL


Wonder how many G-6AS were built?


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 16, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Wonder how many G-6AS were built?



According to _Messerschmitt Bf 109 F,G, & K Series _by Jochen Prien & Peter Rodeike, there were only 226 BF-109G-6/AS with MW 50 injection produced and 460 converted from standard G-6 airframes during the months of April - August 1944. Apparently production shifted rather quickly to the G-14 thereafter. I'm uncertain of how many were manufactured/converted without the MW 50 system.


----------



## eagledad (Jan 16, 2020)

Drgondog

My conclusion was based on the Briefing notes for the 20th FG for FO 250, 24th February 1944. They are attached below. In all fairness, the 354th was credited with 1 kill, as was the 20th. In return, the 20th lost 2 ships, one to mechanical problems, and one to running out of fuel. (data from The Mighty Eighth War Diary, and Fighter Units and Pilots of the the 8th Air Force).

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 16, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> To be fair, the climb rate given for the P-47D-6 on the chart is what one would see under MILITARY power settings (52" Hg) and not with water injection. With 56" Hg boost the climb rate of the P-47D-10 on Mike Williams' website is substantially higher but still lower than most of it's contemporaries shown on Bill's chart.
> 
> P-47 Performance Tests
> 
> ...



PEP 44-1 130/150 fuel the P47 for short periods could go to 70 inches with Water Injection
This boost was used on the P47M and max climb rate was 3500 ft /min.
Even when 65 inches was used the tuning and maintenance issues were still considerable..
Hence the delay of the M Thunderbolt.

Liquid cooled engines handled the additional boost better.
Experimentation went well past 130 inches pushing engines well past 2 hp per cuin.
Reno Merlin’s are pushed closer to 2.5 hp/cuin.
Radial engines barely make 1 hp per cuin.

The Merlin H Mustangs were successfully boosted to 91 inches.
That was before the much better Merlin Transportation heads were available.

The only radial engine that exceeded 1:1 hp/cuin that was the Turbo Compound CW3350 at 3500 hp

One other observation Mustang often exceeded 75 inches managing 81 inches in combat.
Just looked at a few combat reports..

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tkdog (Jan 17, 2020)

eagledad said:


> Hello Peter Gunn
> 
> It certainly looks like the P-38 wasn't getting the job done when one looks at the claims. However, to score claims, one must be in the area of action. It appears that at least one group (the 20th) was assigned target support, which I understand means joining the bombers 3 to 5 minutes before they bombed, and then escorting them back to England after coming off the target. Thus, they would not be involved in combat with the initial German interception, and would be themselves relieved about the time the refueled and rearmed German interceptors were attacking the homeward bound bombers.
> Please see
> ...


It’s this sort of thing that simple numbers can’t tell us. Each of these aircraft had strengths and weaknesses relative to the enemy and each other. By deploying them differently across the battlefield the allies could hope to play to the strengths. The fighter pilots didn’t just go off to shoot at the bad guy. They flew highly technical escort missions with specific roles and objectives. All these years later it is hard to extract those details with clarity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 17, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> According to _Messerschmitt Bf 109 F,G, & K Series _by Jochen Prien & Peter Rodeike, there were only 226 BF-109G-6/AS with MW 50 injection produced and 460 converted from standard G-6 airframes during the months of April - August 1944. Apparently production shifted rather quickly to the G-14 thereafter. I'm uncertain of how many were manufactured/converted without the MW 50 system.


Thanks, almost 700.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 17, 2020)

eagledad said:


> Drgondog
> 
> My conclusion was based on the Briefing notes for the 20th FG for FO 250, 24th February 1944. They are attached below. In all fairness, the 354th was credited with 1 kill, as was the 20th. In return, the 20th lost 2 ships, one to mechanical problems, and one to running out of fuel. (data from The Mighty Eighth War Diary, and Fighter Units and Pilots of the the 8th Air Force).
> 
> Eagledad


 Well the 2TF was comprised of 238 effectives ~ 5 Combat boxes of 50 in trail. Splitting up the Groups (frequently done to provide escort for a ten mile track would suggest the 354 in high cover, have one out front and one middle and one trail with the 20th patrolling the flanks.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 17, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> PEP 44-1 130/150 fuel the P47 for short periods could go to 70 inches with Water Injection
> ....



Yes, with a boost pressure of 70" Hg the performance of the P-47 increased even further, but the comparative charts found in post #98 were for periods before the higher octane fuel was available for operations. With 100/130 fuel and using water injection the P-47 was initially cleared for a maximum of 56" Hg of manifold pressure. This happened in November 1943. Later in 1944 it was cleared for 64" Hg but modified water jets were required to safely obtain this.

One thing that I failed to mention was that both P-47Ds shown in the earlier charts used the the older 12 foot "toothpick" propeller which didn't have the greatest efficiency in a climb. One can expect the ROC to increase by about 250 fpm with the improved "paddle blade" Curtis 836 and Hamilton Standard types, which began to reach squadrons by the end of 1943. With 64" Hg (2600 hp) there was even a further increase of 500 fpm across the board.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47d-75035-fig2.jpg

Testing was accomplished at both 56" and 64" Hg. You will note that the maximum speed of the P-47 actually _decreased _with the "improved" Curtis propeller. Even so, the better climb rate achieved was reason enough to replace the older, less efficient Curtis propellers. The Hamilton propeller seems to be the clear winner here with both improved level speed and climb over the earlier propellers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 17, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> Yes, with boost pressure beyond 56" (64 and 70") the performance of the P-47 increased even further, but the comparative charts found in post #98 were for periods before the higher octane fuel was available for operations. With 100/130 fuel and using water injection the P-47 was cleared for a maximum of 56" Hg of manifold pressure.
> 
> One thing that I failed to mention was that both P-47Ds shown in the charts used the the older 12 foot "toothpick" propeller which didn't have the greatest efficiency in a climb. One can expect the ROC to increase by about 250 fpm with the improved "paddle blade" Curtis 836 and Hamilton Standard types, which began to reach squadrons by the end of 1943. With 64" Hg (2600 hp) there was even a further increase of 500 fpm across the board:
> 
> ...


Looks like the graph is dated in March of 1944. Unless they are in combat that month they will have missed the air superiority win and will shortly be headed for ground attack. The P-47s that did engage the Luftwaffe during this period had relatively low climb rates. And were just then getting adequate external tanks.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 17, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Looks like the graph is dated in March of 1944. Unless they are in combat that month they will have missed the air superiority win and will shortly be headed for ground attack. The P-47s that did engage the Luftwaffe during this period had relatively low climb rates. And were just then getting adequate external tanks.



Dean's book states that starting in December 1943 the new propellers were fitted to P-47s in the field "one squadron at a time". He also states that with the new propeller and water injection the Thunderbolt could beat the FW-190 in a climb below 15,000 ft. I don't know how long it took for all T-bolt units to get the new propeller but I'm sure this wasn't accomplished overnight so there was a period where both old and new propellers were in service at the front.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 17, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Agree. And then it didn't get into combat until May '43, and then with no provision for mounting drop tanks. Could barely get to the coast of France before it had to turn around.
> 
> First drop tanks were in August, one small 75 gallon belly tank at first, then 110 gallon tanks. The P-38H would be arriving in October and the P-51B in December. Air superiority achieved after Big Week in February. P-47 was used as escort about 6 months and then only out to about 375 miles.
> 
> A really big expensive fighter that was fast but couldn't do much else. Still better than a P-38 at keeping the pilot alive. Good at ground attack though.



The Thunderbolt was a big bulky plane and combat range of a Spitfire !
It was more reliable than the P38. 
The P40 could climb quicker up to 18k.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 17, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> The Thunderbolt was a big bulky plane and combat range of a Spitfire !
> It was more reliable than the P38.
> The P40 could climb quicker up to 18k.


Prove me wrong if you disagree


----------



## Conslaw (Jan 17, 2020)

The P-47 pilots who talked about the impact of the paddle-bladed propeller said it was not so much in the rate of climb but that the P-47 could then climb steeper and pursue an enemy into the climb In such case, the pursuing aircraft does not have to be faster than the evading aircraft. The bullets have to be faster. 

For that matter, the P-51's climb rate on paper was inferior to the later Bf-109 marks, but the pilot accounts don't seem to fret over that. Likely it's because the P-51's zoom climb and energy retention was excellent. When the P-51 starts the engagement with a speed advantage the zoom climb ability can make up for a lower basic climb rate. Same for the P-47, but the P-51 seemed to be the master of the zoom climb (with the exception of the Me-262, of course. 

I will try to find passages to support this. If somebody beats me to it, so be it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jan 17, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Part of the problem/issue with the P-47 falls on USAAC/USAAF prohibition against manufacturers (that made fighters for their Air Corps) making them drop tanks capable (no external fuel stores) that put the P47 at a major disadvantage until @ March/April 1944



I have never heard of this prohibition. When was it introduced and why?
All USAAC P-40D (serials 40-359 to 381 inclusive) and subsequent P-40 aircraft had drop tanks so why did the USAAC/F prohibit them on later aircraft? That does not make sense.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 17, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> The P40 could climb quicker up to 18k.



Which P-40 vs which P-47?

and when? 

The only real P-40 contenders for a fast climb are the P-40L and the first few hundred Ns. 

How did they achieve this great climb?
They left two of the guns out and cut the remaining ammo for the remaining 4.

You bitch about the short range of the P-47 ( which could actually fly twice as a far as the Spitfire under similar conditions) and then you use P-40s with just 120 gallons of internal fuel (if that) for your climb figures, How far was the P-40 stripper going to get? 

You rag on the P-47 for being expensive. It carried twice the guns of a stripper P-40 and with just 267 rounds per gun it carried 2.27 times the ammo of the strippers , With 467 rpg which the early planes could do without under wing loads it is carrying 3.6 times the ammo. Perhaps that is too much but obviously the P-47 has a lot more combat effectiveness than a P-40 stripper. So it is returning value for the money spent on it. At least better than the 2 to ratio some people imply. 

And since the P-40 strippers could not even operate at the altitudes needed to escort the B-17s and B-24s the argument about the cheaper fighter really falls flat.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 17, 2020)

MiTasol said:


> I have never heard of this prohibition. When was it introduced and why?
> All USAAC P-40D (serials 40-359 to 381 inclusive) and subsequent P-40 aircraft had drop tanks so why did the USAAC/F prohibit them on later aircraft? That does not make sense.



I am not sure the USAAC prohibited them on later aircraft so much as they prohibited them in the early stages of design and development and then had to play catch up. 
some accounts also claim that Curtiss worked on the external tank on the P-40 for export sales, and so had a lot of the early design/development work done. When Bell got in on this I don't know but the P-39 had a real range problem from the start. 
A number of the pre -P-35 fighters and ground attack planes used external tanks so unless there were actual operational problems with them it is hard to figure out the reasoning.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 17, 2020)

MiTasol said:


> I have never heard of this prohibition. When was it introduced and why?
> All USAAC P-40D (serials 40-359 to 381 inclusive) and subsequent P-40 aircraft had drop tanks so why did the USAAC/F prohibit them on later aircraft? That does not make sense.
> View attachment 567028


Resp:
No, it does not make sense. The USAAC saw the next war from a Strategic point of view where Long Range Bombers (1935 B-17), armed to the teeth . . . would not require additional aircraft (namely fighters) since they believed 4 engine bombers could fight their way to the target and back. One of the reasons Chennault (who was teaching fighter tactics) was forced to resign from the USAAC in 1936. If you read enough, you will hear/see the term 'Bomber Mafia' here and there. Generally, anyone who spoke out about anything not supporting/pushing the Strategic Long Range Bomber theory was derailing/damaging Strategic Air Power. Chennault was pushing the incorporation of external fuel stores (drop tanks) on Army fighters (the Navy had no such prohibition) in case the need ever arose. So in 1939 the USAAC actually wrote into contracts with companies who built fighters for them, the restriction against incorporating drop tanks. A case in point, the Lockheed P-38E was Coming off the production line in mid 1941 that was not drop tank capable. However, the test pilot for Lockheed's P-38 went to the Chief Engineers and said something like "you need to make the P-38 drop tank capable, as this next war will be a long range affair (Japan?)" Lockheed immediately drew up plans and these 'plumbed' fighters we're coming off the production lines when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Just imagine how long it would have taken P-38s to reach England if the US couldn't/didn't ferry them over the Atlantic (usually in groups of 5, using a B-17 for navigation), but instead had to wrap them before shipping by ship? Gen Hap Arnold was the commander of all US Army Air Forces, and generally supported the Bomber Mafia (I think he generally just didn't want to ruffle any feathers during the 1930s) but soon realized all planes would have to travel long distances (Europe/Asia). I noticed that in his early written communications that either he, or his staff started using the term 'ferry tanks' which I believe he knew were more than ferry tanks (P-38 a case in point). If you read enough about the 8th AF 78th FG, which flew P-47s beginning in 1943, you will see that the Group used on one mission a large 200 gallon tank (a wide balloon shaped tank) specifically designed to ferry P-47s long distances. Technically, these tanks could be jetsoned by the pilot, but weren't built for that purpose and so often hung up when the pilot attempted to jetson them. Pressure with the increasing number of bombers losses, the 78th FG flew a combat mission with these ferry tanks attached where they surprised the Luftwaffe . . . as the Germans knew the area where the escorting P-47s normally turned for home. Many of the P-47 pilots did battle with the ferry tanks attached. Not a tactic for a long life.
As for the P-39 and P-40, it may have been that since foreign countries (Russia/England) were ordering them, so the USAAF got them plumbed to take drop tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 17, 2020)

The other factor that came into play was that in 1938-39 and early 40 some of these planes were designed, as was just about everything else at the time, without drop tanks.

The early P-38s carried 400 gallons of fuel in unprotected tanks. When they installed self sealing fuel tanks the fuel capacity dropped to 300 gallons. External tanks of some sort would be needed just restore the original range. Same for the P-39 and P-40, original fuel was supposed to be 200 to 170 gallons and 180 gallons respectively. But the self sealing tanks cut capacity to 120 gallons on the P-39 and around 150 gallons on the P-40 (sources differ on the early models as to which ones got what) The P-47 was designed after the "Ban" and while it was thirsty it was not as bad as some of it's detractors claim and that 305 gallons of internal fuel gave it a considerable range for 1942/early 1943, unfortunately it was nowhere near what was actually needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 17, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The other factor that came into play was that in 1938-39 and early 40 some of these planes were designed, as was just about everything else at the time, without drop tanks.
> 
> The early P-38s carried 400 gallons of fuel in unprotected tanks. When they installed self sealing fuel tanks the fuel capacity dropped to 300 gallons. External tanks of some sort would be needed just restore the original range. Same for the P-39 and P-40, original fuel was supposed to be 200 to 170 gallons and 180 gallons respectively. But the self sealing tanks cut capacity to 120 gallons on the P-39 and around 150 gallons on the P-40 (sources differ on the early models as to which ones got what) The P-47 was designed after the "Ban" and while it was thirsty it was not as bad as some of it's detractors claim and that 305 gallons of internal fuel gave it a considerable range for 1942/early 1943, unfortunately it was nowhere near what was actually needed.


Resp:
You will see photos of 8th AF P-47Cs and early Ds that were retro fitted using a 'kit' that Republic made during Aug/Sept (some say July, which may be correct) 1943 for a single centerline drop tank (initially P-39 75 gal). Some historians have seen photos of early model P-47s and assumed that they came from Republic that way. Such is not the case.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 18, 2020)

MiTasol said:


> I have never heard of this prohibition. When was it introduced and why?
> All USAAC P-40D (serials 40-359 to 381 inclusive) and subsequent P-40 aircraft had drop tanks so why did the USAAC/F prohibit them on later aircraft? That does not make sense.
> View attachment 567028


Prohibition does make sense as it concentrates your design teams minds on getting your fighter into production and service fast.


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 18, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> The Thunderbolt was a big bulky plane and combat range of a Spitfire !
> It was more reliable than the P38.
> The P40 could climb quicker up to 18k.


The p47 had a much greater range than the Spitfire. As much as I love the Spitfire range was not it's long suit..........Seems like your just sayin stuff.............Making it up as you go.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 18, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> The Thunderbolt was a big bulky plane and combat range of a Spitfire !
> It was more reliable than the P38.
> The P40 could climb quicker up to 18k.


The Me163 could climb to 18k in a fraction of the time than your P-40...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 18, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Me163 could climb to 18k in a fraction of the time than your P-40...


So what? Flight time was 15 minutes

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 18, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> The p47 had a much greater range than the Spitfire. As much as I love the Spitfire range was not it's long suit..........Seems like your just sayin stuff.............Making it up as you go.


In the European theatre no it didn’t .
Go read some Range charts.
P47 was a fuel pig needed twice the fuel to go the same range.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 18, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Which P-40 vs which P-47?
> 
> and when?
> 
> ...


P47 even with the cuffed prop could only hit 2800 ft / min.
it was a heavy pathetic climber compared to its competitors.
Even the M model could only do 3500ft/min.

P40 could do as much as 3500 ft/min and got better fuel economy.
Was a better low mid altitude fighter and would make mince meat out of a Thunderbolt In a dogfight.
Add a 75 gallon tank and you had a decent low mid altitude Escort fighter.
Which is what the Russians used over the P39 and Spitfire. 

Only main attribute the P47 had over the P40 was high altitude performance.
It had excellent high speed agility but in a turn knife fight it lost.
Once it’s potential energy was used up you better be heading home Or at least taking the time to get it back If you had it. 

P38 and P47 were both expensive and maintenance hogs compared to every other US fighter and Axis fighter Of the war.
That is just a fact...
Logistically had the Army and Curtis built the P40Q it would have replaced both P47 and P38 in many roles.
In fact been awesome had it been put in the P51A as it was with the P63.

British loved the P51A and wished the US would have produced them in tandem.
The P51A was one of the best low mid altitude Escort /Attack fighters of the war.
Helped by the fact the Allison could be throttled back to fly at bomber speeds.
Brits kept them to the end of the war.

The airplane every Allied combatant used was the P40.

Look at the Fighter platforms that survived after WW2.
Only country that took it was Taiwan that had US built bases with Long enough runways.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 18, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> Very interesting chart. If I'm reading it properly it says the best climb for the p47d is about 2300 fpm?
> All the other types on the chart are about what is commonly cited but the p47D is way different than the usual. Doesn't nescesarily mean it's wrong but I do find it a curiosity.


Michael - the reason I broke the Performance Comparisons in the book (as shown except for the Bf 109G-6AS) is to portray the relative performances as a function of altitude for two primary periods. The first block for December 1943 - Jan 1944 was to position the narrative for a very important period when the P-47D through the -10 was equipped with Provisions for WI on the -21 engine but neither the -11 with factory WI/R2800-63 capable of 56" boost nor enough kits to equip Group level deployment. The important fact to take note of is that the P-47D at 52" boost and standard prop (Pre-paddle blade HM Std) was a sluggish pig in climb - comparatively speaking - until the turbo provided advantage above 24K vs the Bf 109 @1.3 ata and 20K for the Fw [email protected] That said, the Chart plots for Flight test results are Optimistic. The Jug as flown was light on ammo and 50 cal guns. It performed no better than the P-47C.

At the end of 1943 the VIII FC Jugs started receiving the WI kits and installations began. The October 1943 Flight test on the P-47D-10 (so equipped and cited for April May for all pre-P-47D-11 and subsequent through the -16) reflected Group quantity deployment for combat ops. The P-47D-22 was the first production equipped Ham-Std prop and didn't appear in ETO until May in small numbers.The paddle blade dribbled in during the Jan-April timeframe but full Group equipment was not complete for VIII, IX and XV FC until April May timeframe. For an idea you could add ~200 fpm increased ROC at SL but drop top speed slightly at 20,000 feet.

The ROC and top speed for both the P-38 and P-47 when equipped with pylons, are both Optimistic (ditto the P-51B and FW 190) but less so due to the high drag of the fixed wing pylons after tanks were dropped. The Bf 109G-6 was the least affected with the Schlob 503 C/L rack.

To put the discussion in context - my book is all about pre D-Day battle for air supremacy over the beachead.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 18, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> P47 even with the cuffed prop could only hit 2800 ft / min.
> it was a heavy pathetic climber compared to its competitors.
> Even the M model could only do 3500ft/min.
> 
> ...



Dan,

It would help if you would quote data from, or provide links to, exactly what you use to arrive at your conclusions or theories. Your view seems to a bit different from what’s generally posted or accepted as the norm on this forum.

For example Bill, AKA Drgondog, has posted range depictions, which appear to be from the artwork used from back in the day (WW2), of the different fighters with varying ranges, depicted via half circles showing how far into Europe they could go (from Eastern UK). I seem to remember there were several of these slides / pictures covering different stages or times during the war and the legs on all the fighters continued to increase, but that the P47, AKA Jug, was longer than the Spit. I looked but was unable to find them.

Also remember that we kept so many fighters in production for different reasons. The Mustang (Merlin version), was a tremendous success and seemed to have that magic formula (from the US perspective). Why didn’t the powers that be just cancel P38, 39, 40 production and have those companies make more Mustangs? I’m going out on a limb here but think production interruption was a big part (I can make something for the the Russians, that they like, which doesn’t give them our best weapons but helps with their war effort) AKA the P39. One can’t walk into a plant, shut it down one day, swap out tooling (which SOMEONE has to make), and start making quality aircraft the next day. Then there is the down range logistics that has to be established, training and support, ETC.

You threw some hate at the P38, but could you have hung two drop tanks on a P40 and taken out Yamato? Most of our aircraft were designed for something particular, but used in so many other venues it’s mind boggling. Do you think the designers of the B25 ever thought it would fly from the deck of a carrier or carry a 75mm cannon?

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 18, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Schlob 503 C/L rack


A typo i am sure but it is schloss. (Or a ringle s is used.)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 18, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> P40 could do as much as 3500 ft/min and got better fuel economy.
> Was a better low mid altitude fighter and would make mince meat out of a Thunderbolt In a dogfight.
> Add a 75 gallon tank and you had a decent low mid altitude Escort fighter.



What load of selective crap.
here is your 3500ft/min P-40 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40N_42-9987_FS-M-19-1535-A.pdf

weight=Gross weight at take-off was 7413 pounds., guns and ammo as stated above, climb at 15,000ft was 2680ft/min and it justs gets worse the higher you go.
Plane had no forward fuel tank, 120 gallons of fuel at best and the test plane was not carrying full internal fuel, not at 7413lbs. Normal gross weight was 7740lbs. What is the range with 70 gallons of internal fuel? Even with a 75 gallon tank you are going to be turning around by the coast of France. Put the fuel back in (and the electric starter and the battery and.....) and that marvelous climb rate goes away. In fact the later P-40Ns (with six guns) and full fuel and equipment took 7.3 minutes to hit 14,000ft at military power.
BTW the P-47 will outroll a P-40.




> Only main attribute the P47 had over the P40 was high altitude performance.
> It had excellent high speed agility but in a turn knife fight it lost.



and strangely enough, the bombers were flying at high altitude. The P-40 would have made an excellent escort flying 10,000ft _BELOW _the bombers.




> P38 and P47 were both expensive and maintenance hogs compared to every other US fighter and Axis fighter Of the war.
> That is just a fact...


and off all those fighters, only the Merlin P-51s could do the same job. If you can't do the job then it doesn't matter how cheap the plane is......_and that is just a fact._



> Logistically had the Army and Curtis built the P40Q it would have replaced both P47 and P38 in many roles.


I won't even argue the P-40Q as that takes the P-40 religion to whole new level combining the Holy Grail, the dead sea scrolls and the mythical beast the _Roc_ into one entity.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 18, 2020)

MiTasol said:


> I have never heard of this prohibition. When was it introduced and why?
> All USAAC P-40D (serials 40-359 to 381 inclusive) and subsequent P-40 aircraft had drop tanks so why did the USAAC/F prohibit them on later aircraft? That does not make sense.
> View attachment 567028


The USAAC and early AAF restricted external fuel tanks to ferry tanks. It wasn't until the Arnold Fighter Conference Jan-Feb 1942 that the AAF got serious about developing self sealing combat tanks. The 60gal and 75 gal were first, the 150 gal last. The shock of the Pacific war and range requirements imposed 'new thinking' regarding combat operations as well as the requirement for very long ferry ranges.

Look into combat ops in summer 1943 in ETO. The 8th AF was desperate enough to equip the P-47C/D with the non-pressurized 200 gallon bathtub ferry tank at the end of Blitz Week because the 'on order' pressurized 75 and 108 gallon tanks were not yet delivered.

To compound the problem, there were no factory installed pressure pumps to pressurize tanks to feed above 20K. The initial work around was to slave pressurization from the vacuum pump for instruments.

The failures of Materiel Command were numerous but flawed testing for combat ops of the aircraft tested at Wright Field was monumental - hence Air Technical Services in the field were burdened with patching up inbound fighters to achieve some norm of 'combat ready'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 18, 2020)

A rarity: an aircraft thread were nobody is claiming the Luftwaffe’s aircraft were incontestably better than anybody else’s. I’m impressed. 

Of course, an escort fighter needs to have enough range to remain with the bombers to target and fight enemy interceptors to, from, and in the target area, or they were useless. It also need the air-air performance to win those fights. In the ETO day strategic bombing against the Axis, the only two practical choices were the Mustang and the Thunderbolt (the P-38’s design flaws such as causing pilots to get frostbite in the cockpit takes it off the list). On the other hand, both were pretty useless at escorting a carrier strike against a well-defended carrier task force (until PGM, high-altitude bombers had trouble hitting a a specific city block, let alone a moving ship).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 18, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> In the European theatre no it didn’t .
> Go read some Range charts.
> P47 was a fuel pig needed twice the fuel to go the same range.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 18, 2020)

Resp:
The two range charts that I have seen, gives the P-47 a slight edge over the Spitfire . . . when the RAF used them in escorting USAAF heavy bombers (4 engines). Google it. There wasn't much difference, but you will see that the Spitfire flew the initial leg (and sometimes the final leg for egress) with the P-47 relieving the Spitfire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 18, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> The p47 had a much greater range than the Spitfire. As much as I love the Spitfire range was not it's long suit..........Seems like your just sayin stuff.............Making it up as you go.



Hi Michael - Range in context of Combat Radius for major AAF fighters in May 1943. No external tanks, clean, full internal combat load out Provisions for warm up, take-off, climb to cruise altitude, fight 20 min at the end of the tether, return home, 30 minutes reserve.

P-38H 300gal internal fuel - CR = 130mi; with 300gal plus 2x150 external - CR = 440mi (Dec 1943); with 410gal plus 2x150gal ext = 650mi (Mar/April 1944)
P-47C 305gal internal fuel - CR = 125mi; with 305gal plus 1x75gal external - CR = 230mi (Aug 1943);with 305gal plus 2x150gal ext = 425mi (April 1944)
P-51B 184gal internal fuel - CR = 150mi; with 184gal plus 2x75gal external - CR = 470mi (Dec 1943); with 269gal plus 2x75gal ext = 705mi (Feb 1944)
Sources - AAF, Republic, Lockheed and NAA testing, Dean for cross reference.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jan 18, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> I seem to remember there were several of these slides / pictures covering different stages or times during the war and the legs on all the fighters continued to increase, but that the P47, AKA Jug, was longer than the Spit. I looked but was unable to find them.



Something like this Biff?
This is from Bomber Offensive, Purnell's -1969...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 18, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> A rarity: an aircraft thread were nobody is claiming the Luftwaffe’s aircraft were incontestably better than anybody else’s. I’m impressed.
> 
> Of course, an escort fighter needs to have enough range to remain with the bombers to target and fight enemy interceptors to, from, and in the target area, or they were useless. It also need the air-air performance to win those fights. In the ETO day strategic bombing against the Axis, the only two practical choices were the Mustang and the Thunderbolt (the P-38’s design flaws such as causing pilots to get frostbite in the cockpit takes it off the list). On the other hand, both were pretty useless at escorting a carrier strike against a well-defended carrier task force (until PGM, high-altitude bombers had trouble hitting a a specific city block, let alone a moving ship).


That is the primary reason the USN wasn't concerned about relatively short combat radius of F4U/F6F based on return distance after ejecting external tanks.

For the same reasons, the F4U/F6F weren't much use as primary escort in ETO/MTO/CBI or SWP for escort of long range land based bombers beyond 300mi.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 18, 2020)

Graeme said:


> Something like this Biff?
> This is from Bomber Offensive, Purnell's -1969...
> 
> View attachment 567053


This, among many produced during and post WWII were not extracted from source published AAF Operations docs for the P-38/47 and 51B/D.

For example - the P-38J-10 in December 1943 did not have factory installed 55 gal LE tanks. The kits were in the UK, as well as 85 gal fuselage tank kits for the P-51B - but - nether were installed in group level quantity until February prior to Big Week and March Berlin missions.

For example - the first external tank mission flown (with 200gal Ferry tank ~ 100gal usable fuel and high drag) was July 28 at the end of Blitz week. That mission CR was approximately 220mi. In August 1943, only the 75gal combat tank was operationally available for a CR of 230mi (slightly more than the awkward 200 gal tank). The P-47D as shown with '375mi CR in August 1943' was not attainable until Jan 1944 with 150gal C/L tank.

Does anyone have documentation that a Spit IX had a combat radius (defined to include combat for 20 minutes and 30 minute reserve before landing) of more than 100mi? It had less than 1/2 the P-51 internal fuel and the P-51A/B with only 180gal internal fuel - with same engine and greater gross weight - had a CR of 150mi.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 18, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> So what? Flight time was 15 minutes


The argument was who was fastest to 18K - with a RoC of 525 fps, the 163 will reach 18,000 feet in 34.286 seconds.
Much faster than any P-40 ever built...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The argument was who was fastest to 18K - with a RoC of 525 fps, the 163 will reach 18,000 feet in 34.286 seconds.
> Much faster than any P-40 ever built...



But, but, but, it was not a liquid cooled P-51 so it doesn’t count.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 18, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> But, but, but, it was not a liquid cooled P-51 so it doesn’t count.


Ahh right, my bad.

Perhaps this might work, then

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 18, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Ahh right, my bad.
> 
> Perhaps this might work, then
> 
> View attachment 567087



Who farted?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 18, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Who farted?


¿Yo quiero Taco Bell?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 18, 2020)

drgondog said:


> ...
> Does anyone have documentation that a Spit IX had a combat radius (defined to include combat for 20 minutes and 30 minute reserve before landing) of more than 100mi? It had less than 1/2 the P-51 internal fuel and the P-51A/B with only 180gal internal fuel - with same engine and greater gross weight - had a CR of 150mi.



Plain-vanilla Spitfire IX carried 100 US gals (= 84 imp gals). Drop tank of 45 or 90 imp gals should be standard in 1943? That's another 54 or 108 US gals.


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 18, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Michael - the reason I broke the Performance Comparisons in the book (as shown except for the Bf 109G-6AS) is to portray the relative performances as a function of altitude for two primary periods. The first block for December 1943 - Jan 1944 was to position the narrative for a very important period when the P-47D through the -10 was equipped with Provisions for WI on the -21 engine but neither the -11 with factory WI/R2800-63 capable of 56" boost nor enough kits to equip Group level deployment. The important fact to take note of is that the P-47D at 52" boost and standard prop (Pre-paddle blade HM Std) was a sluggish pig in climb - comparatively speaking - until the turbo provided advantage above 24K vs the Bf 109 @1.3 ata and 20K for the Fw [email protected] That said, the Chart plots for Flight test results are Optimistic. The Jug as flown was light on ammo and 50 cal guns. It performed no better than the P-47C.
> 
> At the end of 1943 the VIII FC Jugs started receiving the WI kits and installations began. The October 1943 Flight test on the P-47D-10 (so equipped and cited for April May for all pre-P-47D-11 and subsequent through the -16) reflected Group quantity deployment for combat ops. The P-47D-22 was the first production equipped Ham-Std prop and didn't appear in ETO until May in small numbers.The paddle blade dribbled in during the Jan-April timeframe but full Group equipment was not complete for VIII, IX and XV FC until April May timeframe. For an idea you could add ~200 fpm increased ROC at SL but drop top speed slightly at 20,000 feet.
> 
> ...


Very cool post. Seems it can be difficult to really nail down comparative performance for different types.
There are so many variables. Obvious ones like different types performance at different altitudes but also things that might not be so imediatly appearant like what was the practical load out for the different types for the missions the were flying. And of course changes over time.


----------



## Greyman (Jan 18, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> The P-47 pilots who talked about the impact of the paddle-bladed propeller said it was not so much in the rate of climb but that the P-47 could then climb steeper and pursue an enemy into the climb In such case, the pursuing aircraft does not have to be faster than the evading aircraft. The bullets have to be faster.
> 
> For that matter, the P-51's climb rate on paper was inferior to the later Bf-109 marks, but the pilot accounts don't seem to fret over that. Likely it's because the P-51's zoom climb and energy retention was excellent. When the P-51 starts the engagement with a speed advantage the zoom climb ability can make up for a lower basic climb rate. Same for the P-47, but the P-51 seemed to be the master of the zoom climb (with the exception of the Me-262, of course.
> 
> I will try to find passages to support this. If somebody beats me to it, so be it.



Zoom climb is a tough one cause there are so many variables. You can easily get a different result by using different rules/parameters of a zoom climb test.

That said, in British testing the Mustang III wasn't a stand-out in the zoom climb department -- being very similar to the 109G. The champion was the Tempest V.

The Meteor proved to be even better, and as Conslaw figured -- I'd be willing to bet the Me262 was better still.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 18, 2020)

Greyman said:


> Zoom climb is a tough one cause there are so many variables. You can easily get a different result by using different rules/parameters of a zoom climb test.
> 
> That said, in British testing the Mustang III wasn't a stand-out in the zoom climb department -- being very similar to the 109G. The champion was the Tempest V.
> 
> The Meteor proved to be even better, and as Conslaw figured -- I'd be willing to bet the Me262 was better still.


Do you know were the p47 and p38 included in that test. From what ive read of pilot accounts the p47 was a real standout when it came to zoom climb. I remember one pilot being surprised that what he had heard was really true that he could go into a shallow dive from 25,000 feet, then climb and be up at 30,000 feet" waiting for a Bf109" that had just climbed straight up from 25,000. " To my surprise it really was true" he said.
I found this incredible but I figure that pilot certainly knows better than I do.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 18, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> Do you know were the p47 and p38 included in that test. From what ive read of pilot accounts the p47 was a real standout when it came to zoom climb. I remember one pilot being surprised that what he had heard was really true that he could go into a shallow dive from 25,000 feet, then climb and be up at 30,000 feet" waiting for a Bf109" that had just climbed straight up from 25,000. " To my surprise it really was true" he said.
> I found this incredible but I figure that pilot certainly knows better than I do.


I think it is the effect of the turbo, at high altitudes the P-47 could out turn the Bf-109 and others simply because it was producing more power.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 18, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> The two range charts that I have seen, gives the P-47 a slight edge over the Spitfire . . . when the RAF used them in escorting USAAF heavy bombers (4 engines). Google it. There wasn't much difference, but you will see that the Spitfire flew the initial leg (and sometimes the final leg for egress) with the P-47 relieving the Spitfire.


I think the p47 had about 35% longer range than the Spitfire early on and the difference grew over time. Although not a huge difference like double ,1/3 more range still seems fairly substantial to me.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 18, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Plain-vanilla Spitfire IX carried 100 US gals (= 84 imp gals). Drop tank of 45 or 90 imp gals should be standard in 1943? That's another 54 or 108 US gals




The Spit had a dozen combinations of internal/external fuel tanks capable of extending their range eventually out to 500+ miles from 1940, they just weren't used for reasons unknown.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Jan 19, 2020)

drgondog said:


> That is the primary reason the USN wasn't concerned about relatively short combat radius of F4U/F6F based on return distance after ejecting external tanks.
> 
> For the same reasons, the F4U/F6F weren't much use as primary escort in ETO/MTO/CBI or SWP for escort of long range land based bombers beyond 300mi.


----------



## Conslaw (Jan 19, 2020)

drgondog said:


> That is the primary reason the USN wasn't concerned about relatively short combat radius of F4U/F6F based on return distance after ejecting external tanks.0
> 
> For the same reasons, the F4U/F6F weren't much use as primary escort in ETO/MTO/CBI or SWP for escort of long range land based bombers beyond 300mi.



The F6F was equipped with a 250 gallon self-sealing fuel tank. (As compared to 305 gallons in the P-47) but the F6F-3 was from the start capable of carrying a single 150 (or 165) gallon drop tank. That being said, the F6F was not combat ready until a few months after the P-47, so in the fall of 1943, their combat radii were likely similar. There was a rolling change in F6F-3 that added plumbing for an additional 165 gallon drop tank under each wing, and retaining the station under the fuselage, so these F6Fs could carry 3x150 gallons of external fuel. There was rarely a suitable mission for this type of load-out. 

The F6F with two external tanks exceeded the combat radius of the carrier bombers that it would be tasked to escort, so there was not much point in increasing the rage beyond this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Jan 19, 2020)

Technically, the F6F's fuel was in 3 tanks totaling 250 gallons.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The Spit had a dozen combinations of internal/external fuel tanks capable of extending their range eventually out to 500+ miles from 1940, they just weren't used for reasons unknown.



Reason(s) for not using increased fuel tankage from 1940 on is well known - it was then-current doctrine of the RAF. That myopically stipulated the long-range fighter will always be inferior to a short-rage enemy fighter, without looking at big picture.
This is also why I've mentioned just 45 and 90 imp gal drop tanks + 84 gal of internal fuel - those were standard for 1943 Spitfire IX.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 19, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Plain-vanilla Spitfire IX carried 100 US gals (= 84 imp gals). Drop tank of 45 or 90 imp gals should be standard in 1943? That's another 54 or 108 US gals.


Hi Tomo - for planning purposes only the internal fuel is critical. The externals carry you to the fight. By AAF planning standards, the CR should be in the 100mi+ range.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 19, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Reason(s) for not using increased fuel tankage from 1940 on is well known - it was then-current doctrine of the RAF. That myopically stipulated the long-range fighter will always be inferior to a short-rage enemy fighter, without looking at big picture.



That myopic view wasn't as far off as you seem to think in 1940-41. 

The US bombers weren't there in usable numbers. 
The British bombers, for daylight bombing, had some serious issues. 
The British were just figuring out the possibility of 100/130 fuel. 

The British bombers in 1940-41 are going to flying lower and slower than the US bombers did in 1942-43 making them a much better target for flak, (which was less numerous and had less radar in 1940-42). It took quite while for the British to get up to 15lbs boost on the Merlin 45 or 14/16lbs boost on the Merlin XX series. So escort Spit (or British plane X) is using a Merlin that maxes out at 12lbs or less? Granted the Germans had some trouble using higher than 1.3 Ata boost but the British may not have known that or when it would be fixed. 
The 109F-4 shows up in the summer of 1941. Spit V with 25-30 gallons of extra fuel (inside) plus drop tank running 12lb boost vs the F-4 at 1.42 ata? escorting Wellingtons? 
Not a pretty picture.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 19, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Reason(s) for not using increased fuel tankage from 1940 on is well known - it was then-current doctrine of the RAF. That myopically stipulated the long-range fighter will always be inferior to a short-rage enemy fighter, without looking at big picture.
> This is also why I've mentioned just 45 and 90 imp gal drop tanks + 84 gal of internal fuel - those were standard for 1943 Spitfire IX.



Hard to understand the logic behind that to be honest.


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 19, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The 109F-4 shows up in the summer of 1941. Spit V with 25-30 gallons of extra fuel (inside) plus drop tank running 12lb boost vs the F-4 at 1.42 ata? escorting Wellingtons?
> Not a pretty picture.



The rear 30G would be gone by the channel and the extra fuel allowed them to run at higher cruise speeds, at least they would be doing something useful in '41 instead of being squandered in pointless rhubarbs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 19, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The rear 30G would be gone by the channel and the extra fuel allowed them to run at higher cruise speeds, at least they would be doing something useful in '41 instead of being squandered in pointless rhubarbs.


Its hard to imagine anything that could be useful in 1941 most of what could be reached was of no interest to the Germans.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> That myopic view wasn't as far off as you seem to think in 1940-41.
> 
> The US bombers weren't there in usable numbers.
> The British bombers, for daylight bombing, had some serious issues.
> ...



British bombers in 1941 have had even greater issues in night bombing. It was tough for them to bomb the correct county, let alone correct building (that might be a factory, or might not be).
'Hooker's' Merlin running at altitude and at +12 psi boost/3000 rpm is doing ~1250 HP at ~15500 ft. I don't fancy going lower unless diving to a kill, and then zoom back. In 1941-1942, the 100/130 grade fuel will not help a single jota beyond 15000 ft vs. what will 100/120? grade provided.
Unfortunately, the myopic doctrine persisted until mid-1944.



> Granted the Germans had some trouble using higher than 1.3 Ata boost but the British may not have known that or when it would be fixed.
> The 109F-4 shows up in the summer of 1941. Spit V with 25-30 gallons of extra fuel (inside) plus drop tank running 12lb boost vs the F-4 at 1.42 ata? escorting Wellingtons?
> Not a pretty picture.



The 109F-4 was rated for 2700 rpm and 1.42 ata from winter of 1941/42. Granted, the British are in no position to actually pinpoint exact rpm/boost/HP of particular engine Germans were using, but they know for certain that Luftwaffe can't be in huge numbers in all 3 theaters of war from late June 1941 on - thus my remark on failure to see the big picture.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Its hard to imagine anything that could be useful in 1941 most of what could be reached was of no interest to the Germans.



Care to elaborate?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 19, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Care to elaborate?


 The things that were within reach of UK bombers with fighter escort were mainly French farms, very little that the Germans felt obliged to defend.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The things that were within reach of UK bombers with fighter escort were mainly French farms, very little that the Germans felt obliged to defend.



Range of Wellington I (powered by totally non-sexy Pegasus engines) was 1800 miles with 2750 lbs of bombs. Hampden (same engines) was rated for 2000 lbs over 1820 miles. There is 300 miles between Kent and East Englia to the eastern boundary of Ruhr, that was home of a lot of factories the Luftwaffe will be keen to defend.
Wellingtons with Hercules and Whitley were better than Hampden and Wellington Is.
Data sheets kindly provided by Neil Stirling:


----------



## Greyman (Jan 19, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> Do you know were the p47 and p38 included in that test. From what ive read of pilot accounts the p47 was a real standout when it came to zoom climb.



Can't really find anything on the Lightning but the earlier Thunderbolt (P-47C) was said to be similar to the Spitfire IX. So a little bit worse than the Mustang III. I'd imagine a P-47D with a different prop and water injection would be a whole different animal.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 19, 2020)

drgondog said:


> That is the primary reason the USN wasn't concerned about relatively short combat radius of F4U/F6F based on return distance after ejecting external tanks.
> 
> For the same reasons, the F4U/F6F weren't much use as primary escort in ETO/MTO/CBI or SWP for escort of long range land based bombers beyond 300mi.


Resp:
Ditto for the FAA use of the F4U/F6F in taking out Turpitz . . carrier launched.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 19, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> That myopic view wasn't as far off as you seem to think in 1940-41.
> 
> The US bombers weren't there in usable numbers.
> The British bombers, for daylight bombing, had some serious issues.
> ...


Easy meat for the Me 110 too, when the 45/90 IG slipper tank fails to detach itself properly. It was safer to use the 30 IG slipper which was a combat tank, so only about 130 miles combat radius in 1941 on the Vb, perhaps, 150 miles in 1942 on the Vc/IXc with 45 IG ST and 270 miles on the VII/VIII in 1943 with the 90 IG ST. Its not going to get you to the Ruhr and back. By 1944, you have Mustangs, so who cares.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 19, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Easy meat for the Me 110 too, when the 45/90 IG slipper tank fails to detach itself properly. It was safer to use the 30 IG slipper which was a combat tank, so only about 130 miles combat radius in 1941 on the Vb, perhaps, 150 miles in 1942 on the Vc/IXc with 45 IG ST and 270 miles on the VII/VIII in 1943 with the 90 IG ST. Its not going to get you to the Ruhr and back. By 1944, you have Mustangs, so who cares.



Your missing the point, there is no need for slippers, none at all, by '41 the Spit could have 135G internal fuel plus 50G DT so no loss of performance due to drag once the DT is dropped.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 19, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> Your missing the point, there is no need for slippers, none at all, by '41 the Spit could have 135G internal fuel plus 50G DT so no loss of performance due to drag once the DT is dropped.




Ok guys, the British had tried it. 




M IIA. Several squadrons had examples (Nos 66,118, and 152) , I don't think any squadron was fully equipped but could be wrong. The planes had metal ailerons. and handled better than a trial MK I with single fixed tank and fabric covered-ailerons. 

There was a loss of performance. A bit more loss of speed than they estimated (24mph at 15,000ft and31mph at 20,000ft, which can be solved, mostly, but putting the fuel inside) but it was the loss of climb that hurt. Note that loss of climb does not go away by putting the fuel inside, or at least not most of it. 

Planes had Merlin XII engines. it was a 40 imp gallon tank. Gross weight went up 341lbs between the two test planes. 

Height........time to climb W/O tank................time to climb W tank...........rate of climb W/O tank...........rate of climb W tank...
2,000ft.......................0m 42s.............................................0m 56s....................................2,925................................................2,240
5,000ft.......................1m 42s.............................................2m 12s.....................................2,925...............................................2,240
10,000ft.....................3m 24s.............................................4m 30s....................................2,925................................................2,240
15,000ft.....................5m 0s................................................6m 48s....................................2,770................................................1,990
20,000ft.....................7m 0s................................................9m 48s...................................2,175..................................................1,420
25,000ft.....................9m 36s..............................................14m 6s...................................1,600..................................................1,050
30,000ft...................13m 42s..............................................20m 18s..................................995.....................................................545

Pages 136 and 137 of "The Spitfire Story" by Alfred Price. 
Granted two different serial number aircraft do not perform identically. 

As for the Spitfire MK V, I forgot the ability to use higher pressures fell off with altitude. While one MK V held 9lbs to justover 20,000ft in the climb with snow guard removed a Later MK V was only able to hold 16lbs to 8,800ft while climbing and dropped to 12lbs of boost somewhere around 13,000ft and then down to 9lbs of boost at about 17,000ft. 

when trying to perform top cover for bombers the Merlin 45 is not going to provide the extra power someof us thought it would using higher boost pressures because the Merlin 45 can't supply those pressures at the higher altitudes. 

Please remember that climb rate is an _indicator_ of the surplus power available for maneuvering. It is not an absolute measurement. But a plane with a higher climb rate has more tricks u p it's sleeve that one with a lower climb rate, even as a simple as sustaining speed better in a turn.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 19, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> Your missing the point, there is no need for slippers, none at all, by '41 the Spit could have 135G internal fuel plus 50G DT so no loss of performance due to drag once the DT is dropped.


In your dreams. Design, development is an evolutionary process. None of you guys here seem to understand that. You design, develop, deliver, look back and think: wasn't that a pile of crap, then you move on, do better.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 19, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Range of Wellington I (powered by totally non-sexy Pegasus engines) was 1800 miles with 2750 lbs of bombs. Hampden (same engines) was rated for 2000 lbs over 1820 miles. There is 300 miles between Kent and East Englia to the eastern boundary of Ruhr, that was home of a lot of factories the Luftwaffe will be keen to defend.
> Wellingtons with Hercules and Whitley were better than Hampden and Wellington Is.



Please look at the rest of the data sheets. Cruise speeds of these planes was 155-165mph to get those ranges, and it doesn't matter if they can fly that far. The proposed escort Spit can't come close. Of course neither could a P-51 until it got rear fuselage tanks and bigger than 75 gallon drop tanks. 

It was on the "lean into France" campaign that the British figured out you could NOT go potting about the french (or Low countries) countryside at most economical cruise speed without just providing pretty much target practice for the Germans. 
So we need the long range spit (1941 version) and much better tactics.
And we need to figure out what the effect range/radius of this 1941/42 Spitfire is. At 20,000ft the MK V could burn anywhere from 88 imp gal an hour (for 368mph true) down to 36 Imp Gal and hour for 263mph true. It might be possible to fly even slower at 20,000ft and burn even less but how slow do you want to go? 300mph true is going to cost 46 imp gal an hour. If you get down low the Merlin 45 will burn 150gal an hour at 16lbs of boost but at that point you are no longer escorting the bombers. You are way too low. 

You also need very careful coordination with bombers. Just like the American fighters (of whatever type) and the American bombers one group of fighters is NOT going to fly all the way, not without flying at suicidally low speeds. You need to have relays of fighters coming in to relieve the fighters doing the high speed weave and to relieve the fighters that have dropped external tanks and are running for home on internal fuel laving the bombers behind. anybody what to figure out the chances of 50-100 Hampdens flying over Germany after the Spitfires have had to head for England due to low fuel? 
Bombers flying at 10-15,000ft at 165mph are training flights for German flak gunners. flak accuracy depends on several things, one of which is the time of flight for the projectile. Since the projectile covers much more distance in the first few seconds of flight than in the later stages cutting the distance disproportionately increases the AA guns chance of success. 

yes the bombers might well accomplish much more flying in daylight but the losses are going to be much higher. 

BTW rear upper guns of a Hampden.





Note the sophisticated device to keep the gunner from shooting his own plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 19, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Please look at the rest of the data sheets. Cruise speeds of these planes was 155-165mph to get those ranges, and it doesn't matter if they can fly that far. The proposed escort Spit can't come close. Of course neither could a P-51 until it got rear fuselage tanks and bigger than 75 gallon drop tanks.
> 
> It was on the "lean into France" campaign that the British figured out you could NOT go potting about the french (or Low countries) countryside at most economical cruise speed without just providing pretty much target practice for the Germans.
> So we need the long range spit (1941 version) and much better tactics.
> ...


Resp:
Good point in the need for relays. The relays also at some point, had fly at an increased speed (remember zigzagging) in order to be able to reach 'interception' speed for Luftwaffe engagement. This aspect used up fuel.


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 20, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Ok guys, the British had tried it.
> View attachment 567194
> 
> M IIA. Several squadrons had examples (Nos 66,118, and 152) , I don't think any squadron was fully equipped but could be wrong. The planes had metal ailerons. and handled better than a trial MK I with single fixed tank and fabric covered-ailerons.
> ...



Instead of 40G in that abortion they could have had 30G behind the seat, and that wing tank caused the Spit to be unrecoverable in a spin which is why it was dropped as quickly as it started, as for the loss of climb performance, you don't need climb performance when you have enough fuel to take off and be formed up at altitude before the enemy has crossed the channel instead of having to wait till the last minute and climb like hell.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 20, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> In your dreams. Design, development is an evolutionary process. None of you guys here seem to understand that. You design, develop, deliver, look back and think: wasn't that a pile of crap, then you move on, do better.



It took the USAF 12 months to recognise the need then design and implement the fitting of drop tanks and rear ''Berlin tanks'' to their P51's, it then took NA just 4 months to have them fitted on the production line plus have retro fit kits for the planes already in service, what was the RAF getting after three years of war?, MkIX's with 85G tanks.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 20, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> It took the USAF 12 months to recognise the need then design and implement the fitting of drop tanks and rear ''Berlin tanks'' to their P51's, it then took NA just 4 months to have them fitted on the production line plus have retro fit kits for the planes already in service, what was the RAF getting after three years of war?, MkIX's with 85G tanks.


It took the USA until the end of 1943 beginning of 1944 to have a bomber that could be escorted on deep penetration raids in Germany.


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 20, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> It took the USAF 12 months to recognise the need then design and implement the fitting of drop tanks and rear ''Berlin tanks'' to their P51's, it then took NA just 4 months to have them fitted on the production line plus have retro fit kits for the planes already in service, what was the RAF getting after three years of war?, MkIX's with 85G tanks.


Our priority was fast climbing hard hitting interceptors, not gallivanting over the French countryside hoping some pretty mademoiselle was going to wave at us.

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 20, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Our priority was fast climbing hard hitting interceptors, not gallivanting over the French countryside hoping some pretty mademoiselle was going to wave at us.



No, you had fast climbing hard hitting _short range_ interceptors because they only had 85G of internal fuel.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 20, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> you don't need climb performance when you have enough fuel to take off and be formed up at altitude before the enemy has crossed the channel instead of having to wait till the last minute and climb like hell



Ah, no. 

You ALWAYS need climb performance. Why did the Allies have so much trouble with the Zero? not only could it out turn the early US planes (and the later ones) it could outclimb them at combat altitudes, which it could not do to the later Allied planes. Any number of other examples could be picked including why did they fit the Merlin XX engine to the Hurricane?
Answer is to improve the climbing ability at combat altitudes. The Spit could outclimb the Hurricane using the same engine and the Spit was already getting the Merlin XII, The Hurricane needed the Merlin XX in order to be competitive with the Bf 109E *at altitude*. 

Service ceiling is usually defined as the altitude at which a plane can climb 100fpm. and this number is totally useless for most operational purposes except as a general indicator. 
What matters is the altitude at which a plane (actually group of planes) can climb at 500fpm as this is the performance needed for the small group of planes to maintain formation as they perform somewhat gentle maneuvers, liking changing direction of flight. Plane on the outside has to use more power (speed) to stay in formation. 
What matters even more for fighters is the altitude at which the plane can still climb at 1000fpm as this was considered the minimum climb rate needed for actual combat or combat maneuvering. Put your slow climbing fighter into even a 3 G turn (70.6 degree bank and and increase of 70% in stall speed) at over 20,000ft and you won't get very far into the turn before you either have to reduce the bank angle and turn rate or start losing altitude as the speed bleeds off. A faster climbing plane has more surplus power to maintain speed, it may not be using it's surplus power to climb but it is using the power to maintain speed in the turn and keep it's turn rate up. 

This is the whole argument against trying to build escort fighters in years before WW II and in the first few years. The more heavily burdened "escort" fighter would not be able to effectively fight a short ranged fighter using a comparable engine. 
The MK II Spit with that tank on the wing was hardly a useable solution but it does show, even if you cut the difference between the two test planes in 1/2 that the weight of the extra fuel (and tank and I don't believe this tank was self sealing? open to correction) cut several thousand feet from the service ceiling, the operational ceiling and the combat ceiling. 

The MK V Spit was caught by several things, yes it got a better engine than the MK XII Merlin, but then they added more equipement (the 20mm guns and ammo) and increased the weight of the plane by several hundred pounds, build quality was a bit iffy at times (fit and finish) and performance (speed climb) didn't increase by very much, in some case not at all, snow guards and air filters? 
Now if people would be satisfied with either eight .303 guns (or even six?) on the escort fighter to make up for the increased fuel load then it becomes a somewhat more doable.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 20, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> No, you had fast climbing hard hitting _short range_ interceptors because they only had 85G of internal fuel.


That was exactly what we needed. The only long range fighter we had was the Hurricane II with 2 x 45 IG drop tanks. We used them for close escort on our raids into France. The Spitfire Vb with its single 45 IG slipper had to drop it before entering the danger zone. They were top cover. So 12 squadrons of fighters would escort 1 Squadron of bombers. Obviously, there's withdrawal support too. Spitfire Vb's with 30 IG combat capable slipper tanks?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 20, 2020)

Hurricane needed extra fuel because it needed more fuel per mile than the Spit even without drop tanks, carrying two drop tanks ups the drag a bit more.
Not saying the Spit had more range but the difference might not be as much as it appears. 

The Merlin 60 series engines were game changers because they gave a lot more power at the higher altitudes (over 20,000ft) for not that much of an increase in weight. 
Yes we can add up all the weights it it comes to hundreds of pounds BUT the alternatives were (in the design phase in 1939-41) the RR Vulture, the Sabre and the Centaurus for engines that would give you 1000hp in the upper 20,000 ft range, for the Americans it was the R-2800 with either a two stage supercharger or turbo.
Compared to those engines the Merlin 60 was a lightweight. 
Anybody want to build a Typhoon with 250-300imp of internal fuel and use it over Germany in daylight in1942/43 against Bf 109Gs?


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 20, 2020)

pbehn said:


> It took the USA until the end of 1943 beginning of 1944 to have a bomber that could be escorted on deep penetration raids in Germany.



And they developed tested and fitted 85G auxiliary 75G drop tanks to the P51 to escort it, in about 18 months.


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 20, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> You ALWAYS need climb performance.



The British specified climb performance because their planes had short range, they took off at the last minute to intercepted incoming aircraft, if the Spitfire had another 30G of fuel it could be at 20,000ft waiting for the enemy instead of climbing like a rocket. A Spit at 20,000ft with 85G of fuel instead of 60G is still going to have adequate performance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 20, 2020)

Internal fuel remaining after a fight, sufficient to return home at cruise speeds - combined with the agility to battle the opponents interceptors were the two factors required for long range escort. If the aircraft under discussion had these two attributes, then it met the primary design objectives.

BTW, as discussed before, the F6F and F4U met these criteria for carrier based bombers but were inadequate for sustained operations for AAF medium and heavy bombers at extent of their range envelopes. Just different missions between USN and AAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 20, 2020)

One rather obvious advantage of carrier operations is that one can move carriers to someplace where the aircraft's range is sufficient. One related disadvantage is that this could put one's carriers in range of land-based aircraft. Early in the war, carrier aircraft were generally significantly inferior in performance to comparable land-based aircraft (exception: Zero), but by 1944 this was largely no longer true (there was not sufficient air combat between F4Us or F6Fs and FW190s or Bf109s to definitively answer this question. Regardless of this, I strongly suspect no Luftwaffe pilot would be chortling in his beard after meeting either).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 20, 2020)

Surprisingly enough, the F4F and the P-36 had comparable range - roughly 850 miles.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 20, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The British specified climb performance because their planes had short range, they took off at the last minute to intercepted incoming aircraft, if the Spitfire had another 30G of fuel it could be at 20,000ft waiting for the enemy instead of climbing like a rocket. A Spit at 20,000ft with 85G of fuel instead of 60G is still going to have adequate performance.


Where are you getting the additional warning time? They weren’t being held on the ground, taking off at the last minute to save fuel.They were launched as soon as the information was sufficiently processed to result in a successful interception.
When the Spitfire was being designed radar was not in existence, warning time was very short indeed. The British had conducted exercises before the war and concluded that standing patrols were not practical due to wear and tear on men and machines. Rate of climb was obviously very important If not the most important paramete.
Sinnotts “The Royal Air Force and Aircraft Design 1923-1939” has a lot of information on the thinking that went into the parameters guiding pre war aircraft design in Britain.
Tactically rate of climb was extremely important. Read Lundstroms “The First Team” for a discussion of how the poor rate of climb of the Wildcat allowed Japanese bombers to slip past.
The British had developed by far the most sophisticated air defense system in the world by 1939. It is difficult to imagine how it could have been done better without the 20-20 vision known as hindsight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 20, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> And they developed tested and fitted 85G auxiliary 75G drop tanks to the P51 to escort it, in about 18 months.


 Was that before or after they put a Merlin engine in it? You cant put and 85G auxilliary tank in a Spitfire and even if you do you dont get the range of a P-51, because its main tanks are larger and it uses less fuel while cruising.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 20, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The British specified climb performance because their planes had short range, they took off at the last minute to intercepted incoming aircraft, if the Spitfire had another 30G of fuel it could be at 20,000ft waiting for the enemy instead of climbing like a rocket. A Spit at 20,000ft with 85G of fuel instead of 60G is still going to have adequate performance.


With a 1000HP engine and about 660HP available at take off with a twin blade wooden prop the last thing a Spitfire needed was extra fuel. Twin pitch props were only introduced in 1940. There was very little loitering about at 20,000 ft in the Battle of Britain unless that was the intention. Park used to put squadrons up covering areas in case of a change in direction of enemy raids.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 20, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Please look at the rest of the data sheets. Cruise speeds of these planes was 155-165mph to get those ranges, and it doesn't matter if they can fly that far. The proposed escort Spit can't come close. Of course neither could a P-51 until it got rear fuselage tanks and bigger than 75 gallon drop tanks.



You have me scratching my head wondering when I've proposed that a slightly modified, armed Spitfire can do 1800+ mile range while escorting something. Data sheets are response to the statement: _The things that were within reach of UK bombers with fighter escort were mainly French farms, very little that the Germans felt obliged to defend. _
...that was patiently false (as proven by data sheets and simple geography): for example, a whole Ruhr area is well within 300 mile radius for RAF flying from Kent and East Anglia.



> It was on the "lean into France" campaign that the British figured out you could NOT go potting about the french (or Low countries) countryside at most economical cruise speed without just providing pretty much target practice for the Germans.
> So we need the long range spit (1941 version) and much better tactics.
> And we need to figure out what the effect range/radius of this 1941/42 Spitfire is. At 20,000ft the MK V could burn anywhere from 88 imp gal an hour (for 368mph true) down to 36 Imp Gal and hour for 263mph true. It might be possible to fly even slower at 20,000ft and burn even less but how slow do you want to go? 300mph true is going to cost 46 imp gal an hour. If you get down low the Merlin 45 will burn 150gal an hour at 16lbs of boost but at that point you are no longer escorting the bombers. You are way too low.
> 
> ...



For bombing the Ruhr, the bombers don't need to fly at most economical speed (for max range), but can use max lean mixture power. Gets them to 190-200 mph at 15000 ft, with a lot of range to spare.
Having fighter escort relays against a target 300 miles away is a far easier affair than doing that against a target 600 miles away. It also allows for 'target escort' to come under umbrella of 'last part of sortie escort' on the return leg.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 20, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> You have me scratching my head wondering when I've proposed that a slightly modified, armed Spitfire can do 1800+ mile range while escorting something. Data sheets are response to the statement: _The things that were within reach of UK bombers with fighter escort were mainly French farms, very little that the Germans felt obliged to defend. _
> ...that was patiently false (as proven by data sheets and simple geography): for example, a whole Ruhr area is well within 300 mile radius for RAF flying from Kent and East Anglia.
> 
> 
> ...


When Spitfires were used to escort US bombers in the very early days of the campaign how far did they take them before handing over to US P-47s?


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 20, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Where are you getting the additional warning time? They weren’t being held on the ground, taking off at the last minute to save fuel.They were launched as soon as the information was sufficiently processed to result in a successful interception.
> When the Spitfire was being designed radar was not in existence, warning time was very short indeed. The British had conducted exercises before the war and concluded that standing patrols were not practical due to wear and tear on men and machines. Rate of climb was obviously very important If not the most important paramete.




LW aircraft were picked up on radar and tracked before they crossed the channel, the ground controllers kept the planes on the ground until the raids bearing and then possible target were established, only after that were the fighters ordered up because they didn't have the fuel to chase them if they got it wrong. The Spitfire sacrificed fuel for performance based on the power available at the time, under 1,000hp, by 1941 it had another 300-400HP available and MkII PR Spits had been using 30G rear 20G underseat tanks for 12 months by that time.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 20, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> LW aircraft were picked up on radar and tracked before they crossed the channel, the ground controllers kept the planes on the ground until the raids bearing and then possible target were established, only after that were the fighters ordered up because they didn't have the fuel to chase them if they got it wrong. The Spitfire sacrificed fuel for performance based on the power available at the time, under 1,000hp, by 1941 it had another 300-400HP available and MkII PR Spits had been using 30G rear 20G underseat tanks for 12 months by that time.


No they were not. A raid picked up 100 miles away travelling at 200mph presents a huge number of possibilities. The object was not to chase them but to stop them hitting their targets and to fight over land.


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 20, 2020)

pbehn said:


> With a 1000HP engine and about 660HP available at take off with a twin blade wooden prop the last thing a Spitfire needed was extra fuel.



Did Spitfires have twin blade wooden props in 1940?.


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 20, 2020)

pbehn said:


> No they were not. A raid picked up 100 miles away travelling at 200mph presents a huge number of possibilities. The object was not to chase them but to stop them hitting their targets and to fight over land.



Yes and if they got it wrong the fighters did not have the fuel to change direction and chase which is the reason they stayed on the ground until the very last minute and climbed hard into the attack once the raids target was identified, because of the 85G of fuel,


----------



## pbehn (Jan 20, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> Yes and if they got it wrong the fighters did not have the fuel to change direction and chase which is the reason they stayed on the ground until the very last minute and climbed hard into the attack once the raids target was identified, because of the 85G of fuel,


During Dunkerque they had fuel to fly and fight over the beaches. Once crossed the coast RADAR couldn't be used so the forces had to be in place beforehand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 20, 2020)

pbehn said:


> When Spitfires were used to escort US bombers in the very early days of the campaign how far did they take them before handing over to US P-47s?



The Spitfire IX was supposed to have 175 miles of combat radius when covering US bombers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 20, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> That was exactly what we needed. The only long range fighter we had was the Hurricane II with 2 x 45 IG drop tanks. We used them for close escort on our raids into France. The Spitfire Vb with its single 45 IG slipper had to drop it before entering the danger zone. They were top cover. So 12 squadrons of fighters would escort 1 Squadron of bombers. Obviously, there's withdrawal support too. Spitfire Vb's with 30 IG combat capable slipper tanks?


Resp:
I guess the Mustang MkI and MkIA don't qualify, as their range got them to the German border while escorting Wellingtons. 1941?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 20, 2020)

I am confused.

A Spitfire with 85 gallons needs to be kept on the ground until the last possible minute because it doesn't have enough fuel to alter an incept point OVER ENGLAND by more than a few miles without running out of fuel, yet if we add _just_ 30 gallons or so it not only fly across the channel, it will be able to return from the Ruhr or beyond?????????

Common guys, you can't have it both ways, even with drop tanks/slipper tanks. A Spitfire could _cruise _for over 2 hours after taking off, climbing to a nominal altitude (even if low) and still have 20 minutes of fuel left. Spitfire I's had nowhere near the appetite for fuel that later versions did at full throttle but shouldn't be that far off at cruise.

The problem comes in with that the cruising speed that gave it 2 hours of endurance was (even if fast enough to fly next to the painfully slow British bombers) was not fast enough to keep it from being a sitting duck if bounced by German fighters. It also does not account for combat. SO combat radius, like all other airplanes, is a lot shorter that cruise radius (range/2)

Over England there is another squadron coming (hopefully}) to relieve or beef up a defending British squadron, when flying escort there is no ready relief (one reason Fulmars and Wildcats) got such large quantities of ammo, to keep the fight going if need be). Yes you can use relays but the units doing the 2nd or third turns at escort had to take-off well before the 1st escorts are in combat, If they push too hard to join the fight they cut into their endurance on their turn at escort (or their ability to get back)

There were no 2 blade wooden props left in 1940, however you can't go back and change the initial requirement. You also have 1939/early 1940 when many _service S_pits and Hurricanes had 3 bald 2 pitch props, fortunately very few had to go into combat that way in England.
But the better props helped handle the increase in weight due to the armor, BP glass and self sealing material.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 20, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I guess the Mustang MkI and MkIA don't qualify, as their range got them to the German border while escorting Wellingtons. 1941?



The Allison powered Mustangs did not go into service until 1942. #2 squadron of the RAF got them in April of 1942. May 10th was the first operational mission against a German airfield in France just across the channel.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 20, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> LW aircraft were picked up on radar and tracked before they crossed the channel, the ground controllers kept the planes on the ground until the raids bearing and then possible target were established, only after that were the fighters ordered up because they didn't have the fuel to chase them if they got it wrong. The Spitfire sacrificed fuel for performance based on the power available at the time, under 1,000hp, by 1941 it had another 300-400HP available and MkII PR Spits had been using 30G rear 20G underseat tanks for 12 months by that time.





PAT303 said:


> LW aircraft were picked up on radar and tracked before they crossed the channel, the ground controllers kept the planes on the ground until the raids bearing and then possible target were established, only after that were the fighters ordered up because they didn't have the fuel to chase them if they got it wrong. The Spitfire sacrificed fuel for performance based on the power available at the time, under 1,000hp, by 1941 it had another 300-400HP available and MkII PR Spits had been using 30G rear 20G underseat tanks for 12 months by that time.


The channel is 20 miles wide at it narrowest. Chain home had an effective range of 80 miles. That gives you a 1/2 hour to pick up the enemy raid, track it to determine its course and intercept it. If you guess before you have the information you don't make the interception. Look at how poorly the Japanese and Americans performed in the carrier battles of 1942. They had the advantage of knowing exactly where the enemy would attack they didn't have to determine the target.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 20, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> Did Spitfires have twin blade wooden props in 1940?.


There were Hurricanes sent to France with them. The point is that is what the plane was originally designed around, once it is designed and war is declared it isn't easy to change. They may have wanted to put another 100 gallons inside but there is nowhere to put it. Between the declaration of war and 16 August 1940 RAF fighters were transformed with two pitch and then constant speed plus 100 octane fuel but that doesn't mean you can go back to the drawing board and produce a new fighter overnight. The P-51 was designed just a short time later than the Spitfire but an age in design terms, it was a much more advanced design but Mitchell couldn't win a contract designing it, with the engines fuel and props available in 1936 it would struggle to get off the ground. Stories of the Battle of Britain 1940 – Constant-Speed Propellers — Battle of Britain | 1940 | Reference | Spitfire Mk. I


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 20, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> The Spitfire IX was supposed to have 175 miles of combat radius when covering US bombers.


That implies about 60 IG in external fuel.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> That implies about 60 IG in external fuel.



I'm not sure about that, there was no 60 IG drop tank - 45 and 90 were standard sizes.
What it might imply is that internal fuel was not enough for anything resembling long range flight that might include combat. It took more than 25 IG to warm up, take off and climb to 25000 feet. 15 min of combat can use easy 25 gals - meaning that there is less than 35 IG fuel left to retrun to base. Those 35 IG 'buy' you 200+ miles in a Spitfire on relaxed cruise (can be lethal if there is LW to exploit that), less on faster cruise, and no reserves. 
This is why people (including me) are suggesting the ~30 gal rear tank. Use that fuel until you're at 20000+ ft and above Channel, switch to drop tank, then drop the tank prior combat. After 15 min worth of combat, there is still 55-60 gals of fuel left in internal tanks to return to base.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 21, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> I am confused.
> 
> A Spitfire with 85 gallons needs to be kept on the ground until the last possible minuter because it doesn't have enough fuel to alter an incept point OVER ENGLAND buy more than a few miles without running out of fuel, yet if we and _just_ 30 gallons or so it not only fly across the channel, it will be able to return from the Ruhr or beyond?????????



No one ever said that, with 85G main, 30G rear and 45G drop tank the Spit could escort bombers over France hitting the coastal fighter bases, marshaling yards railroads, bridges anything they could find to a depth of say 100-150 miles, that would have achieved more than increasing the number of LW aces by day leaning on the enemy and getting one bomb out of 50 within 5 miles of the intended target bombing at night.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 21, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not sure about that, there was no 60 IG drop tank - 45 and 90 were standard sizes.
> What it might imply is that internal fuel was not enough for anything resembling long range flight that might include combat. It took more than 25 IG to warm up, take off and climb to 25000 feet. 15 min of combat can use easy 25 gals - meaning that there is less than 35 IG fuel left to retrun to base. Those 35 IG 'buy' you 200+ miles in a Spitfire on relaxed cruise (can be lethal if there is LW to exploit that), less on faster cruise, and no reserves.
> This is why people (including me) are suggesting the ~30 gal rear tank. Use that fuel until you're at 20000+ ft and above Channel, switch to drop tank, then drop the tank prior combat. After 15 min worth of combat, there is still 55-60 gals of fuel left in internal tanks to return to base.



Hi Tomo - AAF estimates for the 20min of Combat allowance for the P-51B/D (5min WEP/15min MP) yielded estimates of 58-60 total gallons at 25000ft. What were the Brit standards for Combat Radius assumptions for Spit IX?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 21, 2020)

The Ruhr has been mentioned as a possible target by this theoretical long range Spit.

you have stated


PAT303 said:


> The British specified climb performance because their planes had short range,* they took off at the last minute to intercepted incoming aircraft*, if the Spitfire had another 30G of fuel it could be at 20,000ft waiting for the enemy instead of climbing like a rocket. A Spit at 20,000ft with 85G of fuel instead of 60G is still going to have adequate performance.




I would suggest that people advocating this........



PAT303 said:


> No one ever said that, with 85G main, 30G rear and 45G drop tank the Spit could escort bombers over France hitting the coastal fighter bases, marshaling yards railroads, bridges anything they could find to a depth of say 100-150 miles, that would have achieved more than increasing the number of LW aces by day leaning on the enemy and getting one bomb out of 50 within 5 miles of the intended target bombing at night.



........look at a map. It may be 20 miles from Dover to Calais but it is over 90 miles from Brighton to Le Havre and and 133 miles From Felixstowe to Rotterdam. And about 90 miles from Margate to Brugge. Pulling back from the coast just a bit it is about 100 miles from Ashford to Arras. 

Basically this plan is the same as the lean into France Plan except using more planes and leaning in a bit further. Destroying coastal French, Belgian and Dutch infrastructure in 1941/early 1942 isn't going to change much, Stopping the deeper night raids means the Germans can shift AA guns (at least some of them) to the coastal areas. Since few (if any?) AA batteries had radar at this point in the war letting them shoot at bombers in daylight would do wonders for their scores. Early German radars were not accurate enough for night firing, they controlled the searchlights and then, once the target/s were illuminated the engagement was conducted using optics. Bombing by day eliminates the searchlights and provides better lighting for the AA gun optics. 
Bombers in 1941 are the Wellington, Hampden and god forbid the Whitley( perhaps better used at night to keep up 24 hour pressure? ). 

We have only to look at the results of the Wilhelmshaven and Schillig Roads operations to see how the Wellingtons would fare if the escort fighters cannot keep the German interceptors at bay. The Hampdens have much less effective firepower than the Wellingtons.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Hi Tomo - AAF estimates for the 20min of Combat allowance for the P-51B/D (5min WEP/15min MP) yielded estimates of 58-60 total gallons at 25000ft. What were the Brit standards for Combat Radius assumptions for Spit IX?



I'm not sure that there was RAF equivalent of the AAF escort requirement.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 21, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not sure that there was RAF equivalent of the AAF escort requirement.


Probably not since their strategic bombing was conducted at night. Hard to escort bombers at night, I would imagine.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 21, 2020)

If you have your Spitfire with all internal fuel discussed and a range of circa 175 -200 miles with an allowance for combat you need 3 or 4 waves of escort aircraft to hit a target like Essen. The bombers of the time were slow and had little defence to beam attacks. A small force has no "herd" defence, a single plane is highly likely to be shot down by anti aircraft fire because all guns are firing at it. Do you have 20 or 40 or 100 or 200 bombers. If this is your strategy then you quickly require an extra 500-1000 Spitfires. The Hawker Hurricane was kept in service in UK until about 1942 because of a shortage of Spitfires which were wanted/needed all over. There was never a time when the UK had the odd 500 new Spitfires and pilots laying around unused until the war was almost over.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2020)

Is this a question to someone in particular?


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 21, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The Ruhr has been mentioned as a possible target by this theoretical long range Spit.



I mentioned the Ruhr but with the MkVIII/IX not the MkV.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 21, 2020)

RAF Spitfires did initial leg escort for USAAF bombers.


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 21, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The Hawker Hurricane was kept in service in UK until about 1942 because of a shortage of Spitfires which were wanted/needed all over. There was never a time when the UK had the odd 500 new Spitfires and pilots laying around unused until the war was almost over.



The reason for the shortage of Spitfires was because they were squandered over France on pointless rhubarbs, they lost around 300 in the first half of '42 alone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 21, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> We have only to look at the results of the Wilhelmshaven and Schillig Roads operations to see how the Wellingtons would fare if the escort fighters cannot keep the German interceptors at bay. The Hampdens have much less effective firepower than the Wellingtons.



All they achieved bombing at night was dump bombs randomly across Europe, yes they would suffer losses bombing in daylight but at least they would bomb the right country and maybe get a few within a few miles or heaven forbid actually hit the intended target.


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 21, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Basically this plan is the same as the lean into France Plan except using more planes and leaning in a bit further



The extra fuel available would allow for a higher cruise speed which is what they needed to do, lets be realistic, the RAF were going to lean on the enemy one way or the other, that's the deal so they may as well achieve something worthwhile doing it.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 21, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not sure that there was RAF equivalent of the AAF escort requirement.


Resp:
The RAF began receiving Merlin Mustangs w/in a few months after the US 9th AF. It may have been some time before they became operational, due to training required for transition. However, the only group that I am aware of that escorted bombers was a Polish Unit No 315 Unit. Case in point, provided escort for Mosquitos that were to attack German shipping. I am sure there are members of this forum that can an answer their use.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 21, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> All they achieved bombing at night was dump bombs randomly across Europe, yes they would suffer losses bombing in daylight but at least they would bomb the right country and maybe get a few within a few miles or heaven forbid actually hit the intended target.


The first thousand bomber raid on Cologne was 31 May 1942 the next was 1/2 June 1942 on Essen, be sure Cologne and Essen were hit.


PAT303 said:


> The reason for the shortage of Spitfires was because they were squandered over France on pointless rhubarbs, they lost around 300 in the first half of '42 alone.


Imagine how many they would have lost over Germany?


PAT303 said:


> The extra fuel available would allow for a higher cruise speed which is what they needed to do, lets be realistic, the RAF were going to lean on the enemy one way or the other, that's the deal so they may as well achieve something worthwhile doing it.


The higher cruise speed is a zig zag speed, the ground speed and therefore range is governed by the speed of the bombers you are with.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 21, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> All they achieved bombing at night was dump bombs randomly across Europe, yes they would suffer losses bombing in daylight but at least they would bomb the right country and maybe get a few within a few miles or heaven forbid actually hit the intended target.





PAT303 said:


> The extra fuel available would allow for a higher cruise speed which is what they needed to do, lets be realistic, the RAF were going to lean on the enemy one way or the other, that's the deal so they may as well achieve something worthwhile doing it.



So instead of losing a few bombers and a lot of fighters you lose a lot more bombers and somewhat fewer fighters (maybe?) while dropping very few bombs on German industry or much of anything of real importance to the Germans in 1941/ early 1942. 

There is no argument that the British accomplished very little with Bomber Command in 1941 but providing the German Flak crews with target practice is not really a good alternative. 

The 8th AIr Force may have lost 1/2 of its combat loses to flak. The British bombers of 1941, flying lower and slower and going to be much easier targets. 

The Spits may learn to keep their speed up but there is not a lot you can do with Wellington or Hampden. Granted the AA guns are much fewer in 1941 than later but if Venturas and Baltimore's were not suited for daylight bombing over the coast (the Baltimore was not even tried) then the Wellington and Hampden loses are going to be astronomical.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 22, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> All they achieved bombing at night was dump bombs randomly across Europe, yes they would suffer losses bombing in daylight but at least they would bomb the right country and maybe get a few within a few miles or heaven forbid actually hit the intended target.




Those were also things the USAAF’s day bombing campaign struggled with, at least at the start.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 22, 2020)

Europe is covered in cloud much of the time and places like Essen were covered in a cloud of "industrial haze" most of the time. In those cases day and night are essentially the same.


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 22, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not sure about that, there was no 60 IG drop tank - 45 and 90 were standard sizes.
> What it might imply is that internal fuel was not enough for anything resembling long range flight that might include combat. It took more than 25 IG to warm up, take off and climb to 25000 feet. 15 min of combat can use easy 25 gals - meaning that there is less than 35 IG fuel left to retrun to base. Those 35 IG 'buy' you 200+ miles in a Spitfire on relaxed cruise (can be lethal if there is LW to exploit that), less on faster cruise, and no reserves.
> This is why people (including me) are suggesting the ~30 gal rear tank. Use that fuel until you're at 20000+ ft and above Channel, switch to drop tank, then drop the tank prior combat. After 15 min worth of combat, there is still 55-60 gals of fuel left in internal tanks to return to base.


The rear tank came along on the Spitfire Vc in December 1942 for ferrying them from Gibraltar to Malta along with the 170 IG slipper tank. 60 IG drop tanks borrowed from Kittyhawks were used in the Mediterranean in 1942 and by the BPF in 1945. The preferred solution was wing tanks of about 28/32 gallons on the Spitfire VII, VIII, IX along with the 90 IG slipper drop tank. Some long over water raids were done with these; SW England to La Pallice and Darwin to East Timor.


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 22, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> So instead of losing a few bombers and a lot of fighters you lose a lot more bombers and somewhat fewer fighters (maybe?) while dropping very few bombs on German industry or much of anything of real importance to the Germans in 1941/ early 1942.[/QUOTE
> 
> Rhubarbs rodeo's and circuses were all aimed at hitting targets of opportunity along the French coast, circuses used bombers as bait to draw the LW into a fight, if the RAF fitted aux fuel tanks they would have had the fuel to maintain a high cruising speed and fuel to fight as explained in post 207, if relayed they could cover the bombers without issue, in 1941 they were not short of fighters or pilots keen to fight.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 22, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I guess the Mustang MkI and MkIA don't qualify, as their range got them to the German border while escorting Wellingtons. 1941?



One of the desired features the British liked about the Allison Mustang is could throttle down to a low rpm.
Allowed them to keep pace with the loaded bombers.
Which added to its range capabilities. 
This was something the Merlin's could not do.

d

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2020)

Dan Fahey said:


> One of the desired features the British liked about the Allison Mustang is could throttle down to a low rpm.
> Allowed them to keep pace with the loaded bombers.
> Which added to its range capabilities.
> This was something the Merlin's could not do.
> ...



British Mustangs seldom escorted bombers, not just because they lacked drop tanks before Mustang II arrived in Sept 1943. Escorting bombers on low speed and altitude is one way ticket to get killed when above enemy-held airspace.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> The rear tank came along on the Spitfire Vc in December 1942 for ferrying them from Gibraltar to Malta along with the 170 IG slipper tank. 60 IG drop tanks borrowed from Kittyhawks were used in the Mediterranean in 1942 and by the BPF in 1945. The preferred solution was wing tanks of about 28/32 gallons on the Spitfire VII, VIII, IX along with the 90 IG slipper drop tank. Some long over water raids were done with these; SW England to La Pallice and Darwin to East Timor.



60 IG drop tanks from Kittyhawk were not used in ETO. Rear tank was IIRC ferry-only - once the Spitfire was deployed, the 29 gal tank was removed. 'Preferred solution' was never installed on Spitfire IX, the main British fighter providing cover for the 8th AF bombers.
Spitfire VII and VIII received modified fuselage tanks, that now allowed for 95 IG, plus eading edge tanks of 2x 12.5 IG, for total of 120 IG. Unfortunately, VII and VIII were rarely if ever used in the ETO.


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 22, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> 60 IG drop tanks from Kittyhawk were not used in ETO. Rear tank was IIRC ferry-only - once the Spitfire was deployed, the 29 gal tank was removed. 'Preferred solution' was never installed on Spitfire IX, the main British fighter providing cover for the 8th AF bombers.
> Spitfire VII and VIII received modified fuselage tanks, that now allowed for 95 IG, plus eading edge tanks of 2x 12.5 IG, for total of 120 IG. Unfortunately, VII and VIII were rarely if ever used in the ETO.


The VII was used for the La Pallice raid, the VIII for the East Timor raid.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 22, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> British Mustangs seldom escorted bombers, not just because they lacked drop tanks before Mustang II arrived in Sept 1943. Escorting bombers on low speed and altitude is one way ticket to get killed when above enemy-held airspace.


Reap:
A-36As of the MTO (can't recall the unit) escorted twin engined bombers across the Med (and back) to just North of Sicily to bomb a German target. Also, the RAF received Merlin Mustangs. Certainly, these had to be used for bomber escort! ? ?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Jan 23, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Reap:
> A-36As of the MTO (can't recall the unit) escorted twin engined bombers across the Med (and back) to just North of Sicily to bomb a German target. Also, the RAF received Merlin Mustangs. Certainly, these had to be used for bomber escort! ? ?



As I understand it the original British Mustang I models and the initial American version, the P-51 (no letter), were not fitted for drop tanks on the wings. The drop tanks came with the P-51A and Mustang II models, but only 310 and 50 of these were delivered. The A-36 also was fitted for drop tanks, but only 500 A-36 were built. There simply weren't enough of these planes built for any large scale bomber escort assignments. 

(Per Joe Baugher, the RAF received 274 P-51Bs and 626 P-51Cs.)


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 23, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> As I understand it the original British Mustang I models and the initial American version, the P-51 (no letter), were not fitted for drop tanks on the wings. The drop tanks came with the P-51A and Mustang II models, but only 310 and 50 of these were delivered. The A-36 also was fitted for drop tanks, but only 500 A-36 were built. There simply weren't enough of these planes built for any large scale bomber escort assignments.
> 
> (Per Joe Baugher, the RAF received 274 P-51Bs and 626 P-51Cs.)


Resp:
Correct. Except that the A-36A was designed first, which included plumbing for drop tanks. Since NAA designed wing pylons for carrying bombs, they included plumbing for external fuel stores (drop tanks). The fighter version, the P-51A benefitted from the drawings for the A-36A.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 23, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Correct. Except that the A-36A was designed first, which included plumbing for drop tanks. Since NAA designed wing pylons for carrying bombs, they included plumbing for external fuel stores (drop tanks). The fighter version, the P-51A benefitted from the drawings for the A-36A.



After the XP-51 (NA-73X), the NA-73 was next. British name: Mustang I. Armed with 4 HMGs, 4 LMGs. NA-73 was 1st delivered in August 1941.
P-51 (NA-91) followed, featuring 4 cannons. British name: Mustang Ia. 1st delivered in July 1942.
A-36A (NA-97) was next. 4 HMGs, low-level engine, dive brakes, wing racks for fuel and bombs. 1st delivered in October 1942.
P-51A (NA-99) followed in March 1943. featured V-1710 with 9.6:1 supercharger gearing for better hi-alt performance. Wing racks, 4 HMGs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 23, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> After the XP-51 (NA-73X), the NA-73 was next. British name: Mustang I. Armed with 4 HMGs, 4 LMGs. NA-73 was 1st delivered in August 1941.
> P-51 (NA-91) followed, featuring 4 cannons. British name: Mustang Ia. 1st delivered in July 1942.
> A-36A (NA-97) was next. 4 HMGs, low-level engine, dive brakes, wing racks for fuel and bombs. 1st delivered in October 1942.
> P-51A (NA-99) followed in March 1943. featured V-1710 with 9.6:1 supercharger gearing for better hi-alt performance. Wing racks, 4 HMGs.


Resp:
My response was inre to the A-36A and P-51A.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jan 24, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Preferred solution' was never installed on Spitfire IX, the main British fighter providing cover for the 8th AF bombers.



I am sure the Spit IX Pilot Manual has flight restrictions for the rear fuselage fuel tank.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 17, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Those were also things the USAAF’s day bombing campaign struggled with, at least at the start.


As I have posted in the past, according to the United States Strategic Bombing Survey Report on Oil, the RAF was more accurate at night than the USAAF during the day. The myth of the Norden bombsight refuses to die.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> As I have posted in the past, according to the United States Strategic Bombing Survey Report on Oil, the RAF was more accurate at night than the USAAF during the day. The myth of the Norden bombsight refuses to die.


Agree but remember the RAF mainly "area bombed." "You can't miss with a shotgun."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 17, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> There is no argument that the British accomplished very little with Bomber Command in 1941 but providing the German Flak crews with target practice is not really a good alternative.



There's an element of truth in this and before Harris came along, there were so many issues endemic in Bomber Command that needed fixing that escorts were only a small fraction of what was problematic within the command. The Butt report and previous investigation by Ludlow-Hewitt revealed that training for the defensive armament of British bombers was inadequate and good gunners were in short supply, which actually pushed for central gunnery training schools, also navigation to and from the target area, accuracy of existing bomb sights, problematic aircraft designs etc... there was so much to fix.

Regarding the Mustang Is and IIs, these were not going to be used as escorts by the British despite their range and they did have exceptional range despite what's been posted here before; during trials at Boscombe down, the Mustang I was found to have a range of over 900 miles, which by any stretch is impressive for 1941/1942. These aircraft were used primarily as tactical recon aircraft, where their range and speed at low level was useful. That they could tangle with an Fw 190 and most likely succeed was a bonus, but their role was recon, not as fighters.

Allison engined Mustangs equipped 16 RAF squadrons and were still in use right until the end of the war. post raid recon for both Bomber Command and the US 8th AF was largely carried out by these aircraft rather than the RAF's specialised PRUs. The build up to D-Day and the massive recon effort for it was again largely done by these aircraft, so their war effort was invaluable outside of any thought of long range escort duties.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 17, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree but remember the RAF mainly "area bombed." "You can't miss with a shotgun."


Resp:
The Germans also were pretty good structure camouflage, often just shifting the IP so the bombs did minimum damage. I have also seen rivers or water ways rerouted to help disorient Allied bombing.


----------



## ColFord (Feb 18, 2020)

RAF Mustang Mk.Is did not escort Wellingtons on a raid to the Dortmund-Ems Canal in October 1942. The facts are that the four Mustang Mk.I aircraft of No.268 Squadron conducted their sortie some 12 hours before the Wellingtons conducted their sortie that night over the same area. The confusion and connection of the two sorties arises from multiple editing of the original RAF Official Communique for that day which lists the two sorties separately, the communique then being edited for transmission from the UK to the USA (reducing the word count) and then a further editing by the releasing press agency that released the details to the various news services in the USA that merged the two distinct operations into one. That was then printed in multiple US newspapers at the time. Those press releases were what was then found as a source of information by researchers/authors of a number of early books on the history of the Mustang and have been repeated as fact ever since.

The Squadrons of Army Co-operation Command did in fact, conduct a number of long range bomber escort operations in late 1942 into early 1943. The first of these was escorting the Bostons of No.88 Sqdn RAF on a low level attack against Den Helder in the Netherlands on 16 September 1942. The sortie was conducted at low level throughout, so the Mustangs were well suited to the low level transit and attack at low level with the Bostons. No Bostons or Mustangs lost in the attack. (Photos of this operation held in collection of IWM London.) Further longer range low level bomber escort sorties were conducted by various ACC Mustang Mk.I squadrons into early 1943, primarily for the Boston and Ventura units of 2 Group. Regularly, it is reported in the post action combat report, that the allocated Spitfire escorts either turned up late to the departure rendezvous point, did not turn up at all (did not make the rendezvous) or left early from the escort due to fuel shortage issues. The Mustangs got a good reputation with the 2 Group bomber units for turning up on time and at the rendezvous point and staying with the bombers. However, the ACC Mustang units were then removed from the close escort role - RAF wartime file notes suggest a bit of politics at play - and were then instead used to conduct diversionary operations in support of low level bomber raids by units of 2 Group. So they would be tasked to conduct Rhubarbs or Rangers slightly ahead of the bomber raid to attempt to draw enemy fighters away from where the bombers would be.

Squadrons in ACC were well aware of the long range potential of the Mustang Mk.I and had been conducting long range navigation exercises for some time working out the best engine settings to get best usable combat range out of the aircraft. As an example in mid 1942, a flight from RAF Snailwell near Haymarket in East Cambridgeshire at low altitude to the vicinity of Edinburgh, battle climb to 10,000 to 15,000ft, fifteen minutes simulated air combat at high engine power and high fuel consumption, then return to Snailwell with ample reserves. And course chosen was not a straight line between the two but included flight out over the North Sea and Irish Sea down and back to properly simulate a long approach over water to the target area and the usual 'feints' to throw off radar.

By mid-1943, the reconnaissance requirements for the invasion were developing and so the change in focus occurred, then the Mustang Squadrons, by that time ACC had been disbanded and the Squadrons were attached to Fighter Command pending the formal formation of 2TAF, tasking shifted to coverage of required reconnaissance targets with Rhubarbs on an opportunity basis. Added to the D-Day commitments, they then were tasked with low level coverage of suspected V weapon sites, that escalated in early 1944 to include pre-and post bombing low level photographic coverage of V weapon sites. That was primarily with the Mustang Mk.I and Mk.IA given the timeframe.

RAF Mustang Mk.IIs, since they only got 50 of them as replacements for the P-51/Mustang Mk.IAs they had not earlier received, were not going to be in significant enough numbers for use other than attrition replacements for the earlier Mustang Mk.I and Mk.IAs. They arrived, crated in the UK from USA, recorded arrivals from early June to end of July 1943. First recorded issue to an operational Squadron, being No.II(AC) Squadron, late April 1944, with aircraft being issued through May 1944 into beginning of June 1944. As such by time of D-Day the Squadron did not have sufficient operational Mk.IIs to meet its operational commitments for the invasion and had to borrow Mustang Mk.IAs from No.268 Sqdn until about the end of June 1944.

The RAF Mustang Mk.III squadrons were initially used in a fighter bomber role in the lead up to and immediately after D-Day. That role came as a bit of a surprise to the RAF aircrew involved at the time, but a clue to that thinking at the time, was the number of ex-ACC Squadron Mustang pilots being posted to the Fighter Command Mustang Mk.III Squadrons at the time. Part of the thinking regarding this at the time was the load and range consideration, the Mustang being able to haul a heavier bombload over a longer distance compared to the Spitfire and Typhoon. So they got the targets furtherest from the UK airfields. Once the Allies were well established on the Continent and aircraft range with a bombing payload became less of an issue, and Spitfire units could be based on the Continent, the Mustang Mk.III Squadrons were transferred from 2TAF to Fighter Command, being replaced by Spitfire units transferred from Fighter Command to 2TAF. The RAF Mustang MK.III units then worked up to provide bomber escort for USAAF and RAF bombers. That then became the primary function of the RAF Mustang Mk.III units until VE-Day.

There is a book out due in June 2020 that looks at the history of the N.A. P-51/B/C Mustang in the context of the development of the USAAF long range bomber escort requirement and the development of the Mustang, published by Osprey, authored by William James Marshall and Lowell Ford (no relation), with input from the like of Gruenhagen and a broad community of Mustang specialist researchers/authors/current restorers and operators, and draws heavily on lots of original source documentation.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
6 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 18, 2020)

ColFord said:


> RAF Mustang Mk.Is did not escort Wellingtons on a raid to the Dortmund-Ems Canal in October 1942. The facts are that the four Mustang Mk.I aircraft of No.268 Squadron conducted their sortie some 12 hours before the Wellingtons conducted their sortie that night over the same area. The confusion and connection of the two sorties arises from multiple editing of the original RAF Official Communique for that day which lists the two sorties separately, the communique then being edited for transmission from the UK to the USA (reducing the word count) and then a further editing by the releasing press agency that released the details to the various news services in the USA that merged the two distinct operations into one. That was then printed in multiple US newspapers at the time. Those press releases were what was then found as a source of information by researchers/authors of a number of early books on the history of the Mustang and have been repeated as fact ever since.
> 
> The Squadrons of Army Co-operation Command did in fact, conduct a number of long range bomber escort operations in late 1942 into early 1943. The first of these was escorting the Bostons of No.88 Sqdn RAF on a low level attack against Den Helder in the Netherlands on 16 September 1942. The sortie was conducted at low level throughout, so the Mustangs were well suited to the low level transit and attack at low level with the Bostons. No Bostons or Mustangs lost in the attack. (Photos of this operation held in collection of IWM London.) Further longer range low level bomber escort sorties were conducted by various ACC Mustang Mk.I squadrons into early 1943, primarily for the Boston and Ventura units of 2 Group. Regularly, it is reported in the post action combat report, that the allocated Spitfire escorts either turned up late to the departure rendezvous point, did not turn up at all (did not make the rendezvous) or left early from the escort due to fuel shortage issues. The Mustangs got a good reputation with the 2 Group bomber units for turning up on time and at the rendezvous point and staying with the bombers. However, the ACC Mustang units were then removed from the close escort role - RAF wartime file notes suggest a bit of politics at play - and were then instead used to conduct diversionary operations in support of low level bomber raids by units of 2 Group. So they would be tasked to conduct Rhubarbs or Rangers slightly ahead of the bomber raid to attempt to draw enemy fighters away from where the bombers would be.
> 
> ...


Resp:
What you outlined makes much more sense, in that the RAF ultilized the Allison engine Mustangs to their fullest extent. Some time ago, I came across a 'pre-mission report' (for lack of a better term) that was issued to each pilot, that gave mission, speeds, altitude, coordinates to fly zigzag courses for ingress/egress for each day's Rhubarbs/Rangers. The level of Intel for AA guns, EA activity for each day's mission was extensive and up to date. Amazing! Thanks for the detailed info.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 18, 2020)

ColFord said:


> RAF Mustang Mk.Is did not escort Wellingtons on a raid to the Dortmund-Ems Canal in October 1942. The facts are that the four Mustang Mk.I aircraft of No.268 Squadron conducted their sortie some 12 hours before the Wellingtons conducted their sortie that night over the same area. The confusion and connection of the two sorties arises from multiple editing of the original RAF Official Communique for that day which lists the two sorties separately, the communique then being edited for transmission from the UK to the USA (reducing the word count) and then a further editing by the releasing press agency that released the details to the various news services in the USA that merged the two distinct operations into one. That was then printed in multiple US newspapers at the time. Those press releases were what was then found as a source of information by researchers/authors of a number of early books on the history of the Mustang and have been repeated as fact ever since.
> 
> The Squadrons of Army Co-operation Command did in fact, conduct a number of long range bomber escort operations in late 1942 into early 1943. The first of these was escorting the Bostons of No.88 Sqdn RAF on a low level attack against Den Helder in the Netherlands on 16 September 1942. The sortie was conducted at low level throughout, so the Mustangs were well suited to the low level transit and attack at low level with the Bostons. No Bostons or Mustangs lost in the attack. (Photos of this operation held in collection of IWM London.) Further longer range low level bomber escort sorties were conducted by various ACC Mustang Mk.I squadrons into early 1943, primarily for the Boston and Ventura units of 2 Group. Regularly, it is reported in the post action combat report, that the allocated Spitfire escorts either turned up late to the departure rendezvous point, did not turn up at all (did not make the rendezvous) or left early from the escort due to fuel shortage issues. The Mustangs got a good reputation with the 2 Group bomber units for turning up on time and at the rendezvous point and staying with the bombers. However, the ACC Mustang units were then removed from the close escort role - RAF wartime file notes suggest a bit of politics at play - and were then instead used to conduct diversionary operations in support of low level bomber raids by units of 2 Group. So they would be tasked to conduct Rhubarbs or Rangers slightly ahead of the bomber raid to attempt to draw enemy fighters away from where the bombers would be.
> 
> ...


Bill is a contributor to this forum

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 18, 2020)

ColFord said:


> ...
> 
> There is a book out due in June 2020 that looks at the history of the N.A. P-51/B/C Mustang in the context of the development of the USAAF long range bomber escort requirement and the development of the Mustang, published by Osprey, authored by *William James Marshall* and Lowell Ford (no relation), with input from the like of Gruenhagen and a broad community of Mustang specialist researchers/authors/current restorers and operators, and draws heavily on lots of original source documentation.



(my bold)
We need to find out who that fellow is...

Thank you for that post, BTW.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ColFord (Feb 18, 2020)

I only noted Bill's post over in the books part of the forum about the new book a couple of hours after I had made my post. That's life.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 18, 2020)

ColFord said:


> I only noted Bill's post over in the books part of the forum about the new book a couple of hours after I had made my post. That's life.


Colin Ford was a Major contributor..

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Feb 22, 2020)

OP asked "best escort fighter".
Everybody pounded facts.
Something only glanced at: the cost of the planes. Pilots might not care, Bomber drivers might, so here's the gist:

P-51: $50,985 in 1945
P-47: $85,000 in 1945
P-38: $97,147 in 1944

So: Do you want 100 P-38's, 110 P-47's, or 200 P-51's?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 22, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> OP asked "best escort fighter".
> Everybody pounded facts.
> Something only glanced at: the cost of the planes. Pilots might not care, Bomber drivers might, so here's the gist:
> 
> ...



Depends what I'm going to use them for and in what theater of operation. And what model of each aircraft? P-51B? P-38L? P-47M? There will be scenarios where 100 P-38s are more cost effective in terms of capability and pilot survivability then 200 P-51s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 22, 2020)

Costs are always difficult to compare, the buyer wasn't always paying for the same thing and frequently it was based on volume. In any case the plane (or anything) has to be up to the job, you cant make a P-26 cheap enough for the USA to buy in 1944 because pilots are always worth more than planes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Feb 22, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Depends what I'm going to use them for and in what theater of operation.


 Please lend us newbies some understanding: WHERE would you prefer 110 P-47 to 200 P=51?


FLYBOYJ said:


> And what model of each aircraft? P-51B? P-38L? P-47M?


Whatever they were making in 1944 (P-38) and 1945 (others).


FLYBOYJ said:


> There will be scenarios were 100 P-38s are more cost effective in terms of capability and pilot survivability then 200 P-51s.


I'd like to know which scenarios you have in mind please.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 22, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> Please lend us newbies some understanding: WHERE would you prefer 110 P-47 to 200 P=51?


When I have a 20mm shell blow off 3 cylinder heads. I'd rather be flying a twin over an ocean any day of the week, let the taxpayer fund my survivability.



TheMadPenguin said:


> Whatever they were making in 1944 (P-38) and 1945 (others).



Still depends on mission and theater.


TheMadPenguin said:


> I'd like to know which scenarios you have in mind please.


See above!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 22, 2020)

P-47 had more fire power, ammunition and survivability than a P-51, P-38 had more bomb dropping and night fighting ability. Many USA aircraft were given away under lend lease, or you could argue other nations supplied the men and blood in a fight against a common enemy. The total cost of all USA fighter airframes is chicken feed in terms of the total cost of the war. The cost of an airfield in UK with all the trained people needed to keep 12 or 16 aircraft in service dwarfs the cost of the airframes, without consideration of the whole cost of weather recon, target recon and the cost of the whole bomber force. A fighters cost was frequently a nominal business sum that makes sense in war but not in peace time, when the government pays for the factory and tools and finances the training for a product only they are allowed to buy and becomes worthless overnight how do you make a price?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 22, 2020)

I certainly wouldn't argue that the p51 wasn't the best escort fighter of the war for most situations but there are situations where one of the other options might be a better choice. In adition to the example Flyboy gave if I knew the mission would likely result in fighting at or abouve 35,000 feet I might opt for a Thunderbolt.
If the mission called for ground attack on a target heavily defended by AA on the way back, again might opt for a p47.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 23, 2020)

I don't think that Merlin Mustang was in any kind of disadvantage when fighting was at 35000 ft, especially against the German or Japanese opposition.

As for the 100 P-38s vs. 200 P-51s: a bomber force that is escorted by 200 fighters will have far less losses than the bomber force that is escorted by 100 fighters, it is likely that escort force will suffer less casualties vs. defender. Big & distinctive 2-engined fighter will be noticed and recognised far easier than a smaller and generic-looking 1-engined fighter, thus alerting the defender earlier, giving him more time to adjust it's formation and altitude.
Having a doubled size of aircraft number in the air, while also offering a set of other advntages, is just too good opportunity to pass.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 23, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> I don't think that Merlin Mustang was in any kind of disadvantage when fighting was at 35000 ft, especially against the German or Japanese opposition.
> 
> As for the 100 P-38s vs. 200 P-51s: a bomber force that is escorted by 200 fighters will have far less losses than the bomber force that is escorted by 100 fighters, it is likely that escort force will suffer less casualties vs. defender. Big & distinctive 2-engined fighter will be noticed and recognised far easier than a smaller and generic-looking 1-engined fighter, thus alerting the defender earlier, giving him more time to adjust it's formation and altitude.
> Having a doubled size of aircraft number in the air, while also offering a set of other advntages, is just too good opportunity to pass.


Was cost ever a determining factor. I mean was this even a real issue. Did it ever actually happen the the US could only put up half as many planes in any theater because of cost. I honestly don't know for sure although I've never read that it was so it would surprise me.
And if cost isn't an issue, well the Mustang is still the better choice MOST of the time , imho but as noted earlier there are situations where other options might perform better. Nobody's saying a P51 can't fight at 35,000 feet, it's just that above this altitude a p47 might be better.
Same with flying over long stretches of shark infested waters, p51 can certainly do it and be effective but having that extra engine a p38 might be desirable. At least it was to awful lot of guys.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 23, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> Was cost ever a determining factor. I mean was this even a real issue. Did it ever actually happen the the US could only put up half as many planes in any theater because of cost. I honestly don't know for sure although I've never read that it was so it would surprise me.
> And if cost isn't an issue, well the Mustang is still the better choice MOST of the time , imho but as noted earlier there are situations where other options might perform better. Nobody's saying a P51 can't fight at 35,000 feet, it's just that above this altitude a p47 might be better.
> Same with flying over long stretches of shark infested waters, p51 can certainly do it and be effective but having that extra engine a p38 might be desirable. At least it was to awful lot of guys.



Theatre commanders could voice a request. Mission and availability dictated the distribution. 

From the previous discussion, the following observations. Kenney was the number one advocate and requester for P-38s because of range beginning with P-38F already equipped with wing racks and plumbing, even though the external tanks were ferry tanks in 1942 and 1943. He had a supply source in Australia and an innovative head of Air Technical Services who thought out of the box. The P-38s that went from 8th AF to 9th and 15th were 'suplussed' from 8th as P-51s became the fighter of choice - for 8th AF mission and for 15th mission. The P-38J/L that went to 15th were more focused on CAS for Italian campaign as the 4 P-51FGs equipped with P-51B/D were sufficient for most long range escort tasking.

In my research I have yet to uncover discussions between HQ-Plans&Reqmnts and Materiel Command in which cost was the factor for deployment. IIRC no Mustang equipped FG were replaced by P-38s in Pacific or CBI or ETO, where local commander choice MAY have influence, but operational costs and training costs were far less that P-38.

The P-47M had to be considered a Novelty. Introduced in ETO only because of 56th FG and somewhat of a problem because it maintained a more complex logistics issue for VIII Air Services command when the rest of 8th AF was all P-51. The P-38FGs in 9th AF converted to P-47 and P-51. The replaced P-38s filled attrition for the 15th AF P-38 FGs. The P-47D inventory for 9th and 12th AF were pretty stable.

P-51 inventory continued to surge in 1944-1945 as it increasingly became the fighter of choice for those units not totally dedicated to Tactical Air in Pacific and CBI. Only a few P-47Ns (respectively) ever made it into combat Ops and did not replace P-51s - only P-38 FGs. IIRC the 318th, the 413th and 507th were the only P-47N FGs.

One thing seems to jump out. The P-51D/K was the dominant escort to Japan, P-47Ns arrived in time to do some but the P-38L seemed to be shut out of what was the most active long range escort over water.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 23, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Theatre commanders could voice a request. Mission and availability dictated the distribution.
> 
> From the previous discussion, the following observations. Kenney was the number one advocate and requester for P-38s because of range beginning with P-38F already equipped with wing racks and plumbing, even though the external tanks were ferry tanks in 1942 and 1943. He had a supply source in Australia and an innovative head of Air Technical Services who thought out of the box. The P-38s that went from 8th AF to 9th and 15th were 'suplussed' from 8th as P-51s became the fighter of choice - for 8th AF mission and for 15th mission. The P-38J/L that went to 15th were more focused on CAS for Italian campaign as the 4 P-51FGs equipped with P-51B/D were sufficient for most long range escort tasking.
> 
> ...


Ya, I've always found that odd( that p38s weren't used more to escort B29s that is).
Already had alot of them in the Pacific with experienced aircrews and as important as the safety of the extra engine seemed to be to the pilots. Seems the p38 pilots as a whole thought it was verry important anyway.
Might be altitude. Alot of the B29 missions were at higher altitudes as I understand it especially early on. If your going to operate bombers at high altitude probably a plane that is best below 25,000 feet is not a the best choice. They did do escort work where such high altitude was not used.
I'm thinking it's just a matter of picking the best plane for the specific mission.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 23, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Theatre commanders could voice a request. Mission and availability dictated the distribution.
> 
> From the previous discussion, the following observations. Kenney was the number one advocate and requester for P-38s because of range beginning with P-38F already equipped with wing racks and plumbing, even though the external tanks were ferry tanks in 1942 and 1943. He had a supply source in Australia and an innovative head of Air Technical Services who thought out of the box. The P-38s that went from 8th AF to 9th and 15th were 'suplussed' from 8th as P-51s became the fighter of choice - for 8th AF mission and for 15th mission. The P-38J/L that went to 15th were more focused on CAS for Italian campaign as the 4 P-51FGs equipped with P-51B/D were sufficient for most long range escort tasking.
> 
> ...


Resp:
Hap Arnold told Kennedy in mid-late 1943 that he would not be getting P-38s due to the need for 8th AF long range escorts. This was before the Merlin engine P-51Bs started to arrive. Instead, Kenney was offered P-47D-5/-6s, which were not drop tank capable. Kenney's engineers developed plumbing for a centerline drop tank (either a 200 ot 250 gal flat tank, which worked . . but made it hard to fly straight, causing increased pilot fatigue). These tanks were made by Australia's Ford Motor Co.. I recently learned that the US Govt actually began providing the RAF with Mustang IIIs directly from NAA almost parellel delivery w US units, but a great many of these early Mustangs were transferred to USAAF fighter groups after arriving in England. The two tone upper camouflage and RAF roundels were stripped/painted over with olive green and star insignias, with the original yellow tail registration number.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 23, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> *Hap Arnold told Kennedy in mid-late 1943 that he would not be getting P-38s due to the need for 8th AF long range escorts. *This was before the Merlin engine P-51Bs started to arrive. Instead, Kenney was offered P-47D-5/-6s, which were not drop tank capable. Kenney's engineers developed plumbing for a centerline drop tank (either a 200 ot 250 gal flat tank, which worked . . but made it hard to fly straight, causing increased pilot fatigue). These tanks were made by Australia's Ford Motor Co.. I recently learned that the US Govt actually began providing the RAF with Mustang IIIs directly from NAA almost parellel delivery w US units, but a great many of these early Mustangs were transferred to USAAF fighter groups after arriving in England. The two tone upper camouflage and RAF roundels were stripped/painted over with olive green and star insignias, with the original yellow tail registration number.



I believe that's not totally accurate. While it was documented from several sources that Arnold had told Kenny the ETO was the priority, P-38s did find their way to the South Pacific. In the book "Peter Three Eight" (Stanaway) the Arnold/Kenny situation was mentioned but Kenny acquired enough P-38s to bring up 3 operational P-38 combat squadrons by the spring of 1943, I believe they were the 80th, the 475th and the 39th FS, all under V fighter command. I believe a 4th was on line during the summer of 43'. Well into 1943, P-38s were finding their way to the V fighter command. Bottom line in mid-late 1943, there were already P-38s in theater and more were on their way.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 23, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe that's not totally accurate. While it was documented from several sources that Arnold had told Kenny the ETO was the priority, P-38s did find their way to the South Pacific. In the book "Peter Three Eight" (Stanaway) the Arnold/Kenny situation was mentioned but Kenny acquired enough P-38s to bring up 3 operational P-38 combat squadrons by the spring of 1943, I believe they were the 80th, the 475th and the 39th FS, all under V fighter command. I believe a 4th was on line during the summer of 43'. Well into 1943, P-38s were finding their way to the V fighter command. Bottom line in mid-late 1943, there were already P-38s in theater and more were on their way.



Joe - the P-38G/H that made their way to SWP were before the Blitz Week crisis at end of July, 1943. Arnold directed the re-routing of the 20th and 55th FG to ETO (from Med) which arrived in August 1943. IIRC it was October 1943 when he said ALL P-51B and P-38J were to go to ETO. After that the only new P-38FG in any Theatre until May 1944 were the 8th AF 364th/479th ETO and the 367/370474th 9th AF. About this time the flow of replacements were from 8th AF to 9th and then 15th until the Long Range crisis was effectively over around D-Day. Then the production logistics pointed to SWP and some CBI for most remaining New production

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 23, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> Ya, I've always found that odd( that p38s weren't used more to escort B29s that is).
> Already had alot of them in the Pacific with experienced aircrews and as important as the safety of the extra engine seemed to be to the pilots. Seems the p38 pilots as a whole thought it was verry important anyway.
> Might be altitude. Alot of the B29 missions were at higher altitudes as I understand it especially early on. If your going to operate bombers at high altitude probably a plane that is best below 25,000 feet is not a the best choice. They did do escort work where such high altitude was not used.
> I'm thinking it's just a matter of picking the best plane for the specific mission.


 Best cruise for P-38 escort range was below B-29 cruise speed. For P-38s to cruise at 300mph TAS, the fuel consumption made it a poor second choice to the P-51 and P-47N (Joe -check me on this)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 23, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Joe - the P-38G/H that made their way to SWP were before the Blitz Week crisis at end of July, 1943. Arnold directed the re-routing of the 20th and 55th FG to ETO (from Med) which arrived in August 1943. IIRC it was October 1943 when he said ALL P-51B and P-38J were to go to ETO. After that the only new P-38FG in any Theatre until May 1944 were the 8th AF 364th/479th ETO and the 367/370474th 9th AF. About this time the flow of replacements were from 8th AF to 9th and then 15th until the Long Range crisis was effectively over around D-Day. Then the production logistics pointed to SWP and some CBI for most remaining New production


Great info Bill - the OP's comment came across to me as if there were no P-38s going to the SWP and I think we all know by mid-1943 the P-38 was well establishing itself. The book quoted does state that the 9th and 39th were re-equipped with P-47s (this around October/ November 1943) but that would last 6 month. It seems around February or March 1944 is when the P-38J started to arrive in the SWP


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 24, 2020)

Make me wonder what the Soviets would use for a long range fighter escort, if they'd had the need. The post-war Lavochkin La-11 had a Mustang-like 2,235 km range....







....but the wartime Soviet fighters had terrible endurance.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 24, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Make me wonder what the Soviets would use for a long range fighter escort, if they'd had the need. The post-war Lavochkin La-11 had a Mustang-like 2,235 km range....
> ...but the wartime Soviet fighters had terrible endurance.



Soviets were using long-range fighters in ww2. The Yak-9D sported extra fuel tankage vs. the stadard Yak-9 versions, and the Yak-9DD have had even more fuel inside. Since neither of them got any actual engine upgrade (VK-105 engines were well behind the curve already by mid-1941, apart from some prototypes and low-volume production types with reliability problems), performance was pittiful, especially on the DD version. Soviets also seldom used drop tanks.

Mustang was not sattisfied with km, he matched km with miles 1:1.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 24, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe that's not totally accurate. While it was documented from several sources that Arnold had told Kenny the ETO was the priority, P-38s did find their way to the South Pacific. In the book "Peter Three Eight" (Stanaway) the Arnold/Kenney situation was mentioned but Kenny acquired enough P-38s to bring up 3 operational P-38 combat squadrons by the spring of 1943, I believe they were the 80th, the 475th and the 39th FS, all under V fighter command. I believe a 4th was on line during the summer of 43'. Well into 1943, P-38s were finding their way to the V fighter command. Bottom line in mid-late 1943, there were already P-38s in theater and more were on their way.


Resp:
Thanks for the info/clarification. Kenney was concerned enough to direct his engineers to make the arriving P-47s drop tank capable. 60 days after the engineers were informed, P-47s flew their 1st long range missions with the special flat drop tank on the centerline. Amazing!


----------



## drgondog (Feb 24, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Thanks for the info/clarification. Kennedy was concerned enough to direct his engineers to make the arriving P-47s drop tank capable. 60 days after the engineers were informed, P-47s flew their 1st long range missions with the special flat drop tank on the centerline. Amazing!



Kenney also bypassed Materiel Command restrictions and used ferry (non self-sealing) tanks while MC diddled the development programs for combat tanks. The directive from Arnold came out of February 1942 Fighter Conference and the first 75, then 108/110 combat tanks followed in Fall 1943, then 165/150 in spring 1944. Kenney just wanted to fight the war and the bureaucrats at right Field were slowing him down.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Feb 24, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> When I have a 20mm shell blow off 3 cylinder heads. I'd rather be flying a twin over an ocean any day of the week, let the taxpayer fund my survivability.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have much less of a chance of the enemy getting on your tail in a 51 compared to the other two...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2020)

grampi said:


> You have much less of a chance of the enemy getting on your tail in a 51 compared to the other two...


If an enemy is on your tail in any of the three, more than likely you're already screwed, and forget all the dogfight stories you heard. So at the end of the day if a cannon round doesn't wipe out the cockpit area or torch a fuel tank, I'll settle on having an extra engine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Thanks for the info/clarification. Kennedy was concerned enough to direct his engineers to make the arriving P-47s drop tank capable. 60 days after the engineers were informed, P-47s flew their 1st long range missions with the special flat drop tank on the centerline. Amazing!


An amazing feat indeed but I think Kenney had no choice as attrition forced him to take on P-47s for a brief period.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 25, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> An amazing feat indeed but I think Kenney had no choice as attrition forced him to take on P-47s for a brief period.


Resp:
But compare Kenney to Eaker, and there was a world of difference in their abilities. Arnold had so much trouble with getting Eaker to keep him informed, that he drew up a questionnaire (fill in the blanks) for him to complete on a regular basis. Eaker rarely completed these forms, so Arnold went long periods w/o feedback. Arnold fired his bomber commander, then shortly thereafter fired Hunter, his fighter commander. Eaker met early with British officials to get drop tanks made, but failed to follow up. The British said that they 'could' produce . . . but misunderstood Eaker's request. In the mean time Eaker canceled his drop tank production request in the US. His chief air planer asked Eaker for his help, but Eaker just said 'you handle it.' The new bomber commander started putting in written requests for fighter protection (escorts) because of losses and low morale. Eisenhower said that he would not work with Eaker, so Doolittle replaced him. Command ability does produce results.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Feb 25, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If an enemy is on your tail in any of the three, more than likely you're already screwed, and forget all the dogfight stories you heard. So at the end of the day if a cannon round doesn't wipe out the cockpit area or torch a fuel tank, I'll settle on having an extra engine.


True, but if you were flying a 51, it would be easier to avoid that situation...


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 25, 2020)

grampi said:


> True, but if you were flying a 51, it would be easier to avoid that situation...


Resp:
USAAF:
SWP - P-38
ETO - Merlin P-51


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 25, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If an enemy is on your tail in any of the three, more than likely you're already screwed, and forget all the dogfight stories you heard. So at the end of the day if a cannon round doesn't wipe out the cockpit area or torch a fuel tank, I'll settle on having an extra engine.



After which, you're in a crippled airplane in where there are active enemy fighters. I'm not sure that this is much of an improvement over no engine.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 25, 2020)

grampi said:


> True, but if you were flying a 51, it would be easier to avoid that situation...



How so?


----------



## pbehn (Feb 25, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How so?


 N/A cloaking device, you heard it here first.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> After which, you're in a crippled airplane in where there are active enemy fighters. I'm not sure that this is much of an improvement over no engine.


"One engine is better than no engine." At least there's a chance you may live to fight another day!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2020)

grampi said:


> True, but if you were flying a 51, it would be easier to avoid that situation...


Perhaps. Many variables there. It's been well established that most fighter pilots shot down never saw their adversary. If an opponent got on your 6 without you knowing and started blasting lethal rounds into your aircraft, it's going to make little difference what aircraft you're in. My point is your chances of survivability is increased with a second engine.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 25, 2020)

In terms of the discussion, the P-51 may have been better than a P-38 and the P-38 may have been more expensive than the P-51, but that doesn't mean you don't buy P-38s. There were 10,000 + P-38s produced you cant magic an extra 10,000 P-51s out of the ether just because you want them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 25, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> After which, you're in a crippled airplane in where there are active enemy fighters. I'm not sure that this is much of an improvement over no engine.


Resp:
You are probably correct, but I think Most pilots would want to live as long as possible. Cloud cover, other aircraft doing battle and other distractions . . . just that they survive to limp away . . . to fight another day. Luck?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 25, 2020)

there were at least a few instances of P-38s in the South East Asia Theater making it home flying 600 miles on one engine. Granted Japanese Flak was pretty thin on the ground and Japanese fighters were also a bit rare along the route/s (and lacking radar control?) but that is about 580 miles further than a single engine plane was going to get

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Feb 26, 2020)

There was a post-war study that the US did on aircraft vulnerability and found that only about 10% of Lightnings that lost an engine _(in combat?)_ were able to return to base, and that all things considered, having two engines probably increased vulnerability.

I don't have the actual reference -- does this ring a bell with anyone?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Feb 26, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How so?


The 51 is more maneuverable than the other two...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 26, 2020)

grampi said:


> The 51 is more maneuverable than the other two...



To many variables. Who is on your tail? What is on your tail? Did you even see them?

The other guy can maneuver too right?


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 26, 2020)

Greyman said:


> There was a post-war study that the US did on aircraft vulnerability and found that only about 10% of Lightnings that lost an engine _(in combat?)_ were able to return to base, and that all things considered, having two engines probably increased vulnerability.
> 
> I don't have the actual reference -- does this ring a bell with anyone?


Resp:
10% may not seem like much, unless you are one of those ten percent.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Feb 26, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> To many variables. Who is on your tail? What is on your tail? Did you even see them?
> 
> The other guy can maneuver too right?


Obviously this only applies if the pilot sees his enemy and can take evasive action, so nothing is on my tail because I was able to take BETTER evasive action because I was flying a P-51 and not a P-47 or P-38...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 26, 2020)

Naw, still too many variables. That should go in the what if threads.


----------



## grampi (Feb 27, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Naw, still too many variables. That should go in the what if threads.


Okay, if you say so...


----------



## mstennes (Feb 27, 2020)

Erich said:


> go interview some ETO vets of the 8th AF smart guy. The K variant was excellent. As I said this all is wrapped in what theater. First thing you cannot even compare the two on the ETO front anyway.
> 
> We can come up with scales as some posters like to do but until you can interview a vet first hand and get his views on flying both Jug and Mustang variants you will all have your own personal opinions.
> 
> v/r E


Wasn’t the K just a Dallas built D?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 27, 2020)

grampi said:


> Okay, if you say so...



Thanks!


----------



## P-39 Expert (Feb 27, 2020)

The P-38 should never have been produced in that volume. Maybe 500-1000 total as recon planes. This is all hindsight, but the P-38 was twice as expensive as a P-51 but it wasn't twice as capable. Not even AS capable when you throw in more than twice the maintenance, twice the fuel, low mach number, low maneuverability, complexity and need for extra pilot training. I love the P-38, but it never made that much sense to me. Same with the P-47 really. Huge plane with no endurance, climb or maneuverability. Develop the P-51 and maybe one other single engine plane as a backup. Hindsight.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 27, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> The P-38 should never have been produced in that volume. Maybe 500-1000 total as recon planes. This is all hindsight, but the P-38 was twice as expensive as a P-51 but it wasn't twice as capable. Not even AS capable when you throw in more than twice the maintenance, twice the fuel, low mach number, low maneuverability, complexity and need for extra pilot training. I love the P-38, but it never made that much sense to me. Same with the P-47 really. Huge plane with no endurance, climb or maneuverability. Develop the P-51 and maybe one other single engine plane as a backup. Hindsight.


The P-51 with Merlin didn't appear until 1943 and in 1943-44 the USA and UK had a huge demand for any capable aeroplane. Even with hindsight would you do away with all the P-38 achieved up to 1943 and after 1943 building an extra P-51 factory and telling others to do without 5,000 Merlins?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Feb 27, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The P-51 with Merlin didn't appear until 1943 and in 1943-44 the USA and UK had a huge demand for any capable aeroplane. Even with hindsight would you do away with all the P-38 achieved up to 1943 and after 1943 building an extra P-51 factory and telling others to do without 5,000 Merlins?


Certainly not if all you do is stop producing the P-38. Those resources (engines, propellers, armaments etc) would need to be redirected to P-51 production as efficiently as possible.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 27, 2020)

I cant help but think when the first of the 1,000 P-38 rec planes arrived in Europe someone high up would say "can we put some MGs in that critter"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hairog (Feb 27, 2020)

Don't know where to start. How about the myth that the P-38 was twice as costly as the Mustang. I would argue that you have to add in the costs of ...
1. cost of retooling for P-51 parts
2. cost of building new factories
3. engineering costs to solve the problem of the tails falling off or the wrong engine etc.
4. cost of training workers to run the new machinery used to build the parts
5. cost of new warehousing 
6. cost of training new pilots to replace the ones that didn't come home due to their engine being damaged
7. cost to the morale of those remaining pilots at losing their friends 
8. cost to the families who lost sons, brothers, fathers needlessly

Just a few stories and facts from this source... The P-38 (C.C. Jordan; MakinKid; CDB100620) 

"During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a
Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few the
P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was
able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
Spitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning
circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
angle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. After that the
Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. This contest was
witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground."

"In a mock dogfight between the Mustang and the Lightning, the skilled P-38
driver would fight in the vertical, taking advantage of his superior climb
speed and aerobatic ability. The skilled Mustang pilot would attempt to extend
away and come back unobserved. Once either locked onto the tail of the other,
it would be very difficult to shake. The P-38 driver in such a situation would
want to work the speed of the engagement down into the stall area where the
Mustang couldn't follow him. He could also split-S, dive and zoom, probably
losing the P-51. The Mustang pilot with a P-38 on his tail had fewer options.
At high altitude, he could point the nose at the ground and keep it there till
the the Lightning dwindled, then zoom climb into a fast, shallow climb to
extend away.
Interesting that the twin-engine fighter would have the advantage in a slow
turning contest, or in the vertical--loops, split-Ses.
What would typically happen if a Mustang bounced a Lightning would be that the
P-38 would split-S, the Mustang would follow through the roll but keep on
diving for some distance before pulling out, then circle around for another try
at a bounce. The Lightning pilot would continue the split-S up into a loop and
scan the sky for the Mustang. Typically, he would spot him some distance below
beginning a pull out. The Lightning driver would finish the loop and fall on
the climbing Mustang, locking onto his tail. The smart Mustang pilot would
reduce the chance of this by rolling out of h is escape dive into a climb in a
different direction. He might do a corkscrew climb. The "winner" of the
dogfight would be the pilot who better kept sight of his foe, who better
anticipated what his foe would do next, and who knew what to do with his own
airplane to counter that anticipated move; in other words, the better pilot
won--not the airplane."


"The P-38 was the best climber in active USAAF inventory and could easily
leave a P-51 choking on its heel dust. It also had brute acceleration the P-51
could not match (although the P-51 could accelerate very well indeed, the P-38
was better). The best accelerating P-38 was the H. Later models were
heavier, although the L got some more beans to play with.
The turbo really came into its own on the P-38 in the climb, providing sea
level horsepower to very high altitudes, so climb was smooth and consistent,
with 100 percent power being available at all altitudes. In earlier models,
inadequate intercooling limited the effectiveness of the turbos at high
altitude. This was corrected from the J. The P-51's two-stage, two-speed
mechanical supercharger caused it to lurch upstairs in a series of steps, HP
beginning to fall off immediately after a "gear change." The switch from the
first stage to the second stage of the supercharger occurred at about 17,000
ft. Just before the shift, the P-51 had performance about on par with a P-40N
at the same altitude. Then when the second stage kicked in, it became a tiger."

"Re climb and altitude performance of the P-38 vs. the P-51:
It has been stated in this thread that the performance of the P-38 declined
rapidly above 20,000 ft. This is not true.
The pre-J models could maintain sea-level power up to 25,000 ft., where
intercooler limitations began to reduce power. The J/L models could maintain
sea level power up to 30,000 ft., where turbo impeller speed limitations began
to reduce power. In neither case was power reduction sudden or dramatic.
(Incidentally, the turbocharged P-47 could also maintain sea level horsepower
up to 30,000 ft.)
This means the P-38H would have close to 2500 horsepower (military power)
available at 25,000 ft and the J almost 2900 horsepower (military) at 30,000
ft. (The P-47 would have 2000 hp [military] at 30,000 ft.) The use of War
Emergency Power would boost those figures.
No WWII fighter--bar none--had as much available horsepower at altitudes of
25,000 ft and above as the P-38.
The P-51D with its multi-stage mechanical supercharger saw horsepower
(military) peak at a bit less than 1700 at 8500 ft. At 13,500 ft., it was a
bit over 1300 hp, then it jumped to about 1375 or so at 21,500 ft., after which
it declined steadily. At 25,000 ft. it was down to 1200 hp and at 30,000 ft.
power was only a little over 700 hp.
(This engine performance deterioration was typical for any mechanically
supercharged aircraft engine, whether the P-51, Spitfire or Me 109.)
The P-51D had only about a third the horsepower available to the P-38H at
30,000 ft. and only about a fourth of that available to the J. Of course, the
P-51 was a lot lighter than the P-38, but still, at a normal gross weight of
17,700 lbs or so for the P-38J/L (about 1,000 lbs less for the H) and 10,200
lbs for the P-51D, the power loading for the P-38J at 30,000 ft. was 6.2
lbs/hp. (For the P-38H it would be a bit less than 6.7 lbs./hp.) For the P-51D
it was 10.6 lbs/hp. Even at 20,000 ft., where the P-51D was at its performance
peak, power loading for the P-51D was about 7.5 lbs per hp, while the J was
still 6.2 lbs./hp [6.7 for the H] (because the turbocharged power was operating
at sea-level efficiency.)
(P-47D power loading (military)at a gross wt. of about 14,500 lbs was 7.2
lbs./hp at all altitudes up to 30,000 ft.)
This means that at 20,000 ft. the P-38--early or late model--could walk away
from the P-51 and at 25,000 ft. and above, it could run away from it.
Because of this power advantage, the P-38, whatever the model, could easily
outclimb the Merlin P-51, hands down, no contest. At military power, the P-38J
could beat the P-51 to 10,000 ft. by about 2 minutes and to 30,000 ft. by about
four minutes. The P-38H figures would be somewhat less but still superior.
In fact, in fun and games stateside, it was not uncommon for a P-38 driver to
challenge a P-51 jockey to a dogfight to begin at brake-release on the runway,
the airplanes side by side. The Lightning would be wheels up before the
Mustang had left the ground. It would climb to 20,000 ft., the Mustang puffing
along farther and farther behind, whereupon the P-38 driver would commence a
relentless series of bounces from above, booming and zooming the Mustang until
he got bored, the Mustang driver never having a chance to do little more than
dodge--if he could spot the Lightning coming out of the sun. The higher up the
fight took place, the greater the advantage to the P-38.
The P-38 could also easily out-accelerate the P-51, thanks to the brute
horsepower it possessed, leaving it behind in a throttle-up contest. At
mid-altitude mid-speed contests, the P-51 would do best against the P-38. But
even then, roll and turn rates would be about the same for the two airplanes,
with the Lightning having the advantage in acceleration, climb and initial
dive. At lower or higher speeds, the P-38 could out-do the P-51, using manuever
flap setting at low speeds, and having greater control authority at high
speeds. Of course, at any time, the P-38 driver could push the contest
into--and through--the accelerated stall, which the P-51 driver dared not do:
the P-51 would depart controlled flight suddenly and violently, while an
accelerated stall in a P-38 was scarcely noticeable--a little mushing and the
nose dropping a bit.

The bottom line is that the P-38 was one hell of a fine airplane. It was
complex for its day, and required the pilot to spend some time with it before
he was fully qualified to take advantage of its capabilities. But once he
understood the airplane and how to use it, there was no other fighter in the
air that could match the P-38."

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 27, 2020)

<gets popcorn (at least for now)>


----------



## pbehn (Feb 27, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> <gets popcorn (at least for now)>


Is it still in production? I think it should be.


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 27, 2020)



Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 27, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> The P-38 should never have been produced in that volume. Maybe 500-1000 total as recon planes. This is all hindsight, but the P-38 was twice as expensive as a P-51 but it wasn't twice as capable. Not even AS capable when you throw in more than twice the maintenance, twice the fuel, low mach number, low maneuverability, complexity and need for extra pilot training. I love the P-38, but it never made that much sense to me. Same with the P-47 really. Huge plane with no endurance, climb or maneuverability. Develop the P-51 and maybe one other single engine plane as a backup. Hindsight.


Resp:
Expense wasn't the issue for the US after Pearl Harbor. There was no Merlin P-51 when the P-38 was coming off the production line in 1941 as the only high performance drop tank capable fighter. There was no high altitude Merlin P-51 when the high altitude P-47 arrived in England. Pacific and ETO respectively filled the bill . . . UNTIL the Merlin Mustang arrived. The 'World' wasn't automated then, and each aircraft company worked their design. I think Lockheed and Republic did very well ! !

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 27, 2020)

Hairog said:


> Don't know where to start. How about the myth that the P-38 was twice as costly as the Mustang. I would argue that you have to add in the costs of ...
> 1. cost of retooling for P-51 parts
> 2. cost of building new factories
> 3. engineering costs to solve the problem of the tails falling off or the wrong engine etc.
> ...


I don't think anyone was saying a p38s performance dropped off abouve 25,000 feet but instead were referring to dive speed limitations due to the lower mach number.
That being said I would agree that the p38 was indeed a great plane overall. Especially the j25 on.


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 27, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> The P-38 should never have been produced in that volume. Maybe 500-1000 total as recon planes. This is all hindsight, but the P-38 was twice as expensive as a P-51 but it wasn't twice as capable. Not even AS capable when you throw in more than twice the maintenance, twice the fuel, low mach number, low maneuverability, complexity and need for extra pilot training. I love the P-38, but it never made that much sense to me. Same with the P-47 really. Huge plane with no endurance, climb or maneuverability. Develop the P-51 and maybe one other single engine plane as a backup. Hindsight.


The p47 had range to ge all the way to Berlin once they got the drop tank thing squared away. Even before that it had more range than most fighters of the time. Range wasnt static and like most types crept up over time but it was ahead of most over time and behind a few when it came to range. Climb was somewhere between 2700 and 3100 fpm depending on the source once they got paddle blade props which I think was pretty quick. Not a rocket but only a few hundred fpm behind many planes often referred to as having a great climb rate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 28, 2020)

IIRC half the Mustangs produced never left the continental USA to reach any combat zone, so the Mustang must have been more expensive as two Mustangs cost more than one Lightning, and required 2 pilots.


----------



## grampi (Feb 28, 2020)

Hairog said:


> Don't know where to start. How about the myth that the P-38 was twice as costly as the Mustang. I would argue that you have to add in the costs of ...
> 1. cost of retooling for P-51 parts
> 2. cost of building new factories
> 3. engineering costs to solve the problem of the tails falling off or the wrong engine etc.
> ...


I understand you had to use the P-51D for your comparison to make your point, but the P-51H would have bested ANY version of the P-38 in every performance category...


----------



## DarrenW (Feb 28, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Huge plane with no endurance, climb or maneuverability



As far as endurance is concerned you must be referring to early Thunderbolts without adequate external tanks, to which I mostly agree. Same with climb but that increased markedly with water injection and improved propellers. Maneuverability low down was never the T-bolt's strong point but way up high in the thinning air it's turbo allowed it to maintain handling where most other fighters of the time became sluggish and unresponsive.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Feb 28, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> As far as endurance is concerned you must be referring to early Thunderbolts without adequate external tanks, to which I mostly agree. Same with climb but that increased markedly with water injection and improved propellers. Maneuverability low down was never the T-bolt's strong point but way up high in the thinning air it's turbo allowed it to maintain handling where most other fighters of the time became sluggish and unresponsive.


Thunderbolts didn't have ANY external tanks from the time they got into combat in May '43 until August and those were only single 75 gallon belly tanks. Burning 190 gallons per hour at normal power meant that 75 gallon tank added about 20 minutes and maybe 50 miles of combat radius. 

The wide blade propellers were added to the D-25 I think? Those got into combat right around D-Day, a little late to help win air superiority over Europe. That happened in the first half of '44. During the time when air superiority was still being contested the P-47 was a short range plane with a very average rate of climb.

And during that first half of '44 the P-38J engines were blowing up and the dive flaps were not in service yet. And they were still freezing their pilots.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 28, 2020)

grampi said:


> I understand you had to use the P-51D for your comparison to make your point, but the P-51H would have bested ANY version of the P-38 in every performance category...


Resp:
The P-51H point is moot, as their only participation in WWII was on the flight deck of a carrier enroute to SWP when the war ended.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 28, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Thunderbolts didn't have ANY external tanks from the time they got into combat in May '43 until August and those were only single 75 gallon belly tanks. Burning 190 gallons per hour at normal power meant that 75 gallon tank added about 20 minutes and maybe 50 miles of combat radius.
> 
> The wide blade propellers were added to the D-25 I think? Those got into combat right around D-Day, a little late to help win air superiority over Europe. That happened in the first half of '44. During the time when air superiority was still being contested the P-47 was a short range plane with a very average rate of climb.
> 
> And during that first half of '44 the P-38J engines were blowing up and the dive flaps were not in service yet. And they were still freezing their pilots.


Reap:
Where were the Merlin Mustangs? Many of those P-47 pilots faced very experienced pilots. Certainly by the end of 1944 and 1945 the Luftwaffe had fewer skilled pilots.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Feb 28, 2020)

Sidebar: I cannot prove it but strongly suspect that the F6F had the best escort record in terms of bomber losses to enemy aircraft, whether numerically or proportionately. And yes, youbetcha--separate universe from the ETO/MTO. Just sayin'...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Feb 28, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Thunderbolts didn't have ANY external tanks from the time they got into combat in May '43 until August and those were only single 75 gallon belly tanks.



Not a P-47 expert here but didn't they experiment with ferry tanks early on??? And IIRC didn't 5th Air Force P-47s utilize specially designed 200 gal. centerline tanks during the summer of 1943?



P-39 Expert said:


> The wide blade propellers were added to the D-25 I think? Those got into combat right around D-Day, a little late to help win air superiority over Europe. That happened in the first half of '44. During the time when air superiority was still being contested the P-47 was a short range plane with a very average rate of climb.



From what I gather the improved Curtis and Hamilton Standard propellers began reaching squadrons by the end of 1943. I believe the P-47D-22 were the first production variants to leave the factory with the new propellers but I'll need to check this to make sure.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_Propellers-30nov43.pdf


----------



## P-39 Expert (Feb 28, 2020)

Hairog said:


> Don't know where to start. How about the myth that the P-38 was twice as costly as the Mustang. I would argue that you have to add in the costs of ...
> 1. cost of retooling for P-51 parts
> 2. cost of building new factories
> 3. engineering costs to solve the problem of the tails falling off or the wrong engine etc.
> ...



The P-38 did cost twice as much as the P-51. More than twice as much. Not including over twice the maintenance. 

That Griffon Spitfire has a listed top speed of 447mph in wwiiaircraft. The top speed of a P-38H was 403mph. All that turning is wasted when the Griffon Spitfire just leaves and the P-38H can't catch it. 

Regarding the Mustang vs Lightning dogfight you better check your climb figures for a P-51B. It will substantially outclimb all but the very latest P-38J/L. And those weren't available until after D-day when air superiority had already been won in Europe. By the time the P-38J-25 and L were in combat they had been relegated to ground attack in the ETO.

If the Lightning (and Thunderbolt) were so great why were they displaced in the escort role by the P-51?


----------



## Darnold (Feb 28, 2020)

I’ve followed this forum for a number of years, weekly getting forum updates. I’ve even posted a few times, nothing spectacular or controversial, but I’ve been silent for the last 4yrs. For some reason I couldn’t log on to post this so I had to register...again. With that all written...

I am still amazed at the bias that goes on here. That bias is especially strong against the P51. It has started to become nauseating to see people pull selective data, or even worst, inaccurate data to make virtually every other WWII fighter from 1942 onwards better than the Mustang. I laugh at the constantly purported concept that wing loading alone determined turning ability, only for those people to then use the gross weight of one plane and compare it to the empty weight of another. 🤣 Another one that’s frequently bantered is stall speed as THE definitive indicator of turning capability throughout the entire performance envelope of all altitudes, speeds, loadings, and configurations. Or another crazy comparison happens when people use the service date, or design date, or even the genealogical order to compare fighters so that they can move one marquee with a decided advantage into play against another and declare their favorite the winner. 
The funny thing though is that every human has bias, the key is to admit it, and then be open to being inaccurate, or only having a part of the picture so that we can learn from each other. There’s no problem with healthy debate, but it seems like it’s long past being healthy debate around here. 
It’s gotten to the point that the forum seems to only have a small percentage (20-30% to me) of very Sage contributors who are a delight to read and learn from, and a somewhat large percentage of very biased posters who turn most comparisons into a “who’s group yelled/posted for their belief and logic algorithm format the most” exercise. All done to enable their bias to be deemed as the “Truth”. I’ve come close to cancelling being here for a few years, but the Sage ones keep me coming back refreshing me with their data, real world experiences, and deeper insights. 
In the end let’s all remember that no one plane was THE best at everything.
There was no one plane that was THE best dogfighter at every altitude and performance envelope strata, no one plane was THE best fighter-bomber (couldn’t all of them carry some bomb payload 🤣), or THE best for the entire, or rest of , our beyond the war. 🤣🤣🤣
They all had mission profiles that they were designed to, and some were better at it than others. And with that in mind no one that is knowledgeable would say that the Mustang was the best at everything, that’s for sure. 
What I’ve gathered from my own literature reviews, and what I’ve gleaned from most of the Sage people on the forum is that the Mustang was overall the best from 43’ - 45’ at what it wound up being enabled to do with a better engine than it was originally given: long range escort. It turned tight enough to turn with its enemy (better at many of the altitudes it faced them at), had enough maneuverability to react and engage its enemy throughout its performance envelope, with enough firepower to down them. And it was pretty much the only fighter that had the range to escort the heavies to their deepest targets, fight over and coming back from those targets, and land at home. That’s why it’s typically been referred to as the best escort fighter of the war. That doesn’t mean it was the best at everything, all of the time, and in every situation. To say that this isn’t accurate is problematic at the least. The Jug was the most rugged fighter with enough maneuverability to really mix it up with the event and provide cover for the distances it could travel. The Fork Tail Devil could hammer in a turn long enough to shoot down a zero at lower altitudes, and the Corsair in my opinion was the “Mustang” of the Pacific theater and it’s lower operating altitudes. The Hellcat was a dream to fly and really matched the zero, and it could do it from the deck, while the Spit was a pilot’s plane that Badger and Johnson said you literally write the wings on your back. The Messerschmidt was beautiful and deadly, a German “pre-type Mustang “ for me, and the Butcher Bird was a wonderfully elastic plane that was extremely adaptable and capable. 
They were all great.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 28, 2020)

Stick around, I've also learned from the Sage contributors a lot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 28, 2020)

Darnold said:


> I’ve followed this forum for a number of years, weekly getting forum updates. I’ve even posted a few times, nothing spectacular or controversial, but I’ve been silent for the last 4yrs. For some reason I couldn’t log on to post this so I had to register...again. With that all written...
> 
> I am still amazed at the bias that goes on here. That bias is especially strong against the P51. It has started to become nauseating to see people pull selective data, or even worst, inaccurate data to make virtually every other WWII fighter from 1942 onwards better than the Mustang. I laugh at the constantly purported concept that wing loading alone determined turning ability, only for those people to then use the gross weight of one plane and compare it to the empty weight of another. 🤣 Another one that’s frequently bantered is stall speed as THE definitive indicator of turning capability throughout the entire performance envelope of all altitudes, speeds, loadings, and configurations. Or another crazy comparison happens when people use the service date, or design date, or even the genealogical order to compare fighters so that they can move one marquee with a decided advantage into play against another and declare their favorite the winner.
> The funny thing though is that every human has bias, the key is to admit it, and then be open to being inaccurate, or only having a part of the picture so that we can learn from each other. There’s no problem with healthy debate, but it seems like it’s long past being healthy debate around here.
> ...


 In two separate polls the P-51 was voted both the most over rated and under rated aircraft of WW2. Maybe it is the most talked about. As a Brit, all USA types outperformed the Hurricane, but they didnt in the summer of 1940. They all did their "bit" in the conflict, it is a matter of opinion whose was the most significant and sometimes looks sways opinion in what should be a factual discussion.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Feb 28, 2020)

grampi said:


> I understand you had to use the P-51D for your comparison to make your point, but the P-51H would have bested ANY version of the P-38 in every performance category...



P-51H would have bested the P-38 in every category except for the category of being ready when it was needed the most. Even the P-38 wasn't perfect in that category. P51H was more a contemporary of the P80.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 28, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> P-51H would have bested the P-38 in every category except for the category of being ready when it was needed the most. Even the P-38 wasn't perfect in that category. P51H was more a contemporary of the P80.


The humble Hurricane knocks them all into a cocked hat when it comes to performance in 1939/40 for the same reason, that was when the island that the long range missions came from was secured.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 28, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> The P-38 should never have been produced in that volume. Maybe 500-1000 total as recon planes. This is all hindsight, but the P-38 was twice as expensive as a P-51 but it wasn't twice as capable. Not even AS capable when you throw in more than twice the maintenance, twice the fuel, low mach number, low maneuverability, complexity and need for extra pilot training. I love the P-38, but it never made that much sense to me. Same with the P-47 really. Huge plane with no endurance, climb or maneuverability. Develop the P-51 and maybe one other single engine plane as a backup. Hindsight.


And in hindsight, the P-38 was the only aircraft available in numbers and on a rolling production line to fulfill a mission that the P-40 *AND*_ (drumroll) _the P-39 couldn't. For a huge plane with "no endurance, climb or maneuverability" it sure made an impact (same with the P-47).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
5 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 28, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> And during that first half of '44 the P-38J engines were blowing up and the dive flaps were not in service yet. And they were still freezing their pilots.


In the South West Pacific?!?!? People tend to forget "that other war." And even with the P-38's less than stellar performance in the ETO, it was still a valued weapon and served on front line squadrons until the end of the European airwar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 28, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> P-51H would have bested the P-38 in every category except for the category of being ready when it was needed the most. Even the P-38 wasn't perfect in that category. P51H was more a contemporary of the P80.


Maybe an early block P-80A. Maybe. Not even close to the F-80C.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And in hindsight, the P-38 was the only aircraft available in numbers and on a rolling production line to fulfill a mission that the P-40 *AND*_ (drumroll) _the P-39 couldn't. For a huge plane with "no endurance, climb or maneuverability" it sure made an impact (same with the P-47).


Who authorised the purchase of all these crap planes? !0,000 of them just using much needed fuel for years?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Who authorised the purchase of all these crap planes? !0,000 of them just using much needed fuel for years?



At least one guy with hindsight and deep pockets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> At least one guy with hindsight and deep pockets.
> 
> View attachment 571749


Hindsight or foresight? As a Brit I cant tell everyone by photo?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Hindsight or foresight? As a Brit I cant tell everyone by photo?


 General George Kenney

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Hindsight or foresight? As a Brit I cant tell everyone by photo?



Foresight - got ahead of myself!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 28, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> The P-38 did cost twice as much as the P-51. More than twice as much. Not including over twice the maintenance.
> 
> That Griffon Spitfire has a listed top speed of 447mph in wwiiaircraft. The top speed of a P-38H was 403mph. All that turning is wasted when the Griffon Spitfire just leaves and the P-38H can't catch it.
> 
> ...


Resp:
I think you need to re-read some of your comments. What I, and many others are trying to convey . . . is that both the P-38 AND P-47 were very good for the 'time period' of WWII. You said that the P-38 shouldn't have been made! What was the USAAF to use in its place? The P-39? The Merlin P-51 began to have an effect during the closing days of 1943, did really only affect 1944 and 5 MO's of 1945 in the ETO. Didn't really effect the Pacific until mid-to-late 1944, and that was only the USAAF, the Pacific being more of a Naval football game. I am a big fan of the P-51, particularly the Malcolm hood B/C models.
P-38Fs were ferried across the Atantic (usually 6 Lightnings with one or two B-17s to navigate) to be the first fighters in USAAF service to reach England. Yes, there were some P-47s fitted with large ferry tanks, but the numbers were far less. The highest scoring American ETO ace flew a P-47. The two highest scoring American SWP Aces flew P-38s! What fighter could have flown the long distant mission in place of the P-38 in the Yamamoto 'shootdown?'

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Foresight - got ahead of myself!


I just read his wiki page, funny how nations throw these people up when they are needed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I just read his wiki page, funny how nations throw these people up when they are needed.



And cast them aside when they served their purpose.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And cast them aside when they served their purpose.


Yup, just like Dowding and Churchill I suppose. I just heard an idiotic discussion about the values and morals of Tyson Fury as a "role model" he is a boxer, he boxes. Do you want to win or not? The world changes, we need people like them when we need them, we shouldn't forget what they did, or change our view of our need.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> In two separate polls the P-51 was voted both the most over rated and under rated aircraft of WW2. Maybe it is the most talked about. As a Brit, all USA types outperformed the Hurricane, but they didnt in the summer of 1940. They all did their "bit" in the conflict, it is a matter of opinion whose was the most significant and sometimes looks sways opinion in what should be a factual discussion.


Resp:
It is my understanding that the Hawker Hurricane had the highest kills during the Battle of Britain; a very significant fighter at a very crucial time when England stood alone. The reason a photo of one hangs on the wall in my home.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 29, 2020)

Darnold said:


> I’ve followed this forum for a number of years, weekly getting forum updates. I’ve even posted a few times, nothing spectacular or controversial, but I’ve been silent for the last 4yrs. For some reason I couldn’t log on to post this so I had to register...again. With that all written...
> 
> I am still amazed at the bias that goes on here. That bias is especially strong against the P51. It has started to become nauseating to see people pull selective data, or even worst, inaccurate data to make virtually every other WWII fighter from 1942 onwards better than the Mustang. I laugh at the constantly purported concept that wing loading alone determined turning ability, only for those people to then use the gross weight of one plane and compare it to the empty weight of another. 🤣 Another one that’s frequently bantered is stall speed as THE definitive indicator of turning capability throughout the entire performance envelope of all altitudes, speeds, loadings, and configurations. Or another crazy comparison happens when people use the service date, or design date, or even the genealogical order to compare fighters so that they can move one marquee with a decided advantage into play against another and declare their favorite the winner.
> The funny thing though is that every human has bias, the key is to admit it, and then be open to being inaccurate, or only having a part of the picture so that we can learn from each other. There’s no problem with healthy debate, but it seems like it’s long past being healthy debate around here.
> ...


I'm a little puzzled. Off the top of my head I cant think of a single regular here, even those who may feel the p51 is over rated( by some) even beyond its impressive capabilities, that doesn't think the Mustang is a great plane and in most cases probably indeed the best overall escort of the war.
Yes some may feel that the well deserved stellar reputation of the p51 unfairly overshadows other deserving types in the minds of too much of the public but that does not make them anti p51.
All data, unless one posts every piece of such that pertains to a specific type or types and multiple practical examples of how it affected combat situations(basically a long book) in a post, will be selective by definition. 
Not sure where this nauseating bias to which you refer is. I've been here for several years now and haven't seen it.
Is it possibly you could have read stuff on another site and got it confused?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 29, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> I'm a little puzzled. Off the top of my head I cant think of a single regular here, even those who may feel the p51 is over rated( by some) even beyond its impressive capabilities, that doesn't think the Mustang is a great plane and in most cases probably indeed the best overall escort of the war.
> Yes some may feel that the well deserved stellar reputation of the p51 unfairly overshadows other deserving types in the minds of too much of the public but that does not make them anti p51.
> All data, unless one posts every piece of such that pertains to a specific type or types and multiple practical examples of how it affected combat situations(basically a long book) in a post, will be selective by definition.
> Not sure where this nauseating bias to which you refer is. I've been here for several years now and haven't seen it.
> Is it possibly you could have read stuff on another site and got it confused?


Resp:
I am a little puzzled also. I learned a long time ago, that if you wake up in the morning . . . and you are looking to be offended . . . then chances are you will find someone before the day is out. My butt has been on the burner on this site . . . but even though this is in English, points made are not always understood or accepted. I don't mind being corrected, as many times I am in error. I didn't join this blog to be "the expert." I usually learn something I didn't know each day. This is what it is all about. "Here endith the Lesson!"

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Friendly Friendly:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 29, 2020)

Hairog said:


> Don't know where to start. How about the myth that the P-38 was twice as costly as the Mustang. I would argue that you have to add in the costs of ...
> 1. cost of retooling for P-51 parts *Why do you think that the fully burdened PRICE charged to AAF for the airframe was not absorbing engineering, management and production overhead. If you still think so - trot out your data.*
> 2. cost of building new factories *If you are talking about Dallas, it was funded by the government and initially devoted to first AT-6 and then B-24 before Mustang*
> 3. engineering costs to solve the problem of the tails falling off or the wrong engine etc. *???? Not very high but all engineering hours were collected and allocated into the costs. As NAA did not increase the price, only decreased the price for the Mustang, the only thing NAA had to worry about was the profit margin of a fixed price airframe.*
> ...



You obviously spent a lot of time on your post.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 29, 2020)

drgondog said:


> You obviously spent a lot of time on your post.


You beat me to it, I was just about to say all that, honest. I couldn't find the conversion rate between brute horsepower and horsepower, I figured it is like miles and nautical miles but even Google doesn't give a "hit". BTW fighter versions of the B-17 had over 4,000BHP available which was of no importance whatever in combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 29, 2020)

Hairog said:


> "During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a
> Griffon-engined *Spitfire XV *and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few the
> P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was
> able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
> QUOTE]


 Not being one to split hairs, well no worse than Mrs Hair Splitter from Hairsplit street. County Splytairs. But there was no XV version of the Spitfire, the XV was a post war Griffon engine Seafire. "The Supermarine Seafire Mk.XV was the first Griffon powered version of the Seafire to be produced, entering service just too late to reach the front line during the Second World War. The Seafire Mk.XV borrowed features from four versions of the Spitfire. It had the fuselage of the Spitfire V as used on the Seafire III, the wing-root fuel tanks from the Spitfire IX, the enlarged fin and rudder and retractable tail wheel of the Spitfire VIII and the Griffon engine installation of the Spitfire XII. The folding wings were taken from the Seafire III." from Supermarine Seafire Mk.XV

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Mar 1, 2020)

Well I have a question, how do you think the P51 P38 and P47 would stack up against the Spitfire MkXIV and Tempest II/V in a hypothetical British V American BoB with Dowding and Park still in charge?. I'm thinking Park would still use his stripping away the enemy tactic with Spits up high and Tempests low and mozzies with 8 or 10 hispano's in the nose to handle the bombers or even a pair of bofors with drum magazines armed with mine shells in the bomb bay, it would be nasty in every sense of the word that's no doubt.


----------



## PAT303 (Mar 1, 2020)

Lowell was able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
Spitfire pilot did[/QUOTE]

P38H climb rate @ 5,000ft 2,800ft/min
MkXIV climb rate @ 5,000ft 5,000ft/min
Was the Spitfire pilot not able to climb?.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Mar 2, 2020)

drgondog said:


> You obviously spent a lot of time on your post.



I'm disappointed you didn't take the time to shred his "argument" about the P-38 v. Mustang "dogfight" as well. But in retrospect, why kill that many more electrons, I think you made your point.

Somehow I doubt he'll be back to even read your response though.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Mar 2, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> The P-51H point is moot, as their only participation in WWII was on the flight deck of a carrier enroute to SWP when the war ended.


No it isn't because the comparison was not restricted to only those planes that saw combat. The comparison was P-38 vs P-51, and the last time I checked, the P-51H model was still a P-51...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Mar 2, 2020)

Darnold said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> It’s gotten to the point that the forum seems to only have a small percentage (20-30% to me) of very *Sage* contributors who are a delight to read and learn from, and a somewhat large percentage of very biased posters who turn most comparisons into a “who’s group yelled/posted for their belief and logic algorithm format the most” exercise.
> 
> ...



Wish I could be an old Sage instead of just old.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 2, 2020)

grampi said:


> No it isn't because the comparison was not restricted to only those planes that saw combat. The comparison was P-38 vs P-51, and the last time I checked, the P-51H model was still a P-51...


Resp:
Ok, my mistake. I'll stay out of your theoretical discussion.


----------



## grampi (Mar 2, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Ok, my mistake. I'll stay out of your theoretical discussion.


It was no more theoretical than the guy who compared a later version of the P-38 to a P-51D...


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 2, 2020)

grampi said:


> It was no more theoretical than the guy who compared a later version of the P-38 to a P-51D...


Resp:
I, obviously disagree.


----------



## grampi (Mar 2, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I, obviously disagree.


Disagree all you want, but you have nothing to base your disagreement on...


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 2, 2020)

grampi said:


> It was no more theoretical than the guy who compared a later version of the P-38 to a P-51D



Hmmm, P-38Js start delivery (at factory) in Sept 1943
P-38Ls start delivery (at factory) in June 1944.

P-51Ds start delivery (at factory) in Jan 1944.
P-51Hs start delivery (at factory) in Feb 1945.

So what are the proper P-38s and P-51s to compare? 

It can take 2-6 months for a plane to go from factory to combat. 
While the P-51D first shows up in England in March 1944 they don't arrive in large quantities until June 1944.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 2, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmm, P-38Js start delivery (at factory) in Sept 1943
> P-38Ls start delivery (at factory) in June 1944.
> 
> P-51Ds start delivery (at factory) in Jan 1944.
> ...


Resp:
To me, the only way to compare them is when they first became operational in Theater. I read somewhere that all Merlin Mustangs required a certain number of hours (for some reason 10 hrs, comes to mind) in flight on the engine . . . before it could be scheduled to shipment. The test pilot telling the story, would fly one Mustang after another . . . all day long. Take off, land . . . and fly another . . . all day long. I have no idea what Lockheed, Republic and others required.
Cont:
I failed to mention that the pilot in question usually put 1 hr of flight time on a Mustang, before landing and checking out another. Each Mustang had a flight time card in the cockpit, that each pilot signed off on.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 3, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> To me, the only way to compare them is when they first became operational in Theater. I read somewhere that all Merlin Mustangs required a certain number of hours (for some reason 10 hrs, comes to mind) in flight on the engine . . . before it could be scheduled to shipment. The test pilot telling the story, would fly one Mustang after another . . . all day long. Take off, land . . . and fly another . . . all day long. I have no idea what Lockheed, Republic and others required.


Its running in an engine, Bill Runnels recalled doing a flight to bed in a new engine on a B-17. I presume they wanted all planes that arrived in UK to be usable straight from the crate, pilots in UK then could be solely concerned with combat and combat training. If every plane needs 10 hours running, 1,000 planes need at least 50,000 gallons of fuel and about 120 pilot/ days minimum to achieve it.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 3, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Its running in an engine, Bill Runnels recalled doing a flight to bed in a new engine on a B-17. I presume they wanted all planes that arrived in UK to be usable straight from the crate, pilots in UK then could be solely concerned with combat and combat training. If every plane needs 10 hours running, 1,000 planes need at least 50,000 gallons of fuel and about 120 pilot/ days minimum to achieve it.


For ETO bound Mustang, 1.) acceptance flight by AAC (20min) after flight by NAA (20min); 2.) fly to point of Embarkation for float prep (Newark) 8 hours+, 3.) Float and tow from Liverpool to Speke, 4.) Assemble, clean, check out, run up and fly to BAD2 Warton for ETO mods, 5.) run up ground test and then fly to assigned Base for delivery, 6.) run up and maybe do some touch and go's - maybe not to checkout external tank feed and pressurization and guns. Combat.

Virtually less than 2-3 hours in-country ETO before combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 3, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> As far as endurance is concerned you must be referring to early Thunderbolts without adequate external tanks, to which I mostly agree. Same with climb but that increased markedly with water injection and improved propellers. Maneuverability low down was never the T-bolt's strong point but way up high in the thinning air it's turbo allowed it to maintain handling where most other fighters of the time became sluggish and unresponsive.


Resp:
Speaking of P-47s with external tanks, does anyone know when the 'wing pylon' P-47D-15 began to arrive in the ETO? Also,
1. When did they first become operational?
2. Did they simply use them as trickling in replacements to various Units or did a single FS of 25 or so quickly form to began their own 'shuttle' assignment?
3. What FG and/or FS received them first?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 3, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> To me, the only way to compare them is when they first became operational in Theater.



That is a good rule of thumb but for the P-51 and P-38 it gets a bit tricky as certain theaters had priority. 
Merlin P-51s tended to go to Europe (NE Europe specifically) first. 
P-51Bs start to show up in Italy and in the India/Burma/China theaters in April through June/July of 1944. 
In the Pacific only 8 Merlin P-51s show up by Nov of 1944.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Mar 3, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Speaking of P-47s with external tanks, does anyone know when the 'wing pylon' P-47D-15 began to arrive in the ETO? Also,
> 1. When did they first become operational?
> 2. Did they simply use them as trickling in replacements to various Units or did a single FS of 25 or so quickly form to began their own 'shuttle' assignment?
> 3. What FG and/or FS received them first?



The P-47D-15/-16 was equipped at factory for pylons and plumbing and began arriving in late February in small numbers.. The first missions with 150gal tanks ~ April 1944. The previous models, primarily D-6 through D-11 were Depot modified with plumbing and racks but combat cleared with only 110s beginning in January.

The D-15/-16s in sub squadron deployment carried 110s only - no point in a few stragglers with higher drag and longer potential range - but no place to go.

The 56th, 78th Probably got the first but there is no record of en-bloc assignment to either to ramp them up. What I believe to be true is that the 78th made Penetration Support to Leipzig with the first Group level task force of P-47D-25s with extra fuse fuel and 2x150gal externals... which was longest ETO escort of the war until spring 1945.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Mar 3, 2020)

drgondog said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> which was longest ETO escort of the war until spring 1945.



Longest of the war for the Thunderbolt or all ETO types until spring '45?


----------



## Darnold (Mar 3, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> I'm a little puzzled. Off the top of my head I cant think of a single regular here, even those who may feel the p51 is over rated( by some) even beyond its impressive capabilities, that doesn't think the Mustang is a great plane and in most cases probably indeed the best overall escort of the war.
> Yes some may feel that the well deserved stellar reputation of the p51 unfairly overshadows other deserving types in the minds of too much of the public but that does not make them anti p51.
> All data, unless one posts every piece of such that pertains to a specific type or types and multiple practical examples of how it affected combat situations(basically a long book) in a post, will be selective by definition.
> Not sure where this nauseating bias to which you refer is. I've been here for several years now and haven't seen it.
> Is it possibly you could have read stuff on another site and got it confused?



Just saw this. Great question. 
While I’ve seen this take place on other sites, I was writing about this site (forum). And although I was not referencing member activity or tenure as it related to the points I wrote of, I would not draw any strong relationships between those two variables and any lack or proclivity thereof; especially since I’ve never paid attention to those aspects.

When I referenced the “Sage” ones, I was writing about the contributors who typically offer data from multiple archives that do not always agree, and their rich and balanced analysis as it pertains to the OP’s original point(s) and/or question(s). They also help to refocus the sprawling “mini-debates” that may erupt from an increasing number of fighters and comparisons being pulled into the OP’s topic. They tend to do this while also delving into needed topics such as aerodynamics, BFM, interviews, old stories from family and friends that were there, etc, all of which give needed context to understand the many elements and systems in place that affect the analyst being looked at. As a result they are often referenced and their opinion, data, and insightful post hoped/asked for.

These contributors do not need to be long time members, and I don’t even know if they are, but they are wonderful to read. This in no way means that other posters have not offered great depth, data from diverse literature, and content expertise in engineering, fighter tactics and training (shout out to flyboy and others on that one), and aerodynamics.
As far as the bias and other topic references, they pertained to numerous threads that have come up over the years; whether it’s Corsair vs Mustang (recent), the older Bf 109 thread(s), or threads about ‘how would xx fighter have done if it had been in this theater’, etc, etc. Such threads had wonderful premises and great content so I enjoyed those aspects. However these were also examples of what I write about that necessitated more and more sifting.

At times even a thread about a fighter’s engineering specs, design features, or mission profile will devolve into numerous fighter comparisons where the topic seems to stray into proving what fighter was the best. lol.
In the end, there are a lot of great people here, and my intent was not to speak to anyone’s character. Again, we all have biases; so there’s nothing wrong with that. I was merely pointing out my frustration with how bias can and does taint the content, and for me, make it less enjoyable than it used to be to read.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 3, 2020)

Darnold said:


> Just saw this. Great question.
> While I’ve seen this take place on other sites, I was writing about this site (forum). And although I was not referencing member activity or tenure as it related to the points I wrote of, I would not draw any strong relationships between those two variables and any lack or proclivity thereof; especially since I’ve never paid attention to those aspects.
> 
> When I referenced the “Sage” ones, I was writing about the contributors who typically offer data from multiple archives that do not always agree, and their rich and balanced analysis as it pertains to the OP’s original point(s) and/or question(s). They also help to refocus the sprawling “mini-debates” that may erupt from an increasing number of fighters and comparisons being pulled into the OP’s topic. They tend to do this while also delving into needed topics such as aerodynamics, BFM, interviews, old stories from family and friends that were there, etc, all of which give needed context to understand the many elements and systems in place that affect the analyst being looked at. As a result they are often referenced and their opinion, data, and insightful post hoped/asked for.
> ...


It is always interesting to weigh up the pros and cons, some people have some novel ideas as to why the Hurricane wasn't the best fighter, always fun to set them on the right path.


----------



## grampi (Mar 3, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> So what are the proper P-38s and P-51s to compare?



The best performing version of each...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Mar 3, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And in hindsight, the P-38 was the only aircraft available in numbers and on a rolling production line to fulfill a mission that the P-40 *AND*_ (drumroll) _the P-39 couldn't. For a huge plane with "no endurance, climb or maneuverability" it sure made an impact (same with the P-47).


All I'm saying is we have benefit of hindsight. Looking back on all the P-38 development problems, delays, low Mach number etc., the Army would have been well served making a small number of P-38s and a much larger number of P-51s.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 3, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> All I'm saying is we have benefit of hindsight. Looking back on all the P-38 development problems, delays, low Mach number etc., the Army would have been well served making a small number of P-38s and a much larger number of P-51s.


IMO the Mustang wasn't ready for deployment as an air superiority fighter until the Merlin engined variants came along.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 3, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> IMO the Mustang wasn't ready for deployment as an air superiority fighter until the Merlin engined variants came along.


Oh and there is the issue of actually producing the additional two stage Merlins and building another factory for P-51s plus another factory to replace the P-38 and P-47s. It would be a good topic for a book in my opinion.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 3, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> Well I have a question, how do you think the P51 P38 and P47 would stack up against the Spitfire MkXIV and Tempest II/V in a hypothetical British V American BoB with Dowding and Park still in charge?. I'm thinking Park would still use his stripping away the enemy tactic with Spits up high and Tempests low and mozzies with 8 or 10 hispano's in the nose to handle the bombers or even a pair of bofors with drum magazines armed with mine shells in the bomb bay, it would be nasty in every sense of the word that's no doubt.


That would be dependent on the numbers involved on both sides. The BoB was based on the range of the Bf 109 being only far enough to reach London. With P-51s as escorts and B-17s as bombers raids could be mounted on any coast of Great Britain. For example from France up the Bristol Channel into London or from Netherlands across Lincolnshire into the Midlands. Park knew what he was doing but Leigh Mallory was clueless. To inflict significant losses the RAF would probably need 5,000 aircraft and pilots not the 500 they had at the start of the BoB.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 3, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> IMO the Mustang wasn't ready for deployment as an air superiority fighter until the Merlin engined variants came along.


Resp:
When these Merlin Mustangs began to appear in the ETO, with their first mission in Dec 1943. So the USAAF had to use something else in the mean time. So if the P-38 was not used, what would have taken its place? One cannot build more if none existed. The British were the 1st to substitute their Merlin designed/built engine in an earlier Allison Mustang that the British acquired from a contract w/ NAA. Shortly after this move, NAA tested a Packard built Merlin engine in one of their Mustangs, I believe an Allison engined P-51A. This was in mid 1943. So the gap of non-Merlin Mustangs for the USAAF was from the Pearl Harbor of Dec 1941 to mid 1943. One cannot build them if they weren't even designed yet.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 3, 2020)

pbehn said:


> That would be dependent on the numbers involved on both sides. The BoB was based on the range of the Bf 109 being only far enough to reach London. With P-51s as escorts and B-17s as bombers raids could be mounted on any coast of Great Britain. For example from France up the Bristol Channel into London or from Netherlands across Lincolnshire into the Midlands. Park knew what he was doing but Leigh Mallory was clueless. To inflict significant losses the RAF would probably need 5,000 aircraft and pilots not the 500 they had at the start of the BoB.


With such a large population of Irish descent, perhaps the USA would have been invited into the Republic of Ireland to defend it against German aggression in the event of a German invasion of England. I don't foresee UK vs USA clash but maybe earlier American involvement in WW2.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 3, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> With such a large population of Irish descent, perhaps the USA would have been invited into the Republic of Ireland to defend it against German aggression in the event of a German invasion of England. I don't foresee UK vs USA clash but maybe earlier American involvement in WW2.


I just saw the question as the Battle of Britain with different types, that's what it said.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 3, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> With such a large population of Irish descent, perhaps the USA would have been invited into the Republic of Ireland to defend it against German aggression in the event of a German invasion of England. I don't foresee UK vs USA clash but maybe earlier American involvement in WW2.


Resp:
Until Pearl Harbor, it would have been political suicide for the US Govt to enter into a second WW. Yes, the US had plenty of Irish, but there were English (my family), German, Italian, French, etc.. I can only speculate how the US could have entered the European war if Hitler had not first declared war on the US on 11 January 1942. Too much at play.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 3, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Until Pearl Harbor, it would have been political suicide for the US Govt to enter into a second WW. Yes, the US had plenty of Irish, but there were English (my family), German, Italian, French, etc.. I can only speculate how the US could have entered the European war if Hitler had not first declared war on the US on 11 January 1942. Too much at play.


You mean formally enter with a declaration.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 3, 2020)

pbehn said:


> You mean formally enter with a declaration.


Resp:
Yes.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 3, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Yes.


I was thinking more along the lines of the Irish saying, oh shit, the Germans have invaded England, and asking the Americans if they'd like access to the Treaty Ports that England had handed back in 1937.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 3, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> All I'm saying is* we have benefit of hindsight. * Looking back on all the P-38 development problems, delays, low Mach number etc., the Army would have been well served making a small number of P-38s and a much larger number of P-51s.


We do - the USAAF didn't. Look into the development problems, the reasons for delays and the low Mach number issues (that were basically unknown until the P-38 was developed) and the final fact that only a handful of these aircraft were expected to be built and I'd say the Army came out a head with what was known at the time. When Lt. Kelsey submitted the design spec that resulted in the P-38 do you really think he anticipated the need for adequate cockpit heating? Do you think he had the foresight to know we would be escorting B-17s over Germany during the winter months at high altitudes?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Mar 3, 2020)

The comparison will be made at 25000ft, the altitude of the B-17 raids.

Speed at 25000ft:
P-47D with -63 or -59 engine (cleared for 70" on June 24, 1944): 439 miles true speed http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg
P-51 with -7 engine (cleared for 75" on April 29, 1944): 437 miles true speed http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/na-p51b-150grade-level.jpg
P-51 with -3 engine (no data available for 75"): 440 miles true speed with 67", possibly faster with 75" http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/fx953-level.jpg
(Note, the -7 engine was tuned for lower altitudes; at 25000ft the -3 engine is superior).
In this aspect, there is little to choose between the three airplanes; the difference in speed is not as great as allowable variation. Even weight change can cause a speed change of more than 3 miles.

Rate of Climb at 25000ft:
P-51, -3 engine, 67": slightly less than 2500 ft/min at 9200lbs of takeoff weight http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/fx953-climb.jpg
P-51, -7 engine, 75": 2350 ft/min at 9680lbs http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/na-p51b-150grade-climb.jpg
P-47, -63 engine, 70": 2400ft/min at 13600lbs http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-climb.jpg
(Note, this entire part can only be used as reference, as I have made it very clear that the weight for the three airplanes are different. Further, such weights are impossible to achieve in combat, as it takes large quantities of fuel to fly to Berlin and back. In most cases the P-51 would fight with full internal fuel except an empty fuselage tank if fitted; the same can be said about the P-47. The actual rate of climb depends heavily on the fuel load at which the airplane enters combat.)

Range:
P-47D-25 and on: 2100 miles at 10000ft (no data available for 25000ft; knowing the P-47's performance, it is safe to say that the range at 25000ft is at least somewhat longer)
P-47D-23: 1850 miles at 10000ft, same as above
P-47D-1 thru P-47D-22: 1700 miles at 10000ft, same as above
P-51 with fuselage tank: 2600 miles at 10000ft (no data available for 25000ft) www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg
P-51 without fuselage tank and with -3 engine: 2250 miles
P-51 without fuselage tank and with -7 engine: 2290 miles
(Note: the P-51 data included the values of 1800 miles and 1850 miles for the P-51D variant. It is relatively easy to see that the large external tank available to the P-51B and C variant was not included. Due to the similarity in data otherwise, the P-51D can be inferred to have a range of 2600 miles when equipped with the external tank.)

There is very little to choose in the speed and rate of climb performance at 25000ft, any difference is more than likely made up for by the uncertainty of combat situations. The P-51 has an advantage in range, this is more pronounced if the fuselage tank is installed. P-51 has superior rate of turn and the P-47 has superior rate of roll at 25000ft, where the indicated airspeed is low. The P-51D equipped with the -7 engine substantially outruns the P-47 below that altitude; however this is not related to the discussion. The P-47 has a marked advantage in protection and firepower. For missions within the combat radius of the P-47 and altitude above 25000ft, the P-47 has slightly superior speed and possibly rate of climb; however, such a situation is unlikely to occur in Europe. In the Pacific, this role is filled by the P-47N (the only variant to out-range the P-51D). The P-51 is probably operationally more useful as an escort fighter than the P-47D due to the longer range, lower fuel expenditure and ease of maintenance.

P-51H and P-47N are, of course, not taken into consideration here because neither flew escort missions in WWII. The P-51H never saw combat and the P-47N attacked some ground targets near the end of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 3, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> I was thinking more along the lines of the Irish saying, oh shit, the Germans have invaded England, and asking the Americans if they'd like access to the Treaty Ports that England had handed back in 1937.


Resp:
It was important in more ways than one that the British held off an invasion via the 'Battle of Britian' in that the US would need a 'hunk of land' to operate from. If England had fallen, then a base in Ireland would have been difficult to secure with the Germans flanking Ireland on two sides; England and France. Just my two cents.


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 3, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> It was important in more ways than one that the British held off an invasion via the 'Battle of Britian' in that the US would need a 'hunk of land' to operate from. If England had fallen, then a base in Ireland would have been difficult to secure with the Germans flanking Ireland on two sides; England and France. Just my two cents.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Mar 4, 2020)

pbehn said:


> It is always interesting to weigh up the pros and cons, some people have some novel ideas as to why the Hurricane wasn't the best fighter, always fun to set them on the right path.



I have to agree with you, the RAF would have been better off with more Hurricanes instead of wasting time money and resources on the Spitfire Typhoon Tempest and Mustang.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 4, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> I have to agree with you, the RAF would have been better off with more Hurricanes instead of wasting time money and resources on the Spitfire Typhoon Tempest and Mustang.


At last some sense in the forum. In fact that is pretty much what did happen in 1940. The Spitfire was lucky to survive a review and if war came in 1938 not 1939 it possibly wouldn't have. The Typhoon was postponed, the Tornado was cancelled and the Mustang wasn't ordered until the crisis was over.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 4, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> I have to agree with you, the RAF would have been better off with more Hurricanes instead of wasting time money and resources on the Spitfire Typhoon Tempest and Mustang.


Resp:
I suspect the loss was greater for the Lufwaffe in that a dogfight w the RAF used up precious fuel, causing ditching in the Channel on their route home to France.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 4, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> That is a good rule of thumb but for the P-51 and P-38 it gets a bit tricky as certain theaters had priority.
> Merlin P-51s tended to go to Europe (NE Europe specifically) first.
> P-51Bs start to show up in Italy and in the India/Burma/China theaters in April through June/July of 1944.
> In the Pacific only 8 Merlin P-51s show up by Nov of 1944.





Kevin J said:


> IMO the Mustang wasn't ready for deployment as an air superiority fighter until the Merlin engined variants came along.


Kevin J - I agreed your comment but limit agreement to high altitude escort/air superiority for ETO/MTO bombing campaigns. The P-51 and P-51A were deemed better than all the existing AAF (per Flight Evaluations at Eglin Field) fighters from SL to 20,000 feet - comparing 'in period' to P-40N, P-39Q, P-38G and P-47C. The majority of AAF ops in other theatres were below those altitudes. The P-51/P-51A would not have been better than P-47C and P-38G as interceptors for engagement above that altitude but there were a lot of air battles below 15000 feet and beyond the range of any US fighter save the P-38G equipped with ferry tanks as combat tanks not available until mid-1943.
.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Mar 4, 2020)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> The comparison will be made at 25000ft, the altitude of the B-17 raids.
> 
> Speed at 25000ft:
> P-47D with -63 or -59 engine (cleared for 70" on June 24, 1944): 439 miles true speed http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg
> ...



Two comments, maybe more:

The most interesting period to discuss air superiority relative to escorting B-17 and B-24s was October 1943 after 8th AF lost the air battle over Germany - to D-Day, when the destruction/Attrition of the LW was most critical. That said, the primary US escort fighters in any significant numbers are:
P-38J-10/-J-15 with and prior to the 55gal LE tanks; P-51B-1/-5 without 85gal fuse tanks (Dec 1943-early Feb 1944) and then with 85gal fuse tanks. 1650-3 exclusively until early April 1944, then a mix - but dominantly 1650-3 w/67" MP; P-47C/D-10 through December with R-2800-21, then add some D-11 and retro WI for the R-2800-63 power. Note that while 75" was approved for 44-1 fuel, the fuel didn't arrive in the ETO until late June.

For your cited performance data from Mike Williams fine site;
1. Note that none have wing racks during the tests until the P-51B-7 w/1650-7 was tested with and without racks and at 67" and 75" April 1944. The P-51B racks reduced speed by ~10mph at 67"MP at 29K.
2. The Take-off Gross weights in those tests are a.) at 100% max internal combat load at take off for their P-51B-5 test; 97% for the P-47-10 w/WI and -63 engine; c.) 98% for the P-38J-15.
Not a huge factor for speed on GW but huge for ROC. Additionally the P-47D (all) lost about 15-17mph with Wing pylons - ditto the P-38. So ALL the top speed cited are overstated, but the P-51B is the least overstated. 

Next - there is Range and there is Combat Radius for planning purposes - dependent entirely on the fuel remaining internally after punching the external tanks and drawing down the fuel necessary fo 15min MP and 5min Combat Power.
1.) P-51B/D with 269gal = 375 mi; P-47D with 305gal = 230 mi; P-38J with 410gal = 275mi. 

So - if you wish to make a point regarding the P-47D vs P-38J vs P-51B prior to D-Day, please consider the conditions of the flight tests vs operational consideration day to day over ETO. 

Since there are no publicly available rich set of performance tests at full internal combat weight for either the P-38J (with fully functional -89/-91 above 20K in ETO conditions) or The P-47D with -63 engine you will have to resort to guessing to understand how badly those factors affected the P-38 and P-47D ROC figures - but they are significantly lower than the P-51B-1/-5 with 1650-3 engine at 30K. At reduced (equivalent percentage) internal fuel load, the P-51B performance superiority widens. Interestingly the drag of the external pylons is not so much a factor from the stated test flights because climb rates are at speeds in the range of 160mph where the relative Parasite drag of the pylons is less.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Mar 4, 2020)

Not to be picky but the P-47D's speed and climb figures cited by AlfaKiloSierra were actually with wing pylons installed:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-front.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-side.jpg


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 4, 2020)

Darnold said:


> Just saw this. Great question.
> While I’ve seen this take place on other sites, I was writing about this site (forum). And although I was not referencing member activity or tenure as it related to the points I wrote of, I would not draw any strong relationships between those two variables and any lack or proclivity thereof; especially since I’ve never paid attention to those aspects.
> 
> When I referenced the “Sage” ones, I was writing about the contributors who typically offer data from multiple archives that do not always agree, and their rich and balanced analysis as it pertains to the OP’s original point(s) and/or question(s). They also help to refocus the sprawling “mini-debates” that may erupt from an increasing number of fighters and comparisons being pulled into the OP’s topic. They tend to do this while also delving into needed topics such as aerodynamics, BFM, interviews, old stories from family and friends that were there, etc, all of which give needed context to understand the many elements and systems in place that affect the analyst being looked at. As a result they are often referenced and their opinion, data, and insightful post hoped/asked for.
> ...


My point in citing the "regulars" here was that they provide like 98% of the posts. Not that only there posts should be considered for reference just because. My bad for not making that clear.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 4, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> Not to be picky but the P-47D's speed and climb figures cited by AlfaKiloSierra were actually with wing pylons installed:
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-front.jpg
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-side.jpg



I wasn't clear that I was pointing out flaws in 11-43-May 1944 ETO performance data in reference to -63 engine with WI.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Mar 8, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree but remember the RAF mainly "area bombed." "You can't miss with a shotgun."



The Report on Oil wasn't addressing area bombing, it was an apples to apples comparison of the accuracy of USAAF and RAF on the same targets. Specifically the Leuna, Ludwigshafen-Oppau and Zeitz synthetic oil plants. These plants represent about a 1/4 of all bomb tonnage (29,956 tons) dropped on all synthetic oil plants.

For those that are interested I have found a complete copy of the report online:
Oil division final report. Oil division ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 8, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The Report on Oil wasn't addressing area bombing, it was an apples to apples comparison of the accuracy of USAAF and RAF on the same targets. Specifically the Leuna, Ludwigshafen-Oppau and Zeitz synthetic oil plants. These plants represent about a 1/4 of all bomb tonnage (29,956 tons) dropped on all synthetic oil plants.
> 
> For those that are interested I have found a complete copy of the report online:
> Oil division final report. Oil division ...



I tried to scan the document and could not find anything that showed bombing methodology - precision vs area.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 9, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The Report on Oil wasn't addressing area bombing, it was an apples to apples comparison of the accuracy of USAAF and RAF on the same targets. Specifically the Leuna, Ludwigshafen-Oppau and Zeitz synthetic oil plants. These plants represent about a 1/4 of all bomb tonnage (29,956 tons) dropped on all synthetic oil plants.
> 
> For those that are interested I have found a complete copy of the report online:
> Oil division final report. Oil division ...


The RAF daylight raids were precision bombsight employed attacks. The RAF use of 2 and 4K pounders exclusively where USAAF used everything from incendiaries to 2K but mostly 500 and 1K bombs. The damage assessment favored RAF use of heavier bombs

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Mar 9, 2020)

drgondog said:


> The RAF daylight raids were precision bombsight employed attacks. The RAF use of 2 and 4K pounders exclusively where USAAF used everything from incendiaries to 2K but mostly 500 and 1K bombs. The damage assessment favored RAF use of heavier bombs


Read the report. The RAF raids were at night


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 9, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Kevin J - I agreed your comment but limit agreement to high altitude escort/air superiority for ETO/MTO bombing campaigns. The P-51 and P-51A were deemed better than all the existing AAF (per Flight Evaluations at Eglin Field) fighters from SL to 20,000 feet - comparing 'in period' to P-40N, P-39Q, P-38G and P-47C. The majority of AAF ops in other theatres were below those altitudes. The P-51/P-51A would not have been better than P-47C and P-38G as interceptors for engagement above that altitude but there were a lot of air battles below 15000 feet and beyond the range of any US fighter save the P-38G equipped with ferry tanks as combat tanks not available until mid-1943.
> .


Resp:
drgondog, do you have a date of the above Flight Evals at Eglin Field? I'm thinking May 1943. Thnx.


----------



## Greyman (Mar 10, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> For those that are interested I have found a complete copy of the report online:
> Oil division final report. Oil division ...



Relevant bit on page 216.






Totals for all three 8th Air Force rows are:
*Total tons of bombs dropped:* 20,416​*Tons of bombs hitting plant:* 2,276​*Per cent hits:* 11.15​

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 10, 2020)

Greyman said:


> Relevant bit on page 216.
> 
> View attachment 572775
> 
> ...



That chart illustrates the difficulty of precision daylight bombing over norther Europe.

Slightly less than 20% of bombs, by weight, in that chart were dropped using purely visual aiming. Just under 60% were dropped using instruments.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 10, 2020)

drgondog said:


> The RAF daylight raids were precision bombsight employed attacks. The RAF use of 2 and 4K pounders exclusively where USAAF used everything from incendiaries to 2K but mostly 500 and 1K bombs. The damage assessment favored RAF use of heavier bombs



Not sure about the RAF using 2,000lb bombs, since they didn't have a 2,000 medium capacity bomb, but only the older 1,900lb GP bomb, which had a lower explosive to weight ratio.

They did have the 2,000lb high capacity bomb, but I don't believe that was used very much.

There was both a 4,000lb MC and 4,000lb HC bomb used by the RAF, the latter being more frequently used.

For oil targets the bomb load for a Lancaster would likely have been 1 x 4,000lb HC plus several 1,000lb MC bombs and/or incendiaries. I'm not sure if they used the 8,000lb HC bomb on oil targets.

Mosquitoes used either 1 x 4,000lb HC or 6 x 500lb MC in their attacks on oil installations.

For the USAAF I believe they used 250lb to 500lb bombs predominately. The extra number of bombs that could be carries would, in theory, increase the chances of hitting something viatl.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 10, 2020)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> The comparison will be made at 25000ft, the altitude of the B-17 raids.
> 
> Speed at 25000ft:
> P-47D with -63 or -59 engine (cleared for 70" on June 24, 1944): 439 miles true speed http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg
> ...


P 47Ns flew numerous escort missions for B29s to Japan, flying out of Le Shima and I believe Saipan as well.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Mar 10, 2020)

Wasn't the Zero an escort fighter? For the time a very good one.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 10, 2020)

wuzak said:


> That chart illustrates the difficulty of precision daylight bombing over norther Europe.
> 
> Slightly less than 20% of bombs, by weight, in that chart were dropped using purely visual aiming. Just under 60% were dropped using instruments.


Resp:
Any calculation of 'aborted' missions? What I am aiming (no pun intended) for, did either Air Force continue to attempt a target when weather, etc affected their ability to effectively hit/damage an assigned target? From reading 8AF missions, alternate targets were a matter of routine procedure of most bombing missions.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Mar 10, 2020)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> The comparison will be made at 25000ft, the altitude of the B-17 raids.
> 
> Speed at 25000ft:
> P-47D with -63 or -59 engine (cleared for 70" on June 24, 1944): 439 miles true speed http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg
> ...


Agree with the speeds.

Climb is a different story. Climb (and maneuverability) was the Thunderbolt's Achilles heel. The chart you reference is using special fuel not available until the latter half of 1944 after air superiority had already been won in March-April. Those Thunderbolts that helped win air superiority could only climb at something less than 2000fpm at 25000'. This was still a fairly good rate of climb at that altitude but nowhere near the Mustang's 2500fpm. And at lower altitudes the climb rate was only around 2700fpm. 

Most range maps give the P-47 a combat radius in Europe of 375-425 miles with a 110gallon drop tank after Feb '44. Prior to that only a 75 gallon drop tank was available from August '43 and absolutely no provision for any drop tank at all between combat debut in May '43 and August. Even with the 110gallon drop tank the 425 mile combat radius was still 100-150mi short of Berlin. This can be verified by the figures in the pilot's manual which indicate a 190 gallon per hour fuel usage at 25000' for normal (max continuous) and 95gph for most economical cruise. Carrying 305 gallons internally and 110 gallons in the drop tank less 45 gallons reserve for warmup, takeoff and climb to 5000' results in 370 gallons available for the mission. Deduct another 124 gallon reserve (92 combat and 32 landing) and now only 246 gallons is available. A 400 mile radius means an 800 mile mission at 285mph TAS means a 2.8 hour mission. 246 available gallons divided by 2.8 hours indicates 88 gallons per hour which is below the 95 gallons per hour in the pilot's manual. So the 400 mile combat radius was a very closely run thing. And well short of the P-51B/C.

So, the P-51B/C is about the same speed, much better climb and much better endurance than the P-47s that were available during the critical first half of 1944. And more maneuverable. Hope this helps.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Mar 10, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Not sure about the RAF using 2,000lb bombs, since they didn't have a 2,000 medium capacity bomb, but only the older 1,900lb GP bomb, which had a lower explosive to weight ratio.
> 
> They did have the 2,000lb high capacity bomb, but I don't believe that was used very much.
> 
> ...



Hi

The book 'Bombs Gone' by MacBean & Hogben, p.135 includes the following details on bombs dropped by BC (all targets):

2,000 lb HC 28,633 used during the war.
2,000 lb AP exact numbers not known but under 10,000.
1,900 lb GP 2,141.
4,000 lb HC 68,000.
4,000 lb MC 21,000.
4,000 lb GP 217.
500 lb GP 531,334.
500 lb SAP 11,600.
500 lb MC 403,000.

'The Official Report by the British Bombing Survey Unit' (Cass reprint, p. 147), has the following detail on attacks on German Oil Installations:

VIIIth USAAF between May 1944 and April 1945 - 233 attacks, 71,042 tons of bombs.
XVth USAAF between May 1944 and April 1945 - 221 attacks, 48,378 tons.
RAF BC between June 1944 and April 1945 - 200 attacks, 93,641 tons.

Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 10, 2020)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 
> The book 'Bombs Gone' by MacBean & Hogben, p.135 includes the following details on bombs dropped by BC (all targets):
> 
> ...



Those numbers seem a little light - I thought the 4,000lb HC was dropped more than 90,000 times. It lacks the 1,000lb MC bomb, which was dropped in the hundreds of thousands, and the 500lb MC was surely in the millions.

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....category&id=43:bombs&Itemid=60&layout=default 
Has 93,000+ 4,000lb MC bombs being used.
31,000+ 2,000lb HC
256,000+ 1,000lb MC
686,000+ 1,000lb GP/MC
1,700,000+ 500lb GP/MC

There were over 1M 500lb GP/MC bombs used in 1944 alone.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 10, 2020)

Also, about 1,150 8,000lb HC bombs and 170 12,000lb HC bombs were used by the RAF during the war.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Mar 10, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Not sure about the RAF using 2,000lb bombs, since they didn't have a 2,000 medium capacity bomb, but only the older 1,900lb GP bomb, which had a lower explosive to weight ratio.
> 
> They did have the 2,000lb high capacity bomb, but I don't believe that was used very much.
> 
> ...



Here are the relevant pages

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Mar 11, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Those numbers seem a little light - I thought the 4,000lb HC was dropped more than 90,000 times. It lacks the 1,000lb MC bomb, which was dropped in the hundreds of thousands, and the 500lb MC was surely in the millions.
> 
> http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....category&id=43:bombs&Itemid=60&layout=default
> Has 93,000+ 4,000lb MC bombs being used.
> ...



Hi

The full list from the book is below, but note these are just Bomber Command figures, other Commands in Europe and other Theatres also dropped bombs especially the lighter ones:






Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 11, 2020)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 
> The full list from the book is below, but note these are just Bomber Command figures, other Commands in Europe and other Theatres also dropped bombs especially the lighter ones:
> 
> ...



That makes sense in one way.

But then again, which other command could have drooped 25,000 of the 4,000lb HC bomb? Only a few aircraft could carry them - Wellington, Halifax (presumably), Lancaster (naturally) and the Mosquito (from 1944).

Or over 700,000 500lb MC bombs?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 11, 2020)

wuzak said:


> ...
> But then again, which other command could have drooped 25,000 of the 4,000lb HC bomb? Only a few aircraft could carry them - Wellington, Halifax (presumably), Lancaster (naturally) and the Mosquito (from 1944).
> ...



Halifax certainly (even 8000 lb type), as well as Manchester.


----------



## MikeMeech (Mar 11, 2020)

wuzak said:


> That makes sense in one way.
> 
> But then again, which other command could have drooped 25,000 of the 4,000lb HC bomb? Only a few aircraft could carry them - Wellington, Halifax (presumably), Lancaster (naturally) and the Mosquito (from 1944).
> 
> Or over 700,000 500lb MC bombs?



Hi

If it is of any use the previously mentioned book has this table on p. 48:






I don't know how much of the production of the smaller bombs were dropped by fighter-bombers in Northern Europe, North Africa, Italy and the Far East but there must have been a fair few. I think BC had a shortage of 1,000 lb bombs during 1944, it might have been down to use of this weapon by other formations? Then there were the larger bombers used in other Theatres which may have dropped some of the larger bombs and also bombs used on shipping strikes before other weapons were used more, but again I do not have the figures.

Mike


----------



## grampi (Mar 11, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Agree with the speeds.
> 
> Climb is a different story. Climb (and maneuverability) was the Thunderbolt's Achilles heel. The chart you reference is using special fuel not available until the latter half of 1944 after air superiority had already been won in March-April. Those Thunderbolts that helped win air superiority could only climb at something less than 2000fpm at 25000'. This was still a fairly good rate of climb at that altitude but nowhere near the Mustang's 2500fpm. And at lower altitudes the climb rate was only around 2700fpm.
> 
> ...


I had read somewhere that if P-47 pilots had to go down on the deck during combat, they would just stay at low altitude for the rest of the mission because they would burn too much fuel climbing back up...


----------



## grampi (Mar 11, 2020)

grampi said:


> I had read somewhere that if P-47 pilots had to go down on the deck during combat, they would just stay at low altitude for the rest of the mission because they would burn too much fuel climbing back up...don't know how truth there is to this, but that's what I read...


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Mar 14, 2020)

The Germans were very impressed with RAF night bombing capabilities

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Mar 14, 2020)

Greyman said:


> Relevant bit on page 216.
> 
> View attachment 572775
> 
> ...


Its probably worth taking into account that the RAF probably needed 50 - 60% fewer missions to get the same volume of bombs onto the target an often forgotten statistic


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 14, 2020)

Im astounded that they achieved 11% bombs on target. That actually seems quite good considering the technology of the time, the conditions, and constant "interference" by the Luftwaffe.


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Mar 24, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Agree with the speeds.
> 
> Climb is a different story. Climb (and maneuverability) was the Thunderbolt's Achilles heel. The chart you reference is using special fuel not available until the latter half of 1944 after air superiority had already been won in March-April. Those Thunderbolts that helped win air superiority could only climb at something less than 2000fpm at 25000'. This was still a fairly good rate of climb at that altitude but nowhere near the Mustang's 2500fpm. And at lower altitudes the climb rate was only around 2700fpm.
> 
> ...



The P-51 I used in the comparison uses 75" boost, requiring the same fuel.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Mar 26, 2020)

wuzak said:


> That chart illustrates the difficulty of precision daylight bombing over norther Europe.
> 
> Slightly less than 20% of bombs, by weight, in that chart were dropped using purely visual aiming. Just under 60% were dropped using instruments.


“Precision” bombing was difficult over Japan as well. That’s why they switched to night area bombing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 26, 2020)

Milosh said:


> A new thread with the same topic could have been started instead of resurrecting an old thread.



Sometimes when that happens some of the first responses are - been there, done that, do a search before posting a new thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 26, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> That P-47N was fast and could go a long way. The tests of 9/27/46 show top speed only 423mph but climb was dismal at 1700 feet per minute at 20000'. A P-51B would climb at 2750fpm at 26000'.
> Didn't really matter, even if the -N got into combat in September '44, it had missed the brunt of the war. Air superiority over Europe was attained in Feb/March 1944. The Pacific saw the Great Marianas Turkey shoot in June of '44. Proof that the Japanese were pretty much done in the air. After that there was a lot of ground attack in Europe and in the Pacific the B-29s went to low altitude night bombing in early '45.
> If we compare planes we should compare those in service at the same time. Otherwise we're comparing SPADs to F-22s.



Could the Allison powered Mustangs have escorted the B-29's at the altitudes they were flying?


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 26, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> I read a quite favorable discription of the P47Ns cockpit by a pilot that flew them out of Le Shima. Good heat and ventilation, a cup holder right by some kind of ventalation port( said it kept his soda cold) lots of room, auto pilot as we already mentioned,and the seat sounded like it was just this side of a barka lounger.
> Sounded like the only thing that could have made it more comfortable would be a toaster oven and a mini-bar.
> Maybe those were comming in the next variant but the war ended before Republic could get the toaster oven and mini- bar equipped version into production



Can't find the source now, but I thought the oven and bar required an upgraded wiring harness so the War Production Board put the kibosh on that.


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 26, 2020)

IdahoRenegade said:


> It was a fantastic fighter. One that was developed far too late to make a significant difference to the war effort in any meaningful way. Had it been available in August of 1943, IMO it would have been perhaps the most important fighter of the war. As it stands, it's sorta like the ME-262. A fantastic, groundbreaking aircraft-available in too few numbers and too late in the war to make a significant difference.



Right, but you can say the same of many aircraft.
What if the P-51 had entered service a year earlier?


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 26, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> View attachment 566375


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 27, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Most of our aircraft were designed for something particular, but used in so many other venues it’s mind boggling. Do you think the designers of the B25 ever thought it would fly from the deck of a carrier or carry a 75mm cannon?
> Cheers,
> Biff



Reminds me of the phrase, "Not a pound for air to ground."
But look what future versions of that ship are doing today.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 28, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> OP asked "best escort fighter".
> Everybody pounded facts.
> Something only glanced at: the cost of the planes. Pilots might not care, Bomber drivers might, so here's the gist:
> 
> ...



Doubt the quantities are cost driven, not for the USA anyway.
If the US wanted 200 P-38's or P-47's, they would pay for it.
Other factors limited the availability of each.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Apr 26, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> Could the Allison powered Mustangs have escorted the B-29's at the altitudes they were flying?


The P-51A even with the uprated 9.6 geared engines had a combat ceiling (1000fpm) of 27500' and I believe the B-29s operated above that? This was without the mandatory external tanks and internal fuel was only 180 gallons (the 85 gallon fuselage tank had not been added yet). P-51A was out of production by October '42 anyway and B-29s only began operations from China in April '44.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 26, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> The P-51A even with the uprated 9.6 geared engines had a combat ceiling (1000fpm) of 27500' and I believe the B-29s operated above that? This was without the mandatory external tanks and internal fuel was only 180 gallons (the 85 gallon fuselage tank had not been added yet). P-51A was out of production by October '42 anyway and B-29s only began operations from China in April '44.



*The Service Ceiling of the P-51A was 34k. That said it would not be first choice to escort B-29s except for range. *

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Apr 26, 2020)

drgondog said:


> *The Service Ceiling of the P-51A was 34k. That said it would not be first choice to escort B-29s except for range. *


Combat ceiling was considered by the British to be that altitude where the plane would no longer climb at at least 1000fpm. Climbs over that altitude were considered too slow/risky for combat. Vertical speed at 1000fpm is only about 11mph.


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 26, 2020)

Though I'm more inclined to believe Bill....P-51 Mustang Specifications - MustangsMustangs.com


----------



## P-39 Expert (Apr 26, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> Though I'm more inclined to believe Bill....P-51 Mustang Specifications - MustangsMustangs.com
> 
> View attachment 578953
> 
> View attachment 578954​


Combat ceiling by definition is lower than service ceiling. Who is Bill?


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 26, 2020)

Someone who knows about Mustangs....I think he wrote an article or two about the P-51

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Combat ceiling by definition is lower than service ceiling. Who is Bill?



Bill is our resident P-51 expert. His father flew the P-51 in combat during WW2. Him and has father owned one as well for a while (correct me if I am wrong Bill), so he himself even has some time in the bird. He has also dedicated a good portion of his life to studying the 51, and its squadrons. He had written several books on it, and just released one.

He deals only in facts, and is a great resource.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 26, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Who is Bill?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 26, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> View attachment 578969



Will be released on 23 June 2020 on Amazon.com.

This has been a public service announcement.

Carry on.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 26, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Bill is our resident P-51 expert. His father flew the P-51 in combat during WW2. .


Well you could say that.




One of greatest quarterbacks in Texas High School history, Texas Hall of Fame in 1971, Collier's All American at Vanderbilt University 1938.

Shot down his first German aircraft on his first day of Combat June 6, 1944. Shortest time from first air victory credit to five (ace) in the 355th FG. Promoted from pilot, to Flight leader to Squadron Operations officer in 10 days, Squadron CO in 55 days, Group Air Executive in 137 days

Forced down north of Paris in August 1944. Rescued by Capt. Royce Priest, who landed, the two of them riding home in a single-seater Mustang. Crashed into channel in P-51

Polish Cross of Valor/ Silver Star/ DFC w/ 2 Oak Leaf Cluster/ AM w/ 12 Oak Leaf Cluster/Croix de Guerre with Palm

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Apr 26, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Well you could say that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi Bill.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 26, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Hi Bill.


That is Bill's dad. Bill is known as Drgondog here, Bert is on his profile pic.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Apr 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> That is Bill's dad. Bill is known as Drgondog here, Bert is on his profile pic.


Thanks.


----------



## Dimlee (May 3, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> View attachment 578969



My shopping list in Amazon just has been updated. Thanks for the hint.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 6, 2020)

hellmaker said:


> so I agree... The Mustang was a great escort plane...


Which begs the question, which was the worst? For example, the Bf 109 didn't have the range to protect the Dorniers, Junkers and Heinkels during the Battle of Britain. The RAF would have had a rough time had the Bf 109 had the Mustang's endurance.


----------



## drgondog (May 6, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Which begs the question, which was the worst? For example, the Bf 109 didn't have the range to protect the Dorniers, Junkers and Heinkels during the Battle of Britain. The RAF would have had a rough time had the Bf 109 had the Mustang's endurance.



That said, the Bf 109 matched up within the tactical footprint with all the Allied fighters. I suspect we have to look beyond range as that is a necessary attribute in the escort question.

In US service, I am inclined to point to the F2A Buffalo, then the P-39. The lack of high altitude performance for the P-39 was about a wash with the P-40 and F4F but range was simply adequate for only reasonable tactical or short range low/medium level attack/medium bomber escort. The P-39 served better with the VVS but even in this limited role as an escort fighter - it was utilized more for top cover in escort role for low level attack aircraft.

That said, the question of timeline comes into play. The F2A as an escort is a pointless discussion as it was used only for a very short time until USN could backfill with F4F-3. The discussion about other nations' deployment (i.e. RAF Defiant) is similarly pointless. The Bf 110 similarly fades away as it simply was outclassed by the RAF and VVS and AAF single engine fighters of the same periods. The Hurricane and Spit were also lacking in range, but the Spitfire and Bf 109 were effective for tactical ops above the P-39 and P-40 and Hurricane.

I would nominate the Bf 110 - with the F4F-3 and P-39 and Hurricane in a clump behind the Bf 110. 



The YB-40 was not an answer to a mother's prayer but it did have the range and altitude capability for close escort on inbound leg.


----------



## drgondog (May 6, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> Though I'm more inclined to believe Bill....P-51 Mustang Specifications - MustangsMustangs.com
> 
> View attachment 578953
> 
> View attachment 578954​


The 34K Service Ceiling per RAF flight tests with F20R Allison agrees with NAA data for the same engine.
Mustang II Performance Trial


----------



## pbehn (May 6, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Which begs the question, which was the worst? For example, the Bf 109 didn't have the range to protect the Dorniers, Junkers and Heinkels during the Battle of Britain. The RAF would have had a rough time had the Bf 109 had the Mustang's endurance.


Maybe the worst escort was decided by the commander who sent them on the mission. If you allow a 1940 Bf109 to have a Mustangs range I will allow them to be met by fighters with a Me262s/Meteors performance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (May 6, 2020)

Some people just can't lose the what if junk

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2020)



Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 6, 2020)

drgondog said:


> The Hurricane and Spit were also lacking in range


True, and it cost the Spitfire during the Channel Dash, where the situation of the Battle of Britain turned, with the Bf 109s operating closer to base, and thoroughly trouncing the RAF.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 6, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Maybe the worst escort was decided by the commander who sent them on the mission. If you allow a 1940 Bf109 to have a Mustangs range


1940's Bf 109E doesn't need the Mustang's range to be more effective in the Battle of Britain. It just needs 1941's Bf 109F's 1,700 km (1,060 mi) range on internal fuel compared to the Bf 109 E's 660 km (410 miles). But we're entering What'if territory again. My university history always reminded us, don't focus on what could have been, but what was.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (May 6, 2020)

?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 6, 2020)

Are we now discussing the capabilities of the Spitfire and Hurricane to intercept a fleet of battle cruisers? I presume this is at sea level? An air frame is designed around the technology that is known at the time and the projected weight and output of the engines available when it can be made as a prototype. This worked for the P-51 and didn't work for the Typhoon. If the P-51 ( if a time machine donated its aerodynamics) was entered into a fly off with the Spitfire and Hurricane in 1936 it would probably lose, it was a ton heavier than a Spitfire, with an early Merlin engine and a wooden two blade prop it wouldn't have been very impressive at all.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 6, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Which begs the question, which was the worst? For example, the Bf 109 didn't have the range to protect the Dorniers, Junkers and Heinkels during the Battle of Britain. The RAF would have had a rough time had the Bf 109 had the Mustang's endurance.



The 109 with a drop tank might have had much better endurance, however, you also have to look at what was really needed. 
Most advocates of either long range 109s or long range Spits simply say that anything longer would have been beneficial, and to a point they are right. 
However an extra 15 minutes over London is not what was really needed, It is 178 miles from London to Liverpool, 163 miles from London to Manchester, 106 miles from London to Bristol and a mere 86 miles from London to Coventry. 
to really cover most of Southern England requires over double the endurance of the 109. Which is way more than a 300 liter drop tank can provide. 

Nobody really explains what happens when the 109s run out of cannon ammo over Manchester or Bristol and are trying to escort bomber home with just the two cowl machine guns for armament. 
If the Germans try for deep penetration with He 111 and Ju 88 bombers in 1940, like to Manchester/Liverpool the British have around 1 1/2 hours to land the fighters near the east/south coasts. refuel/rearm and get back in the air before the Germans come by on the return trip. 

This goes from a "what if" the Germans used drop tanks to "what if" the Germans added more internal fuel, added drop tanks, change guns/armament, change the drag of the 109E and a few other things. Some of which need a magic wand. One reason the Mustang had the endurance it did was that it used a wing around 1/3 larger and it weighed, even in Allison form over 1/3 more (clean). Stick a DB601A engine in a Mustang I of 8000lbs and see what kind of performance at altitude you get.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 6, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> This goes from a "what if" the Germans used drop tanks to "what if" the Germans added more internal fuel, added drop tanks, change guns/armament, change the drag of the 109E and a few other things. Some of which need a magic wand. One reason the Mustang had the endurance it did was that it used a wing around 1/3 larger and it weighed, even in Allison form over 1/3 more (clean). Stick a DB601A engine in a Mustang I of 8000lbs and see what kind of performance at altitude you get.


And what if the RAF had 1000 trained pilots with Spitfire Vs and cannon armed Hurricanes and lets just forget Russia. It is a different battle in a different war always constructed so Germany wins.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 6, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> It just needs 1941's Bf 109F's *1,700 km (1,060 mi) range *on internal fuel compared to the Bf 109 E's *660 km (410 miles).* But we're entering What'if territory again.



We have gone right though "what if land" and gone to Pixie Dustville and Anti-Gravity Paint Town. 

Both 109s had the same internal fuel capacity. Late 109Es and early 109Fs used the same engine. Everybody agrees teh 109F had less drag but enough to get 2 1/2 times the range?
Almost double the miles per gallon of the P-51? 

If you are going to quote Wiki, quote the whole thing. 

" Thanks to the improved aerodynamics, more fuel-efficient engines and the introduction of light-alloy versions of the standard Luftwaffe _300 litre drop tank_, the Bf 109 F offered a much increased maximum range of 1,700 km (1,060 mi)[37] compared to the Bf 109 E's maximum range figure of only 660 km (410 miles) on internal fuel,[38] and with the_ E-7's provision for the 300 litre drop tank, a Bf 109E so equipped possessed double the range, to 1,325 km (820 mi)_."

Of course I am still trying to figure out how 400 liters of fuel gives you 410 miles of range but 700 liters (75% increase) gives you 820 miles of range (100% increase) despite the extra drag of the tank?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (May 7, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The 109 with a drop tank might have had much better endurance, however, you also have to look at what was really needed.
> Most advocates of either long range 109s or long range Spits simply say that anything longer would have been beneficial, and to a point they are right.
> However an extra 15 minutes over London is not what was really needed, It is 178 miles from London to Liverpool, 163 miles from London to Manchester, 106 miles from London to Bristol and a mere 86 miles from London to Coventry.
> to really cover most of Southern England requires over double the endurance of the 109. Which is way more than a 300 liter drop tank can provide.



British have calculated, after examining the drop tank volume and wrecks of Bf 109s with drop-tank facility, that the drop tank adds about a hour to the endurance. During a hour of flight, without the drop tank and at 5 or 6 km, the Bf 109 could cover 430 or 600 km respectively on max continuous, or for example about 350 km on the most economical power.
Going conservative in estimates, even an increase of range of 320 km (200 miles) is a major boon for health of LW bomber force.
Bf 109 + drop tank makes a lot of sense for Luftwaffe attacking UK from France, or even from Belgium. Spitfire, as-is, + drop tank is useless to escort bombers that need to attack Germany proper from the UK, since the German targets needing destruction are at far greater distances.



> Nobody really explains what happens when the 109s run out of cannon ammo over Manchester or Bristol and are trying to escort bomber home with just the two cowl machine guns for armament.



A lot of things can be added there.
Major problem is that Bf 109s were outnumbered, and that problem grew worse as BoB was progressing. Direct consequence was that LW was unable to 'stage' fighters against the targets deeper in England, unlike what WAllies did from 1943 on, so the LR fighters can take over escorting (or freijagd) mid-way to the target. The only economically-viable way to much improve numbers of Bf 109s (talk 50-100 %, not some meager increase) is to much decrease Bf 110 production early before the war.
Non-existance of the 'relay' system meant that any escort needs to fight their way ally the way - 1st against, mostly, the 11 Group, then against 12 Group, then again against 11 Group. Advantage of the relay system is that 'target escort' can be left mostly untouched, meaning among other things that their ammo bins/drums/belts are not depleted.
The defending fighters don't have the ammo counter for enemy fighters. The defending pilots can't just assume that the escorting fighter getting into shooting position will 'just' shower them with LMG fire, they must make evading actions thus their job of killing the bombers is not done, while escort's job of saving bombers is done.
Then again, the Bf 109E1, with 4 LMGs, that by 30th June 1940, amounted to 40% of all Bf 109Es produced.



> If the Germans try for deep penetration with He 111 and Ju 88 bombers in 1940, like to Manchester/Liverpool the British have around 1 1/2 hours to land the fighters near the east/south coasts. refuel/rearm and get back in the air before the Germans come by on the return trip.



Very true.



> This goes from a "what if" the Germans used drop tanks to "what if" the Germans added more internal fuel, added drop tanks, change guns/armament, change the drag of the 109E and a few other things. Some of which need a magic wand. One reason the Mustang had the endurance it did was that it used a wing around 1/3 larger and it weighed, even in Allison form over 1/3 more (clean). *Stick a DB601A engine in a Mustang I of 8000lbs and see what kind of performance at altitude you get.*



(my bold)
Kinda very fast Ki-61, but a bit slower climb?


----------



## drgondog (May 7, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Are we now discussing the capabilities of the Spitfire and Hurricane to intercept a fleet of battle cruisers? I presume this is at sea level? An air frame is designed around the technology that is known at the time and the projected weight and output of the engines available when it can be made as a prototype. This worked for the P-51 and didn't work for the Typhoon. If the P-51 ( if a time machine donated its aerodynamics) was entered into a fly off with the Spitfire and Hurricane in 1936 it would probably lose, it was a ton heavier than a Spitfire, with an early Merlin engine and a wooden two blade prop it wouldn't have been very impressive at all.


Not entirely true - recall that even with the Allison F3R the Mustang I was quite bit faster than the Spit V, and with the Merlin 61 dropped in it was quite a bit faster than the Spit IX - same engine. No Mustang could turn with either the Spit or Hurricane - or A6M. But speed, acceleration, zoom climb and dive advantage usually presents favorable conditions in a fight. P-51 fight Spit - don't get into turn or climb fight -

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (May 7, 2020)

A lot to digest in this thread as always, lots of good stuff. I see a lot of talk of extending the range of the Bf-109 for the BoB, perhaps I missed it or it isn't that important but if you pack more fuel into this bird, won't that effect its dog-fighting capability? I have read and heard that Mustangs didn't like to engage e/a with too much fuel in the fuselage tank for starters. I love the P-51 but I also realize it may have been about as nimble as a hog on ice when loaded down with ~270 gallons of fuel.

Would not the same hold true for the Bf-109 and the Spitfire, or are they something special?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 7, 2020)

The P-51s may have been a hand full with the rear fuselage tank totally full. However most reports and manuals say it was OK with part of the fuel burned off and in fact post war manuals say to keep 25-35 gallons in the rear tank as a reserve for emergencies/landing? So we go from 85 gallons being too much to 25-35 gallons being useful ballast to keep a proper CG. 

In the late 30s it was thought that single engine fighter carrying a lot of fuel would not be able to dog fight (and in the late 30s that was the criteria for a fighter, not boom and zoom) an plane using a similar engine and _designed_ for a lower fuel load. In the design stage the plane with the lower fuel load would have gotten a smaller wing and bit lighter structure. It just wasn't the weight of the fuel.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 7, 2020)

IMO - Steve is correct. Pre-1939 all or nearly all fighter aviation was Pursuit/Interceptor -------------> fast, climb fast, turn tight to best the opposing challengers for battlefield superiority or air defense of the homeland.

Those design objectives dictated HP available to HP required and wing loading discussions - fuel was placed in the fuselage to optimize roll and armament options.

Long range escort was deemed impossible for single engine fighters because the necessary fuel fractions were too high to maintain climb and maneuverability goals with existing engines. High altitude performance objectives dictated turbo superchargers for AAF for Interceptor role, and basically ignored by USN as not necessary for fleet operations scenarios of the day. Two stage/two speed superchargers were conceptualized but not in practical stages of development.

The Mustang broke ground on fuel storage in the wings - not because of foresight but because the Meredith Effect advantages to drag reduction was a REQUIRED part of both the original P-509 proposal to AFPC but maintained center stage during the development of the NA-73 Specifications. No room for fuel in the fuselage (or so they thought) because the stability and control issues were deemed a major issue to successful development and acceptance from RAF.

That said, the RAF continued to press NAA for more range options leading NAA to develop auxiliary fuel cells to occupy the gun bay/ammo chute section of the wing. It was tested and put into production as kits for an extra $25/per aircraft. With the fuel cells and two remaining cowl mounted 50 caliber guns, the Mustang I was capable of 1500 miles straight line range, about a 50% increase over existing capability. Projected Combat Radius was London to Berlin (in 1940). Not very practical for intruder type missions but an excellent option for Recon. I have not found docs to support operational use as extended range recon but the installation and maintenance instructions were all in RAF Mustang I Maintenance Manuals. 

IMO the RAF get perhaps a little too much credit for the design attributes of NA-73, but perhaps a little less credit than they deserve for the impetus of NAA to craft many improvements to the operability and handling qualities of the P-51 with constant flow of suggestions and issue documentation coming from RAE and combat ops experience.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 7, 2020)

Complicating things in 1936/37 were, for the British, the notion that fixed pitch props were good enough for fighters. For the Germans, they didn't have a 1000-1100 engine in service yet. They had two in development. For the Americans the Allison was very much in the development stage. 
If through magic you had a Mustang airframe/aerodynamics in 1936/7 and tried to power it with a Merlin II/III (87 octane fuel) and the fixed pitch prop you would have had a real disaster on your hands. 
Not only was the engine rated at 880hp for take-off instead of the 1150hp of the -39 Allison the fixed pitch prop crippled both take-off and climb, not only by being inefficient, but by being so inefficient that it required running the engine at 2000-2300 rpm for take-off and climb instead of the 880hp at 3000rpm rating or even the 2600rpm 30 minute climb rating. Unless you could lighten up the Mustang airframe by about one ton you might never get the plane out of a British 1936/37 airfield. The Mustang/early Merlin combination might be fast in a straight line (especially at altitude) but it's ability to actually fight may be suspect. Even changing to an eight. 303 gun armament, cutting fuel to 120 US gallons and getting rid of armor and self sealing tanks may not get rid of enough weight unless you make the structure lighter. 

For the British by 1941 you had not only the Merlin 45 with several hundred more HP for take-off, you had the constant speed prop that allowed very good use of the power, for very little change in engine/powerplant weight.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (May 7, 2020)

This last and about 15,000 other posts by SR6 makes me believe he is a resuscitated incarnation of Kelly Johnson, Don Berlin, or Ed Heinemann.... just come back to haunt wannabes.

No disrespect meant to a few folks here who can draw on similar levels of experience, knowledge and analysis-ability, but rather "wow!" to you all!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 7, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Complicating things in 1936/37 were, for the British, the notion that fixed pitch props were good enough for fighters. For the Germans, they didn't have a 1000-1100 engine in service yet. They had two in development. For the Americans the Allison was very much in the development stage.
> If through magic you had a Mustang airframe/aerodynamics in 1936/7 and tried to power it with a Merlin II/III (87 octane fuel) and the fixed pitch prop you would have had a real disaster on your hands.
> Not only was the engine rated at 880hp for take-off instead of the 1150hp of the -39 Allison the fixed pitch prop crippled both take-off and climb, not only by being inefficient, but by being so inefficient that it required running the engine at 2000-2300 rpm for take-off and climb instead of the 880hp at 3000rpm rating or even the 2600rpm 30 minute climb rating. Unless you could lighten up the Mustang airframe by about one ton you might never get the plane out of a British 1936/37 airfield. The Mustang/early Merlin combination might be fast in a straight line (especially at altitude) but it's ability to actually fight may be suspect. Even changing to an eight. 303 gun armament, cutting fuel to 120 US gallons and getting rid of armor and self sealing tanks may not get rid of enough weight unless you make the structure lighter.
> 
> For the British by 1941 you had not only the Merlin 45 with several hundred more HP for take-off, you had the constant speed prop that allowed very good use of the power, for very little change in engine/powerplant weight.



Steve - I don't disagree your point about 1940/1941 Mustang airframe being underpowered in 1937. That said, the NAA 'Mustang' would have looked very much like the P-509 at 6000 pounds, smaller airframe - with same in-line engine cooling scheme that led to the Mustang I. It would have been more like the XP-46 or XP-36 if using the radial. There were PD's on both in 1937/1938 but no internal funding to build on spec.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (May 7, 2020)

Of course, d-dog being among the, perhaps not so, "few" and worthy of his own . 

Not being shy about my own poorly informed state and perhaps for the benefit of others who may be similarly disadvantaged, I will ask, "what is a P-509?"


----------



## pbehn (May 7, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Not entirely true - recall that even with the Allison F3R the Mustang I was quite bit faster than the Spit V, and with the Merlin 61 dropped in it was quite a bit faster than the Spit IX - same engine. No Mustang could turn with either the Spit or Hurricane - or A6M. But speed, acceleration, zoom climb and dive advantage usually presents favorable conditions in a fight. P-51 fight Spit - don't get into turn or climb fight -


I was just saying you cant just confer properties from aircraft from a different era. If you could give the Mustang airframe to the British in 1936 you also need to give the engine prop and fuels available in 1940. The Spitfire and Hurricane were supposed to be interceptors and the design started before the Chain Home radar was planned. Take of and rate of climb was more important than combat ability, after all it was thought impossible to escort a bomber from Germany to UK. Obviously things like variable pitch and C/S props were being considered as were improved fuels but they weren't there in 1936. Similarly with the 109, to have much more internal fuel it would have to have it and been up to the job required with the engines fitted in the early models with circa 650HP.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 7, 2020)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Of course, d-dog being among the, perhaps not so, "few" and worthy of his own .
> 
> Not being shy about my own poorly informed state and perhaps for the benefit of others who may be similarly disadvantaged, I will ask, "what is a P-509?"



The P-509 was the Allison Powered High Speed Pursuit preliminary design that went to AFPC in mid march 1940 along with the specifications that became the NA-73 after a month of idea exchange between RAF/BAM and NAA. In other words the 'baby Mustang'

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 7, 2020)

Brother, can you quit it with the fantastical what ifs?


pbehn said:


> *if* war came in 1938 not 1939 it possibly wouldn't have.





pbehn said:


> *If* you allow a 1940 Bf109 to have a Mustangs





pbehn said:


> *If* the P-51 (* if* a time machine donated its aerodynamics) .





pbehn said:


> And *what if *the RAF had 1000 trained pilots


I'm all for discussing hypothetical occurrences based on actual available tech and events, for example, had HMS Glorious survived, would Captain D'Oyly-Hughes have been executed like Admiral Byng, dismissed from service, acquitted at courts-martial. But when you're introducing time travel we're entering the real of the stupid. We have a place for this, the what'if forum.

One position is that the Mustang was the best escort fighter of the war. Is it necessary to rely on time travel and what'ifs to have an alternative position on the Mustang?


----------



## Colkid (May 7, 2020)

Wasn't the P-51 the first one to cover the bombers all the way to Germany and back on their flights. I believe it was, that was the best plane for it.
why is this post putting it down at dec. 9, 2019. when it is May 7,2020.


----------



## fubar57 (May 7, 2020)

Said the pot. LMAO

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 7, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Brother, can you quit it with the fantastical what ifs?
> I'm all for discussing hypothetical occurrences based on actual available tech and events, for example, had HMS Glorious survived, would Captain D'Oyly-Hughes have been executed like Admiral Byng, dismissed from service, acquitted at courts-martial. But when you're introducing time travel we're entering the real of the stupid. We have a place for this, the what'if forum.
> 
> One position is that the Mustang was the best escort fighter of the war. Is it necessary to rely on time travel and what'ifs to have an alternative position on the Mustang?


I was responding to your "what if" about a Bf109 having the range of a Mustang in the Battle of Britain. It requires the transfer of technology from 1940 to 1935, it also requires the prior implementation of the philosophy of protecting bombers into the LW. The LW suffered huge losses of bombers in its campaigns for all sorts of reasons from the start in Poland, its strength was at a peak before the invasion of France and after that it declined through the war. Goering didn't insist on close protection of his bombers as a military strategy, he insisted on it because he was running out of bombers and crews. That was actually the crux of the battle whether the LW ran out of bombers and crews before the RAF ran out of front line pilots. The fighter to bomber ratio on the raids on London was huge, but only because the LW had lost much of its bomber force and consolidating what was left into single raids with one objective was the only option.


----------



## drgondog (May 8, 2020)

Colkid said:


> Wasn't the P-51 the first one to cover the bombers all the way to Germany and back on their flights. I believe it was, that was the best plane for it.
> why is this post putting it down at dec. 9, 2019. when it is May 7,2020.



Actually the P-38H was the first to escort into Germany, to the target and back to RV in November 1943.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 8, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Steve - I don't disagree your point about 1940/1941 Mustang airframe being underpowered in 1937. That said, the NAA 'Mustang' would have looked very much like the P-509 at 6000 pounds, smaller airframe - with same in-line engine cooling scheme that led to the Mustang I. It would have been more like the XP-46 or XP-36 if using the radial. There were PD's on both in 1937/1938 but no internal funding to build on spec.



I would certainly agree that North American would have schemed a different plane 2-3 years earlier to suite engine power availability and expected war load (guns/ammo. armor/protection) 

The point I was trying to make was that in 1936/37 it was not possible to make a viable long range single engine escort fighter due to other considerations than simply desire to do so and streamlining/drag-fuel capacity.
Many of these considerations are overlooked by some of our modern day armchair air marshals 
British, as I have said multiple times, shot themselves in both feet with their propeller selection. If you can't get the airplane off the ground with a fixed pitch prop without crashing into the trees at the end of the field it doesn't matter what the theoretical range is. The two pitch prop helped with take-off but the plane was still at a severe disadvantage in combat. The prop was shifted to high pitch as soon as the airspeed hit about 140-160mph (?) in the climb out and stayed fixed until the plane was approaching the landing field. 

See: Spitfire Mk I K.9793 Trials Report 
With a two pitch prop the engine was never run at more than 2400rpm when climbing in coarse pitch, despite the engine being rated at 2600rpm for 30 minutes. If you run the engine faster the prop is running at too high an rpm for the pitch and you don't get anymore thrust. 

100 octane fuel, constant speed propellers and better engines/superchargers allowed for much greater power/thrust for a relatively small increase in weight, the air fields were made bigger and even allowable landing speeds were increased allowing for heavier aircraft. 

At what point a viable escort fighter became possible I don't know but you are going to need the constant speed prop and the better engines/fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (May 8, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> The point I was trying to make was that in 1936/37 it was not possible to make a viable long range single engine escort fighter due to other considerations than simply desire to do so and streamlining/drag-fuel capacity.
> Many of these considerations are overlooked by some of our modern day armchair air marshals
> British, as I have said multiple times, shot themselves in both feet with their propeller selection. If you can't get the airplane off the ground with a fixed pitch prop without crashing into the trees at the end of the field it doesn't matter what the theoretical range is. The two pitch prop helped with take-off but the plane was still at a severe disadvantage in combat. The prop was shifted to high pitch as soon as the airspeed hit about 140-160mph (?) in the climb out and stayed fixed until the plane was approaching the landing field.
> ...



We can note that British were making a long range _bomber_ powered by a single Merlin II and a 2-pitch prop by 1936. It managed to take off with 200 gals of fuel and 1000 lbs of bombs from the runaways of the day, in normal service.

If the current doctrine prescribes that something can't be done, it will not be done, at least not in a timely manner.


----------



## pbehn (May 8, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> We can note that British were making a long range _bomber_ powered by a single Merlin II and a 2-pitch prop by 1936. It managed to take off with 200 gals of fuel and 1000 lbs of bombs from the runaways of the day, in normal service.
> 
> If the current doctrine prescribes that something can't be done, it will not be done, at least not in a timely manner.


The Battle couldn't perform without a variable pitch prop which was by de Havilland, single engine aircraft could. The difference is the declaration of war. Wiki says there were 175 Spitfires which is approximately how many were produced up to the declaration. RR and Bristol had formed the ROTOL company to develop propellers in 1937 and the Merlin started to be fitted with an agreed standard drive to do it, the question is which one and when. The requirements of the Battle were pretty much the same as a civilian passenger plane in terms of speed range, but different from that of a fighter.


----------



## pbehn (May 8, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> At what point a viable escort fighter became possible I don't know but you are going to need the constant speed prop and the better engines/fuel.


At what point was it ever considered? The early variants of the B-17 were considered good enough to operate without escorts but comically later ones weren't. The turret armed Wellington was going to shoot down defenders as quickly as they were sent up. I often wonder who tested these theories out, if indeed they did at all.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 8, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The Battle couldn't perform without a variable pitch prop which was by de Havilland, single engine aircraft could.



I'm not quite following you there...



> The difference is the declaration of war. Wiki says there were 175 Spitfires which is approximately how many were produced up to the declaration. RR and Bristol had formed the ROTOL company to develop propellers in 1937 and the Merlin started to be fitted with an agreed standard drive to do it, the question is which one and when.



Air ministry can buy a batch of Hurricanes and/or Spitfires with a 2-pitch prop well before ww2 starts. Just like they bought Battles and Blenheims with 2-pitch prop.
(seems Wikipedia is convinced that Battles have had a variable-pitch prop, so I'd ask people to shed some light on this matter)



> The requirements of the Battle were pretty much the same as a civilian passenger plane in terms of speed range, but different from that of a fighter.



I'd venture to say that a 2-pitch prop, as fitted not just on Battle but also on many other British bombers, was a better deal vs. a fixed-pitch prop, as fitted on 1st Hurricanes and Spitfires. That were still very useful fighters even with such a prop.


----------



## pbehn (May 8, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not quite following you there...
> .


Sorry typing too quickly, I meant single engine fighters. If the Battle had a fixed pitch prop it would have to be so fine to get it off the ground it wouldn't have got far.


tomo pauk said:


> Air ministry can buy a batch of Hurricanes and/or Spitfires with a 2-pitch prop well before ww2 starts. Just like they bought Battles and Blenheims with 2-pitch prop.
> (seems Wikipedia is convinced that Battles have had a variable-pitch prop, so I'd ask people to shed some light on this matter). I'd venture to say that a 2-pitch prop, as fitted not just on Battle but also on many other British bombers, was a better deal vs. a fixed-pitch prop, as fitted on 1st Hurricanes and Spitfires. That were still very useful fighters even with such a prop.
> .


But why? Without a war you don't need them to train pilots but the Blenheims and Battles couldn't get off the ground. I agree, but without a war you don't need them, as soon as war was declared they started to be fitted, same for 100 octane fuel, armour protection and self sealing tanks.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 8, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Sorry typing too quickly, I meant single engine fighters. If the Battle had a fixed pitch prop it would have to be so fine to get it off the ground it wouldn't have got far.



I haven't suggested fitting a fixed-pitch prop on Battle.



> But why? Without a war you don't need them to train pilots but the Blenheims and Battles couldn't get off the ground.



My English is failing me here.



> I agree, but without a war you don't need them, as soon as war was declared they started to be fitted, same for 100 octane fuel, armour protection and self sealing tanks.



It does not go that way. 
You start pouring 100 oct fuel in the tanks of your aircraft when the fuel is available in good quantities and on reasonable price (and when the engine can put it in a good use), not when a war starts. Armor protection predates ww2 by several years. 
Planning to install armor and/or self-sealing tanks when war starts is bad planing - either you have them and install them, or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 8, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> 1. I haven't suggested fitting a fixed-pitch prop on Battle.
> 
> 2. My English is failing me here.
> 
> ...


I edited your post just with numbers for understanding in the reply

1. was just saying it had to have a variable pitch prop, it just wouldn't work without one.
2 Your English is fine, my point was that without variable pitch props the RAF didn't have a bomber force for an air display let alone a war, but it did have fighters that could get off the ground. There were all sorts of things that possibly could have been done to the many fighters and bombers produced between 1918 and 1939 but weren't, simply because there wasn't a war to make it a necessity. Similarly if the war hadn't come when it did RR and Napier may have sorted the Vulture and Sabre and Hawkers may have sorted the Typhoon/Tornado sooner without the distractions of the war, or just a short time later all would have been centred on jets. It was the declaration of war that changed things.

3 The need for armour and self sealing tanks was seen as soon as combat was started, you don't notice it in peacetime war games because you didn't actually fire live ammunition. Use of 100 octane fuel is a story as involved as the development of the Merlin itself. It was more expensive and caused more engine wear due to the increased power. Why advise your enemy that you are using it in France when a plane is captured? Standardising what was "100 Octane" was an issue. It is one of the strange quirks of history that Henry Tizard of the Tizard committee was one of the people involved in the development of "Octane ratings"


----------



## Greyman (May 8, 2020)

pbehn said:


> 3 The need for armour and self sealing tanks was seen as soon as combat was started, you don't notice it in peacetime war games because you didn't actually fire live ammunition. ... Why advise your enemy that you are using it in France when a plane is captured?



As tomo pauk said the move toward armouring planes started in earnest months--and in some cases well over a year--before the war started (in Britain).

Blenheim and Hurricane squadrons based in France used 100 octane.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 8, 2020)

A lot of these planes were ordered 1-2 years before they either flew or entered squadron service (sometimes longer) . Engines and propellers were ordered accordingly. Which makes a bit hard to swap parts around in mid production. Yes the Rotol Plant was started in 1937
As far as armor goes, A few countries (Like the Soviet Union) had begun to fit it before the war, but it was by no means common in the fall of 1939. 
Neither were self sealing tanks and not all nations or companies agreed on what the best methods were. Some research had been going on between the wars (if not dating back to WWI. 
However the best was the enemy of good and most countries were waiting for the ideal solution when actual war forced them to settle for 2nd or 3rd best. 

from 1936 on things were changing by the year if not several times per year. Britain had orders for hundreds if not thousands of Battles and Blenheims before they ordered even a couple of hundred Wellingtons, Whitleys or Hampdens. The two light bombers had a nominal range of 1000 miles or a radius of 400 miles with about 30-60 minutes of reserve depending on speed. To escort them you would have needed a plane with similar endurance. The Hurricane had under 1/2 the endurance. The bigger twin engine bombers had even more range/radius and the Blenheim got added tankage and it's range was increased to 1400 miles in the MK IV which was equipping squadrons before the war. The range needed to escort was constantly shifting. 

In 1936 they knew 100 octane was coming, what they didn't know was when (price/production capability). By late 1938 or early 1939 a lot more was known, but they still were in the dark about how much would be available. However things were getting sorted out, again with things changing almost constantly. RR had given out preliminary power figures on 100 octane fuel at the Paris Air show at the end 1938. 

Given the difficulties in getting both the Hurricane and Spitfire into large scale production one does wonder at effects of trying to build special models with different fuel tanks or other accessories. 



pbehn said:


> At what point was it ever considered? The early variants of the B-17 were considered good enough to operate without escorts but comically later ones weren't. The turret armed Wellington was going to shoot down defenders as quickly as they were sent up. I often wonder who tested these theories out, if indeed they did at all.


 I don't know when. It is often reported that some in the AIr Ministry considered it to an impossible task. Depending on when they came to that conclusion they may have been right. However they held to that conclusion into 1941/42 at which point they were no longer correct. Technical ability had changed. 

I would also note that the comedy of the B-17 was stretched out over a number of years. The Early B-17s were flying when the Germans had 109D with Jumo 210 engines, In 1940 the B-17 didn't need a lot of guns (it was thought) because it would fly at high altitude. trying to chase a B-17 or trio of them, with Bf 109E-3s was going to be pretty comical, The B-17s without gun turrets could actually out climb many fighters above 25,000ft or so. Of course then they found out that many of subsystems on the B=17 wouldn't function at that altitude. The 109s also got a lot better. By the time the later B-17s showed up they were taking off at 25,000-30,000lbs heavier than the early ones and had a lot more drag, the combination certainly made them a lot less "sprightly" shall we say  

British policy was certainly scattered all over the place. A fixed gun fighter needed eight guns. Large bombers with 2 and 4 gun power turrets could shoot down large numbers of attacking fighters, four guns in power turret in a fighter was adequate to destroy large twin engine aircraft. A single pan feed machine gun was all that was needed on fast bombers for defence. Obviously not all of those positions could possibly be correct at the same time.


----------



## pinsog (May 9, 2020)

Interesting test on early fighters vs B17

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 9, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Interesting test on early fighters vs B17
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf


Very interesting, and from Oct 13 1941. But in March 1940 Rolls Royce were asked to produce an engine for a high altitude Wellington bomber, this engine was fitted to a Spitfire which flew for the first time in February 1942 and became the Mk IX. Just as the Blenheim outperformed many fighters when introduced, it is folly to think that situation will continue for long. By the time B-17 numbers had been built up in UK they just wouldn't have wanted to meet their own fighters Which were by then the P-38, P-47 and Spitfire IX.


----------



## Mike Williams (May 10, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The two pitch prop helped with take-off but the plane was still at a severe disadvantage in combat. The prop was shifted to high pitch as soon as the airspeed hit about 140-160mph (?) in the climb out and stayed fixed until the plane was approaching the landing field.
> 
> See: Spitfire Mk I K.9793 Trials Report
> With a two pitch prop the engine was never run at more than 2400rpm when climbing in coarse pitch, despite the engine being rated at 2600rpm for 30 minutes. If you run the engine faster the prop is running at too high an rpm for the pitch and you don't get anymore thrust.



I take your basic point, however, it should be noted that operation of a two position DH prop on Spitfires was a bit more nuanced. The Spitfire I Pilots Notes (A.P.1565A) states: 

_Airscrew control.- This aeroplane may be fitted with one of the following airscrew controls: (a) de Havilland two position (b) de Havilland constant speed, or (c) Rotol (35°) constant speed. If constant speed control is fitted the r.p.m. can be adjusted to remain as desired, but within the limits allowed by the airscrew pitch range.If the two position control is fitted on this aeroplane it can also be operated to give various airscrew pitch settings between fine and coarse; this is obtained by slowly moving the control between its range of movement until the desired r.p.m. are obtained.For example, if a full power climb is required, instead of pushing the control into fully coarse pitch as the r.p.m. rise after taking-off, the control should be moved slowly forward until the r.p.m. drop to the maximum permissible for climb (2,600) and then pulled slightly back; this will leave the airscrew pitch at the position which gives these r.p.m. until power begins to drop off with altitude. As the power drops off the r.p.m. can be maintained by again fining the airscrew pitch as required. This in effect will give a similar improvement in performance to that obtained by means of a constant speed airscrew. The operation of varying the airscrew pitch in this manner to suit different conditions of flight will be found quite simple after a little experiment._ http://www.spitfireperformance.com/AP1565A_June_1940-airscrew-control.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## B-25 Pilot (May 14, 2020)

If we are still on the topic of if the P-51 was the best escort fighter in the war, then my opinion would be yes without a doubt. The P-51 had amazing range and that alone made it better then all the other escort fighters of the war, as no other can match the range of the P-51. The P-51, if you for some reason wanted more range, then you could also add drop tanks. The P-51's weaponry was amazing to. 4 cannons on the P-51D were sure to make short work of any target.


----------



## pbehn (May 14, 2020)

B-25 Pilot said:


> If we are still on the topic of if the P-51 was the best escort fighter in the war, then my opinion would be yes without a doubt. The P-51 had amazing range and that alone made it better then all the other escort fighters of the war, as no other can match the range of the P-51. The P-51, if you for some reason wanted more range, then you could also add drop tanks. The P-51's weaponry was amazing to. 4 cannons on the P-51D were sure to make short work of any target.


Drop tanks don't greatly increase combat range, internal fuel does that. The British fitted 4x 20mm cannon to their Mustang Mk 1s (it was standard British armament) the P-51D had 6 x 0.5" MGs which could ruin anyones day.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 14, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Drop tanks don't greatly increase combat range, internal fuel does that. The British fitted 4x 20mm cannon to their Mustang Mk 1s (it was standard British armament) the P-51D had 6 x 0.5" MGs which could ruin anyones day.


The 8th AF disagrees

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ColFord (May 14, 2020)

The original RAF Mustang Mk.I (NA-73 & NA-83) had the armament of 4 x 0.50in HMGs and 4 x 0.30in MGs, it was the follow-on order made under Lend Lease for the 150 P-51(no suffix)(NA-91), which was the Mustang Mk.IA in RAF service that had the 4 x 20mm cannon armament. On the 50 P-51A, Mustang Mk.II in RAF service, they retained the orginal US specified 4 x 0.50in HMGs. RAF had wanted to continue on with the heavier 4 x 20mm cannon armament for any follow on orders of Mustangs, however, with the development of the Merlin engined Mustangs and in order to increase production rates and commonality with USAAF orders, they agreed to accept future Mustang deliveries with the USAAF specified armament. That decision may have been coloured in part due to the initial issues the RAF encountered with the NAA designed installation and US supplied Oldsmobile 20mm cannon armament on the P-51/Mustang Mk.IA, which took a lot of effort to fix into a reliable armament.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 14, 2020)

Mike Williams said:


> I take your basic point, however, it should be noted that operation of a two position DH prop on Spitfires was a bit more nuanced. The Spitfire I Pilots Notes (A.P.1565A) states:
> 
> _Airscrew control.- This aeroplane may be fitted with one of the following airscrew controls: (a) de Havilland two position (b) de Havilland constant speed, or (c) Rotol (35°) constant speed. If constant speed control is fitted the r.p.m. can be adjusted to remain as desired, but within the limits allowed by the airscrew pitch range.If the two position control is fitted on this aeroplane it can also be operated to give various airscrew pitch settings between fine and coarse; this is obtained by slowly moving the control between its range of movement until the desired r.p.m. are obtained.For example, if a full power climb is required, instead of pushing the control into fully coarse pitch as the r.p.m. rise after taking-off, the control should be moved slowly forward until the r.p.m. drop to the maximum permissible for climb (2,600) and then pulled slightly back; this will leave the airscrew pitch at the position which gives these r.p.m. until power begins to drop off with altitude. As the power drops off the r.p.m. can be maintained by again fining the airscrew pitch as required. This in effect will give a similar improvement in performance to that obtained by means of a constant speed airscrew. The operation of varying the airscrew pitch in this manner to suit different conditions of flight will be found quite simple after a little experiment._ http://www.spitfireperformance.com/AP1565A_June_1940-airscrew-control.jpg


This begs the question of why the RAF settled for 2 pitch vs constant speed in the first place, particularly in view of the last minute conversion to constant speed by DH technicians during the Battle of Britain. Hamilton Standard (which DH had the licence for) was making CS units well before the war. In fact Rotol used modified Hamilton Standard control units for their CS propellers.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 14, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The 8th AF disagrees
> View attachment 581373


The rule of thumb was that the amount of fuel carried externally could equal the 70 percent amount of fuel carried internally otherwise you would be in combat with fuel still in the drop tanks.


----------



## pbehn (May 14, 2020)

ColFord said:


> The original RAF Mustang Mk.I (NA-73 & NA-83) had the armament of 4 x 0.50in HMGs and 4 x 0.30in MGs, it was the follow-on order made under Lend Lease for the 150 P-51(no suffix), which was the Mustang Mk.IA in RAF service that had the 4 x 20mm cannon armament. On the 50 P-51A, Mustang Mk.II in RAF service, they retained the orginal US specified 4 x 0.50in HMGs. RAF had wanted to continue on with the heavier 4 x 20mm cannon armament for any follow on orders of Mustangs, however, with the development of the Merlin engined Mustangs and in order to increase production rates and commonality with USAAF orders, they agreed to accept future Mustang deliveries with the USAAF specified armament. That decision may have been coloured in part due to the initial issues the RAF encountered with the NAA designed installation and US supplied Oldsmobile 20mm cannon armament on the P-51/Mustang Mk.IA, which took a lot of effort to fix into a reliable armament.


An also by the passage of time, by the time the Mustang II was put into service the UK was awash with 0.5" ammunition and it was being used with US forces as a P-51B (which it was).


----------



## pbehn (May 14, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The 8th AF disagrees
> View attachment 581373


No it doesn't. What is the internal fuel of the P-51B? You can quite easily load up a Spitfire with enough fuel in drop tanks to get to a place it cant fight back from. Why are the P-38M and P38J different in range with the same drop tanks? Could it be internal fuel? The escort escorted for part of a long range mission. They had to take off, form up as a squadron or group, then form up with the bombers wherever that was, cruise with the bombers at a speed suitable to engage the enemy, have enough fuel to engage the enemy for 15-20 minutes and then fly home.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ColFord (May 14, 2020)

Mustang Mk.II was the Allison engined P-51A, Mustang Mk.III was the Merlin engined P-51B/C. Same basic wing and armament, on the P-51A and P-51B/C. The UK already had quantities of US 0.30in and 0.50in ammunition going back to late 1940, which was tied to the earlier US manufactured types entering RAF service, such as the early P-40s. They were not particularly impressed with much of the ammunition they received in their early orders as most of it was not new manufacture, but released for sale from US strategic stockpiles as dated from 1918 to the mid 1920s, with the new manufacture ammunition funded from the British purchases going to backfill the US strategic stockpiles. It was the only way they could supply the quantities of ammunition required by the British, it had to be surplus to US military/government requirements and allowed the lead time for the US manufacturers to ramp up their production. One of those little "gotchas" in the contracts before the implementation of Lend Lease. As such the ammunition they received had a high failure rate requiring RAF armourers to manually check all rounds before loading into belts - loose projectiles, swollen cases, failed primer cups. By early to mid-1942 the new manufacture ammunition coming out of US factories was actually getting to the UK but there were still issues from the RAF's point of view as the ammunition at that time were limited in the types - ball, armour piercing and tracer - and they were also getting inconsistencies in quality caused by the rapid ramp up in manufacture in the US.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (May 14, 2020)

Mike Williams said:


> I take your basic point, however, it should be noted that operation of a two position DH prop on Spitfires was a bit more nuanced. The Spitfire I Pilots Notes (A.P.1565A) states:
> 
> _Airscrew control.- This aeroplane may be fitted with one of the following airscrew controls: (a) de Havilland two position (b) de Havilland constant speed, or (c) Rotol (35°) constant speed. If constant speed control is fitted the r.p.m. can be adjusted to remain as desired, but within the limits allowed by the airscrew pitch range.If the two position control is fitted on this aeroplane it can also be operated to give various airscrew pitch settings between fine and coarse; this is obtained by slowly moving the control between its range of movement until the desired r.p.m. are obtained.For example, if a full power climb is required, instead of pushing the control into fully coarse pitch as the r.p.m. rise after taking-off, the control should be moved slowly forward until the r.p.m. drop to the maximum permissible for climb (2,600) and then pulled slightly back; this will leave the airscrew pitch at the position which gives these r.p.m. until power begins to drop off with altitude. As the power drops off the r.p.m. can be maintained by again fining the airscrew pitch as required. This in effect will give a similar improvement in performance to that obtained by means of a constant speed airscrew. The operation of varying the airscrew pitch in this manner to suit different conditions of flight will be found quite simple after a little experiment._ http://www.spitfireperformance.com/AP1565A_June_1940-airscrew-control.jpg


Is this the Mike Williams who owns wwiiaircraftperformance.org? Finally the be all and end all of WWII fighter performance. Great site, thank you.

Why did it take until 2012 to release the P-39N figures? I had not seen those numbers at any time before then. Excellent performance I thought. Thanks in advance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (May 14, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Why did it take until 2012 to release the P-39N figures?



The pay isn't as much as you think it is.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (May 15, 2020)

ColFord said:


> The original RAF Mustang Mk.I (NA-73 & NA-83) had the armament of 4 x 0.50in HMGs and 4 x 0.30in MGs, it was the follow-on order made under Lend Lease for the 150 P-51(no suffix)(NA-91), which was the Mustang Mk.IA in RAF service that had the 4 x 20mm cannon armament. On the 50 P-51A, Mustang Mk.II in RAF service, they retained the orginal US specified 4 x 0.50in HMGs. RAF had wanted to continue on with the heavier 4 x 20mm cannon armament for any follow on orders of Mustangs, however, with the development of the Merlin engined Mustangs and in order to increase production rates and commonality with USAAF orders, they agreed to accept future Mustang deliveries with the USAAF specified armament. *That decision may have been coloured in part due to the initial issues the RAF encountered with the NAA designed installation and US supplied Oldsmobile 20mm cannon armament on the P-51/Mustang Mk.IA, which took a lot of effort to fix into a reliable armament.*



I have seen parenthetical remarks about problems with the 20mm in early Mustangs and P-51s, but even after reading several books about the P-51, I have never seen detailed information about the test results and the efforts to make the 20mm armament work. Do you have any detailed information?


----------



## ColFord (May 15, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> I have seen parenthetical remarks about problems with the 20mm in early Mustangs and P-51s, but even after reading several books about the P-51, I have never seen detailed information about the test results and the efforts to make the 20mm armament work. Do you have any detailed information?



Yes, I have the detailed information as a result of examining in some detail over a number of years the Air Ministry files held in the UK National Archives relating to RAF Mustangs, along with the Operational Record Books of RAF Squadrons which were the initial Squadrons re-equipped with the cannon armed Mustang Mk.IA, and I was also quite fortunate to be able to get the recollections and to pose questions to a number of RAF aircrew and groundcrew who were with those RAF Squadrons when they re-equipped with the Mustang Mk.IA. A summarised version of the experience of the RAF in the armament issues encountered by the RAF in the armament design and reliability of the early Mustangs - the Mk.I and Mk.IA in RAF service, and the RAF development of the reconnaissance camera installations for RAF Mustangs has been provided and incorporated into the book on the development and introduction into service of the P-51 Mustang by Bill Marshall and Lowell Ford (no relation) that has been noted elsewhere in this thread and that is due for publication in the next few months. 

The problem with many of the books published to date about the P-51, is that the researcher/authors have not done the deep level research into the Archives outside the USA, or have not engaged with researchers/authors who have done the deep level research in Archives such as the UK, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian Archives which do contain quite a lot of material on the Mustang, especially the UK Archives. Other issue was, that many of the long standing 'go to' books on the Mustang were researched and written some years ago, before the relevant UK files were transferred to the UK Archives and declassified and digitised. So when those books were written the information was not publicly available and much they had to go on was the material that had been publicly released, such as press releases and similar. As such these often did not go into much detail or give a true accounting of actual events or the actual situation - wartime censorship and the like. The last 20 odd years has seen a large number of files become available, but some relevant files have still not been opened for public access and will not be for at least another 5 to10 years.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
4 | Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 15, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The 8th AF disagrees
> View attachment 581373


Those are ranges for the P-51B w/o 85 gal fuselage tanks and P-47D w/o 370 gal internal fuel this chart circa January 1944 before the Depot installed kits modified the P-51B/C. The P-47D-25 didn't arrive in small numbers until mid May 1944. It does reflect the P-38J increased capacity with 55gal LE tanks but very few kit installations were completed until mid February 1944 (Ditto P-51B)..

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 15, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The rule of thumb was that the amount of fuel carried externally could equal the 70 percent amount of fuel carried internally otherwise you would be in combat with fuel still in the drop tanks.


In the 8th AF long range escort game, the 'rule of thumb' was maximize internal fuel. Take off was on internal fuel with switch over to fuse tank for P-51B ONLY to drain from 85 to ~50-65gal due to cg issues. With P-38 the use of 55gal LE tanks was initiated at point of dropping externals as there was no Cg problem.

By your example that would be combat with 90% internal fuel for P-51B and 100% for P-38J

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 15, 2020)

Attached is:







There is an inersting psection on rear fuselage tank




Also there are charts ta the end showing how the fuel is to be utilized during a mission

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 15, 2020)

pbehn said:


> No it doesn't. What is the internal fuel of the P-51B? You can quite easily load up a Spitfire with enough fuel in drop tanks to get to a place it cant fight back from. Why are the P-38M and P38J different in range with the same drop tanks? Could it be internal fuel? The escort escorted for part of a long range mission. They had to take off, form up as a squadron or group, then form up with the bombers wherever that was, cruise with the bombers at a speed suitable to engage the enemy, have enough fuel to engage the enemy for 15-20 minutes and then fly home.


Actually they used the relay system. Each fighter group was assigned to cover the bombers for a specific portion of the journey


----------



## pbehn (May 15, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Actually they used the relay system. Each fighter group was assigned to cover the bombers for a specific portion of the journey


I know, that's what I posted.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 15, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I know, that's what I posted.


Misread it


----------



## pbehn (May 15, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Misread it


Here, with my bold for emphasis No it doesn't. What is the internal fuel of the P-51B? You can quite easily load up a Spitfire with enough fuel in drop tanks to get to a place it cant fight back from. Why are the P-38M and P38J different in range with the same drop tanks? Could it be internal fuel? The escort escorted for part of a long range mission. They had to take off, form up as a squadron or group, then form up with the bombers *wherever that was*, cruise with the bombers at a speed suitable to engage the enemy, have enough fuel to engage the enemy for 15-20 minutes and then fly home.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 15, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Here, with my bold for emphasis No it doesn't. What is the internal fuel of the P-51B? You can quite easily load up a Spitfire with enough fuel in drop tanks to get to a place it cant fight back from. Why are the P-38M and P38J different in range with the same drop tanks? Could it be internal fuel? The escort escorted for part of a long range mission. They had to take off, form up as a squadron or group, then form up with the bombers *wherever that was*, cruise with the bombers at a speed suitable to engage the enemy, have enough fuel to engage the enemy for 15-20 minutes and then fly home.


I meant I misread your post

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 15, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I meant I misread your post


In peacetime, with no opposition, a P-51 could take off with maximum internal and external fuel in UK, fly to Berlin, fly back to UK (but not land) then turn around and fly to Berlin again and return to UK to land. That gives an idea of how much was used in "contingency", it wasn't a question of covering a distance, but of staying with the bombers while they were covering the distance.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (May 16, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> This begs the question of why the RAF settled for 2 pitch vs constant speed in the first place, particularly in view of the last minute conversion to constant speed by DH technicians during the Battle of Britain. Hamilton Standard (which DH had the licence for) was making CS units well before the war. In fact Rotol used modified Hamilton Standard control units for their CS propellers.



Constant speed props require a governor and a govenor drive pad - both of which early engines of many brands were NOT fitted. You can only fit a CSU to engines that have the pad (and related internal gears etc) and on some engines that required an engine modification that usually included a reduction gearbox change.


----------



## DarrenW (May 16, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Why did it take until 2012 to release the P-39N figures? I had not seen those numbers at any time before then. Excellent performance I thought. Thanks in advance.



Not to make light of the awesome achievement that is _wwiiaircraftperformance_, but sometimes the same data found there has been available to the general public for more than 50 years. For instance, the performance figures for the P-39N that you find so rare are also listed on page 447 of the very popular book, _Combat Aircraft of the World, from 1909 to the Present (_John W.R. Taylor_),_ which was first published in 1969:






They are identical to what can be found here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39N_FS-M-19-1487-A.pdf

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (May 16, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> Not to make light of the awesome achievement that is _wwiiaircraftperformance_, but sometimes the same data found there has been available to the general public for more than 50 years. For instance, the performance figures for the P-39N that you find so rare are also listed on page 447 of the very popular book, _Combat Aircraft of the World, from 1909 to the Present (_John W.R. Taylor_),_ which was first published in 1969:
> 
> View attachment 581571
> 
> ...


True, this information has been available for a while but this is totally inadequate for any type of evaluation. Only with wwiiaircraftperformance.org did we get the full report with impressive climb numbers and speeds at all altitudes. Why did it take until 2012 for release of these figures? Just asking.


----------



## drgondog (May 16, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Attached is:
> 
> View attachment 581543
> 
> ...



Good examples of Bureaucrat efficiency. The 8th AF figured all this out in April 1944, 8 months before this report.

The 110gal externals pushed range to enable escort (and Combat) by the 355th FG on May 13, 1944 - 750 mi combat radius. The group policy was to take off on LH main, with 85 gal in fuse, use 20-25 of the 85 to climb out and then switch to external tanks for the remainder of the target leg to Posnan, Poland.

When dad led the last Shuttle mission, they burned 20 of the fuse tank, before switching to 110s. They engaged over Warsaw, shooting down four 109s and then completed mission to Piryatin Ukraine. He had 8 hours in his log and he was the last to land, knowing that the guys following had less fuel. IIRC they punched the 110s nw of Belin before switching to the fuse tank.

BTW, the elevator bob weight kit was installed on all 8th AF P-51B/C and D-5 and the first production run occured for the P-51D-10-NA in July 1944 timeframe.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (May 16, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Why did it take until 2012 for release of these figures? Just asking.



Maybe my joke was a little obtuse earlier. 

I'm sure a more detailed explanation is possible but the short answer is; 'Because its not their job'.

That site is researched, edited, coded, and curated in their spare time without a dime from any of us. Not to mention the web hosting fees. 

If they want to spend the next two years of what spare time they have eating cheetos and playing nintendo instead of dealing with that site -- that's obviously completely up to them.

This clip is a wee bit harsh, but it's what comes to mind:

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sturzkampfflugzeug (May 16, 2020)

It depends on where they are escorting, what they are escorting, and when they are escorting. As you may know, flak guns were everywhere along with airfields. This was a factor in whether the aircraft would make it through enemy lines. About ten percent of US bombers are shot down. Probably a slightly higher percentage of US fighters were shot down. If a flak position was just positioned right, it could potentially ravage a whole squadron. This also depends on the aircraft formations. In 1944, flak was responsible for about 3,501 American planes being shot down, enemy fighters had about 600 less in that time. Kinda impressive, right? And scary. So, to try to answer your question, yes, and no at the exact same time.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 16, 2020)

Sturzkampfflugzeug said:


> It depends on where they are escorting, what they are escorting, and when they are escorting. As you may know, flak guns were everywhere along with airfields. This was a factor in whether the aircraft would make it through enemy lines. About ten percent of US bombers are shot down. Probably a slightly higher percentage of US fighters were shot down. If a flak position was just positioned right, it could potentially ravage a whole squadron. This also depends on the aircraft formations. In 1944, flak was responsible for about 3,501 American planes being shot down, enemy fighters had about 600 less in that time. Kinda impressive, right? And scary. So, to try to answer your question, yes, and no at the exact same time.



3500 aircraft down in 1944 makes for about 10 aircraft a day. Yes, every aircraft shot down meant a bad fate for crew members, but it was not that a great return of investment for 10000 (ten thousand) of Flak of 75mm and bigger deployed between Brittany and Berlin in 1944, and a similar number of light Flak.
IOW, not impressive vs. the numbers involved in ww2.


----------



## P-39 Expert (May 16, 2020)

Greyman said:


> Maybe my joke was a little obtuse earlier.
> 
> I'm sure a more detailed explanation is possible but the short answer is; 'Because its not their job'.
> 
> ...



Please, in no way was I disparaging that fine site or Mike Williams. At all. Just wondering where those figures had been for the last 65 years. Maybe they have the only copy.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 17, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Good examples of Bureaucrat efficiency. The 8th AF figured all this out in April 1944, 8 months before this report.
> 
> The 110gal externals pushed range to enable escort (and Combat) by the 355th FG on May 13, 1944 - 750 mi combat radius. The group policy was to take off on LH main, with 85 gal in fuse, use 20-25 of the 85 to climb out and then switch to external tanks for the remainder of the target leg to Posnan, Poland.
> 
> ...


In fairness to those bureaucrats, they were not living in the age of the internet. They may not have had the full story of what the 8th was doing. Also the mission profile would have been different, particularly in view of the much higher performance of the B-29. I think the fact that they tried to duplicate the actual missions in tests was a good thing.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 17, 2020)

MiTasol said:


> Constant speed props require a governor and a govenor drive pad - both of which early engines of many brands were NOT fitted. You can only fit a CSU to engines that have the pad (and related internal gears etc) and on some engines that required an engine modification that usually included a reduction gearbox change.


My point is that the conversion was relatively simple. DeHaviland converted every Spitfire in front line service *in the field, in 4 weeks. *In another 4 weeks they converted the Hurricanes.






The full story is told here:
Stories of the Battle of Britain 1940 – Constant-Speed Propellers — Battle of Britain | 1940 | Reference | Spitfire Mk. I

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 17, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> In fairness to those bureaucrats, they were not living in the age of the internet. They may not have had the full story of what the 8th was doing. Also the mission profile would have been different, particularly in view of the much higher performance of the B-29. I think the fact that they tried to duplicate the actual missions in tests was a good thing.



I agree on the mirror testing, but the existence of the elevator bob weight in all contemplated P-51D destined for Pacific should not have been a 'question'. That note would have been on the travelling documents for every Mustang - if installed by kit as the early -5s, or by effectivity on the T.O. Even a WW P-51B retired from combat in 1944 had the kit installed.

Notable is the fact that 90+% of all missions flown in escort of B-29s were flown with 160gal tanks.. Also notable is that the extremely long leg over water before reaching Jap fighter intercept possibility obviated complex fuel management processes. Contrast versus 8th AF where an intercept could occur after 100 miles from takeoff until well after D-Day.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 17, 2020)

drgondog said:


> I agree on the mirror testing, but the existence of the elevator bob weight in all contemplated P-51D destined for Pacific should not have been a 'question'. That note would have been on the travelling documents for every Mustang - if installed by kit as the early -5s, or by effectivity on the T.O. Even a WW P-51B retired from combat in 1944 had the kit installed.
> 
> Notable is the fact that 90+% of all missions flown in escort of B-29s were flown with 160gal tanks.. Also notable is that the extremely long leg over water before reaching Jap fighter intercept possibility obviated complex fuel management processes. Contrast versus 8th AF where an intercept could occur after 100 miles from takeoff until well after D-Day.


Yes. One thing that I have always found intriguing is that the P51s flying B29 escort certainly violated the 70% rule of thumb. In fact they carried more fuel outside the aircraft than within. Mitigating that somewhat would be the fact that fuel consumption would be higher while carrying full drop tanks due to the extra weight and the increased drag. I know that Spitfire XIVs could carry their drop tanks into combat, did the P51s do so as well?


----------



## drgondog (May 17, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Yes. One thing that I have always found intriguing is that the P51s flying B29 escort certainly violated the 70% rule of thumb. In fact they carried more fuel outside the aircraft than within. Mitigating that somewhat would be the fact that fuel consumption would be higher while carrying full drop tanks due to the extra weight and the increased drag. I know that Spitfire XIVs could carry their drop tanks into combat, did the P51s do so as well?


What is your source for '70%' rule of thumb? The load outs for P-38J, P-47D and P-51B were all over the place as far as external to internal fuel fractions were concerned. Simply stated they carried the largest external combat tanks available for long range tanks.

Correct on the extra drag penalty; For P-51B/D the drag penalty for optimal cruise w/110gal tank was a drop from ~300mph TAS to 260mph TAS at 25K ft altitude. The 160 gal tank was slightly more in net drag. Several posters have noted (correctly) that significant increases in external fuel capacity resulted in not so great increases in tactical radius.

During the period beginning July 1943 through May 1944, the combat tank capacity grew from 75gal to 150 gal for P-38H, (300gal internal), P-38J (300gal then 410gal) P-47D (305gal internally), P-51B (184gal then 269gal). For the P-38H w/150 gal the fraction is 1.00, for the P-38J w/150 the fraction is 73%; for the P-47D the fraction for 1x75 is 24%, with 108 it is 35%, with 150 it is 49%, for 2x150 it is 98%; For P-51B w/2x75 (no fuse tank) =81%, w/2x75 (w/fus tank) =556%, w/2x110) = 82%

The fighter pilots I knew (and read about) liked to (and did) eject their externals before engaging. That said my father shout down two 109s with a stuck 110 that wouldn't punch off. This was about 50mi ene of Berlin and he continued on to Stettin before turning back for home. Landed at Manston due to the drag of the empty tank.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (May 17, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Please, in no way was I disparaging that fine site or Mike Williams. At all. Just wondering where those figures had been for the last 65 years. Maybe they have the only copy.



Ah, I get you. Sorry for the inference. In terms of releasing old material like this I think the bottleneck is more at the very small numbers of people organizing and labeling the material for release. There's mountains of stuff and often it's just archive/museum volunteers going through it and indexing it properly for us to eventually find.

That would be the second bottleneck; one of us eventually coming across it. Sometimes made all the more difficult by mislabeling or typo errors.


----------



## MiTasol (May 17, 2020)

Greyman said:


> Ah, I get you. Sorry for the inference. In terms of releasing old material like this I think the bottleneck is more at the very small numbers of people organizing and labeling the material for release. There's mountains of stuff and often it's just archive/museum volunteers going through it and indexing it properly for us to eventually find.
> 
> That would be the second bottleneck; one of us eventually coming across it. Sometimes made all the more difficult by mislabeling or typo errors.



A further factor is that much of the material was microfilmed and you get it now as a PDF and the quality ranges from fantastic to like this page (from George Kenney's diary from Feb 1942) to unreadable. And there are 8 Kenney diaries with hundreds of pages each. You can find a roll of 2000 pages with 20 on the subject you are researching but the index is useless because of either errors in the frame index (common) and/or when they digitized they did not include blank pages. Some records were single sided so every second page in the frame index is missing so the item the index says is on page 1400 may be anywhere from 700 on - and the microfilm frame numbers (just above DECLASSIFIED on the bottom of the page) are often unreadable so they are almost useless.






and some of the indexes are less than helpful as well

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (May 17, 2020)

Greyman said:


> Ah, I get you. Sorry for the inference. In terms of releasing old material like this I think the bottleneck is more at the very small numbers of people organizing and labeling the material for release. There's mountains of stuff and often it's just archive/museum volunteers going through it and indexing it properly for us to eventually find.
> 
> That would be the second bottleneck; one of us eventually coming across it. Sometimes made all the more difficult by mislabeling or typo errors.


Makes sense, thanks for your help. 

So, 2012 may have been the first time the public had seen the whole report? Kind of sheds a new light on the P-39.


----------



## Jimbob (May 17, 2020)

I have said this before, but, in my line of work I have met many German pilots who to a man walked by a hangar full of mustangs and stopped in front of the P-47 and said "I Hate these things. I got shot down by one of these." The Mustang has the range by far ,so it's up in the air as to which is the better fighter. I believe we needed both to achieve the bomber escort missions successfully.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 17, 2020)

Jimbob said:


> I have said this before, but, in my line of work I have met many German pilots who to a man walked by a hangar full of mustangs and stopped in front of the P-47 and said "I Hate these things. I got shot down by one of these." The Mustang has the range by far ,so it's up in the air as to which is the better fighter. I believe we needed both to achieve the bomber escort missions successfully.



True - that said, there were a lot more shot down by Mustangs that didn't get to walk by a hangar of Mustangs because they were dead.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (May 17, 2020)

I wonder if -- among its many laudable allocates -- the Mustang can claim the lurid honour of gunning the most chutes in WWII.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 18, 2020)

Greyman said:


> I wonder if -- among its many laudable allocates -- the Mustang can claim the lurid honour of gunning the most chutes in WWII.


By and large Allied pilots were the least likely to shoot a downed airman in the silk.

It did happen on occasion (PTO excluded) because of circumstances of passion, but I certainly would not say that the mustang (or Spitfire, Thunderbolt, Typhoon, Lightning, Hurricane, et al) has any distinction for such a thing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (May 18, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I know that Spitfire XIVs could carry their drop tanks into combat, did the P51s do so as well?



I've read accounts were USN pilots would engage Japanese fighters without dropping tanks (and on occasion even bombs), that's the level of performance they held over their Japanese counterparts late in the war. I'm sure things were quite different in the ETO where performance envelopes were much closer.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jun 1, 2020)

I really enjoyed watching this recent video posted on _Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles_, as it really gets down to the nuts and bolts concerning the Thunderbolt's range performance. I want to know what all of you think of his revelations.

I have a ton of respect for this guy and want to make clear up front that it's not my intention to find fault with his calculations. From my perspective he covers things pretty effectively and uses sound reasoning when coming up with his statistics.

Of course I don't have nearly the knowledge on the subject as some of you here so any miscalculations which _may_ exist in the video would most certainly go unnoticed by me. ENJOY!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 1, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> ...
> Of course I don't have nearly the knowledge on the subject as some of you here so any miscalculations which _may_ exist in the video would most certainly go unnoticed by me. ENJOY!



Unfortunately, there are some important miscalculations in the video. The 1st is that Greg mixes the 200 gal 'cow udder', slipper ferry tank with a 'drop tank of 200 gals'. The only 200 gal drop tank, besides what was produced by Ford of Australia, was that ferry tank. It could not be pressurized - a major problem if one intends to use it at high altitudes, where it was needed.
He also states several times that 2300 HP, achieved via water injection, was available in mid 1943 - not the case, the 1st WI kits were in use by December of 1943 (January 1944?) in the ETO. The power levels used in 1943 for radius calculations were 5 min military power, 15 min max continuous.
There was no P-47B in ETO service, unlike it was mentioned in video (~33 min mark).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 1, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Unfortunately, there are some important miscalculations in the video. The 1st is that Greg mixes the 200 gal 'cow udder', slipper ferry tank with a 'drop tank of 200 gals'. The only 200 gal drop tank, besides what was produced by Ford of Australia, was that ferry tank. It could not be pressurized - a major problem if one intends to use it at high altitudes, where it was needed.
> He also states several times that 2300 HP, achieved via water injection, was available in mid 1943 - not the case, the 1st WI kits were in use by December of 1943 (January 1944?) in the ETO. The power levels used in 1943 for radius calculations were 5 min military power, 15 min max continuous.
> There was no P-47B in ETO service, unlike it was mentioned in video (~33 min mark).


How do you feel about his belief that the 8th AF mislead the higher ups about the need for escort?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 1, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> How do you feel about his belief that the 8th AF mislead the higher ups about the need for escort?



The higher-ups misled the 8th AF (and other AFs) about the need for escort, not the other way around. Granted, the 8t AF brass made a number of bad calls wrt. the need for supplying the P-47s (their predominant fighter in the ETO from Spring to the Winter of 1943) once the need for escorts dawned on them. 
Contrary to them, the 5th AF commander, Gen. Kenney, was instrumental in getting the metal 200 gal 'flat' tank for 'his' P-47s, pronto; those were manufactured by Ford in Brisbane, Australia.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jun 1, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> The 1st is that Greg mixes the 200 gal 'cow udder', slipper ferry tank with a 'drop tank of 200 gals'. The only 200 gal drop tank, besides what was produced by Ford of Australia, was that ferry tank. It could not be pressurized - a major problem if one intends to use it at high altitudes, where it was needed.



Yeah I remember that discussion too but thought that there possibly was 'another' 200 gallon tank used in the ETO that I was unaware of. Thanks Tomo for clearing that up for me.

The "official" range charts from September 1943 he was relying on (10:20 mark in video) looked similar to those presented by Reluctant Poster earlier in this thread. Are those then the most accurate regarding range determinations for escort duty? He thoroughly bashed the more commonly found range charts as overly optimistic and people here on the forum tend to agree. If they are indeed correct then the P-47D with 305 gallons of internal fuel and 108 gallon belly tank had a maximum escort radius of about 300 miles. 

A big point that he was trying to make throughout the video is that even though the the P-51 was statically the superior escort fighter of the two (greater range while using far less fuel), the P-47D could be relied upon for escort duty too as it still had ample range (which steadily evolved by increasing internal fuel and mounting larger/more external tanks), thus it was an excellent alternative to the Mustang right up to the EOW.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 1, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> The "official" range charts from September 1943 he was relying on (10:20 mark in video) looked similar to those presented by Reluctant Poster earlier in this thread. Are those then the most accurate regarding range determinations for escort duty? He thoroughly bashed the more commonly found range charts as overly optimistic and people here on the forum tend to agree. If they are indeed correct then the P-47D with 305 gallons of internal fuel and 108 gallon belly tank had a maximum escort radius of about 300 miles.



Let's recall that power settings used during the best part of 1943 were lower than what was used once WI kits were introduced, and R-2800s were allowed for 15min for military power vs. just 5 min in 1943. Lower power settings = better mileage. So IMO the 375 mile radius for 305+110 gals was probably true for 1943, while it might not be true in 1944.



> A big point that he was trying to make throughout the video is that even though the the P-51 was statically the superior escort fighter of the two (greater range while using far less fuel), the P-47D could be relied upon for escort duty too as it still had ample range (which steadily evolved by increasing internal fuel and mounting larger/more external tanks), thus it was an excellent alternative to the Mustang right up to the EOW.



The 'razorback' P-47 with two drop tanks would've been great in 1943 - talk perhaps 450-500 mile radius. Unfortunately, such P-47s were not ordered by the costumer. And when those arrived in ETO, the P-51B/C was established as the LR escort fighter, with track record. 
The 'bubbletop' P-47s, with internal fuel increased to 370 gals, were late in the same vein.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 1, 2020)

The manufacturers (Allison & PW) increased the combat power limit from 5 minutes to 15 minutes in mid-1942.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 1, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> The manufacturers (Allison & PW) increased the combat power limit from 5 minutes to 15 minutes in mid-1942.



The manual for the P-47B, C, D and G, dated January 20th 1943, notes 5 min limit for military power.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> I really enjoyed watching this recent video posted on _Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles_, as it really gets down to the nuts and bolts concerning the Thunderbolt's range performance. I want to know what all of you think of his revelations.
> 
> I have a ton of respect for this guy and want to make clear up front that it's not my intention to find fault with his calculations. From my perspective he covers things pretty effectively and uses sound reasoning when coming up with his statistics.
> 
> Of course I don't have nearly the knowledge on the subject as some of you here so any miscalculations which _may_ exist in the video would most certainly go unnoticed by me. ENJOY!




I don't have time to finish the video in one sitting - but here are my thoughts:
There was a bomber mafia, General Arnold was part of it but he was a Skeptic that the 'bomber would also get through' beginning with the intelligence reports filtering in as early as the war in Spain. The Pursuit aircraft obviously had the upper hand. In 1939 Arnold appointed the Emmons Board to evaluate priorities for AAC Development. They came back with an escort fighter with 1500 mi range as no. 4 but he re-assigned the escort fighter as no. 1. The issue wasn't that thinking wasn't evolving - it was deemed impossible unless a twin engine fighter - and worthless as a T/E against much smaller and maneuverability of a single engine fighter. 

Materiel Command got stuck on two technical issues - a.) wedded to turbo-supercharged engines for high altitude, b.) refusal to expend research dollars to develop a 2s/2stage in-line engine. AAF-MC was central to barring the external fuel tank for combat purposes but the 1942 Arnold Conference set two high complimentary objectives for fighter escort development - a.) External self-sealing combat tanks, and b.) forcing increases to internal fuel supply. It took a long time for MC to lead development of the self sealing tank - the first 75 gal externals didn't reach 8th AF until August 1943.

Re: the P-47 range issues: I will spend more time viewing the P-47 video, but the leading variable to get you home is how much internal fuel you have remaining when you quit fighting and turn for home. The R-2800 was far more of a gas hog than either the P-51 or the P-38 . Consider that the MAXIMUM fuel available if you could take off, climb and cruise on externals 
P-47D through -23 = 305 gal
P-38 through J-10 = 300 gal, the 410gal for the P-38J-15 and subs. 210gal per engine.
P-51B w/85 gal fuse tank = 269gal = 269 gal per engine.
The total Parasite drag of the Mustang was 2/3 of the P-47/P-38

On a time phased comparison the P-47C/D with only 305g internal fuel had a Combat radius (including 20 minutes of military and 20 MP/5 combat power with WI) of 125mi.
The Mustang on 184 gal = 150mi (no internal 85 gal fuse tank)
P38 on 300 gal = 130 mi.

The 200 gal ferry tank was extremely draggy and unpressurized above 18000 feet, (reducing useful fuel to approximately 100 gallons).. it was used briefly in July 1943/Aug 1943 and extended range to approx 200 mi; with the 75 gal pressurized low drag tank = 230mi; with 1x108gal =275mi; with 1x150 =300 mi; with 2x150gal =425mi. The latter config available to only field modified P-47Ds or factor P-47D-16bthrough-23. Approximately April 1944.
The Combat radius straight line from Duxford to Berlin was approx 510mi.

By contrast the P-51B with internal 85 gal fuse tank plus 2x75 gal external tanks - 705 mi. Approximately late February 1944.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 1, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> The manual for the P-47B, C, D and G, dated January 20th 1943, notes 5 min limit for military power.


Yes, each specific engine flight chart for each engine is dated and some have revisions and revised dates. The figures for each chart may have been revised later. 

But every single Allison and PW powered plane tested in wwiiaircraftperformance.org had a 5 minute limit before June 30, 1942 and every one after that date had a 15 minute limit.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jun 1, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Let's recall that power settings used during the best part of 1943 were lower than what was used once WI kits were introduced, and R-2800s were allowed for 15min for military power vs. just 5 min in 1943. Lower power settings = better mileage. So IMO the 375 mile radius for 305+110 gals was probably true for 1943, while it might not be true in 1944.



Oh alright that makes sense. I wasn't factoring in the additional fuel used for the extended period at the higher power settings. 

IIRC he also mentions that incorporating fighter relays essentially removed the original requirement of weaving with the bomber stream which helped increased escort range as well.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jun 1, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> A big point that he was trying to make throughout the video is that even though the the P-51 was statically the superior escort fighter of the two (greater range while using far less fuel), the P-47D could be relied upon for escort duty too as it still had ample range (which steadily evolved by increasing internal fuel and mounting larger/more external tanks), thus it was an excellent alternative to the Mustang right up to the EOW.



I agree with Tomo, and I add my own thoughts below. 

While you CAN spend 1 hour arguing about fuel graphs, the simple fact was that the P51 came in and even when in tiny numbers, it began knocking down German fighters at a very notably higher rate than any other USAAF fighter.

Some snippets below sourced from Maxwell AFB Historical branch: Reel A1128.

I`ve read through a LOT of these USAAF microfilms, and I have not seen any hints at all that the P 47 was unfairly phased out. Its abundantly clear
that it was inferior in range, and not quite as well able to deal with GAF fighters as the 51.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jun 1, 2020)

drgondog said:


> I don't have time to finish the video in one sitting - but here are my thoughts:
> There was a bomber mafia, General Arnold was part of it but he was a Skeptic that the 'bomber would also get through' beginning with the intelligence reports filtering in as early as the war in Spain. The Pursuit aircraft obviously had the upper hand. In 1939 Arnold appointed the Emmons Board to evaluate priorities for AAC Development. They came back with an escort fighter with 1500 mi range as no. 4 but he re-assigned the escort fighter as no. 1. The issue wasn't that thinking wasn't evolving - it was deemed impossible unless a twin engine fighter - and worthless as a T/E against much smaller and maneuverability of a single engine fighter.
> 
> Materiel Command got stuck on two technical issues - a.) wedded to turbo-supercharged engines for high altitude, b.) refusal to expend research dollars to develop a 2s/2stage in-line engine. AAF-MC was central to barring the external fuel tank for combat purposes but the 1942 Arnold Conference set two high complimentary objectives for fighter escort development - a.) External self-sealing combat tanks, and b.) forcing increases to internal fuel supply. It took a long time for MC to lead development of the self sealing tank - the first 75 gal externals didn't reach 8th AF until August 1943.
> ...



Excellent stuff as always Bill. Thanks for spelling everything out for me in plain and simple terms.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 2, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> Excellent stuff as always Bill. Thanks for spelling everything out for me in plain and simple terms.


Darren - the number one bottleneck was the inability of AAF-MC to conceive of the feasibility of the powerful two stage/two speed supercharged engine in the late 1930's. There is evidence that Allison solicited funds from GM and were turned down primarily because the AAF would not guarantee R&D funding. Fortunately R-R had no such inhibitions.

Because the AAF-MC discounted the feasibility of the power low drag high altitude supercharged engine - the design RFP's to Arnold's prioritzing #1 a 1500 mi range escort fighter, all attention turned to large in-line engines such as the Continental, and twin engine designs capable of the fuel fractions to provide (primarily) proven radial engine technologies. The P-61 didn't start out as a Night Fighter. The XP-75 was the bastard design employing the 'go large' In line engine.

Based on my research I place the primary blame on Oliver Echols' shoulders as CO of Materiel Command from 1940 forward.

Back to the P-47C/D. Recall that both the P-47 and P-38 started life as interceptors and the fuel fractions were large enough to perform that function. In comparison however, the P-38 was positioned to better capitalize on longer range mission flexibility from late 1940 when they undertook adding pylons, reinforced wing and internal plumbing in the wing to feed pylon fuel tanks.

That said, the Mustang series beginning with 170 gallons of internal fuel (per single engine) already trumped the P-38 with 300 gallons internal fuel (150 gal per engine).

When the Barney Giles memo (Chief of Air Staff and 2nd in command to Arnold) in July 1943 to escalate priority of increasing internal fuel to Lockheed, NAA and Republic - the basic designs of the Mustang and P-38 lent themselves to major increases in prototype immediately. Additionally, due to the A-36 and P-51A designs, fuel feed, bomb rack and external fuel tank capability was in play from fall 1942. The P-38F was positioned in Spring 1942.

Unfortunately the Republic foundation design had zero provision (structurally and design space within C/D wing). That forced the two stage interim design changes which took until spring of 1944 to deliver the P-47D-16 with factory wing pylon, internal wing plumbing, and wing tank capability to add up to 300 gallons (ETO) of external fuel. Republic began issuing kits in the Fall of 1943 but the Depot mod time in ETO was many weeks to install. It took several more months before the re-designed internal mid fuselage to add 70 more gallons of INTERNAL fuel P-47D-25 arrived into operations. The first record of the -25 that I have found exist with three P-47D-25s (one flown by Zemke on May 12) in 56th FG mid May. Squadron level deployment in ETO didn't happen until well after D-Day.
More factors crippling the P-47D in contrast to P-51B. With the 85 gallon internal fuel tank, the P-51B with 75 gallon external tanks had far less pylon and tank drag than the P-47 with huge pylons and 2x150 gallon tanks. The cruise MPG for the R-2800 was at best about 3mpg at 25000 feet (Clean without pylons). The P-51B cruise MPG (clean with pylons) was 5MPG+ at 25K.

The internal fuel available when combat starts is THE factor determining Combat Radius for mission planning.

When the P-47D-25 finally arrived, it COULD have performed the same mission that the P-38H/J with external 150 gallon tanks, but no LE 55gal tanks. It could have performed a Target escort to Berlin - but by that time of squadron/group TO&E arrived, only 4 P-47D equipped FGs were left in 8th AF. 11 P-51 equipped FG were more than enough to Sweep and provide Target Escort for the 8th AF

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 2, 2020)

The two stage Allison was in production from April 1943.


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 2, 2020)

An excellent thread all the way through. My personal feeling is that yes, the Mustang was the preeminent escort fighter of the war. While late war aircraft such as the P-47N might have eclipsed the Mustang in performance their introduction were too late to affect the course of the war the way the Mustang did. This has all been stated by others earlier. I also wanted to share the attached image which popped up on my FB feed yesterday. Seemed timely to this conversation. Unfortunately, the image has a couple issues....


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 2, 2020)

Hm, a couple of things with that entry you've copied there, Nevada - nothing you've done of course; firstly, that's not a P-51, it's a Mustang I and I'm willing to bet that wasn't taken in 1944, more like late 1941 early 1942. The background is fake, and the Mustang has half of its elevator surface area, and its rotating propellers are painted on!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 3, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Hm, a couple of things with that entry you've copied there, Nevada - nothing you've done of course; firstly, that's not a P-51, it's a Mustang I and I'm willing to bet that wasn't taken in 1944, more like late 1941 early 1942. The background is fake, and the Mustang has half of its elevator surface area, and its rotating propellers are painted on!


Hi nuuumannn,
Agreed, the image has all sorts of issues! It looks like a propaganda shot for use in publications celebrating the RAF's newest fighter. It was pretty common to tweak images like this during the war, either to hide a design detail or just make it look more photogenic. I posted the screen shot more for the Atomic Testing Museum's P-51 factoid than the image. 

Thanks!

Kk

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tengu1979 (Jun 3, 2020)

In the late part of the war definately P-51 was the superlative escort fighter. Definately better firepower than Yak-9DD had. But for the early part I would go with Zero. More than decent compromise for Speed, Firepower and Range to provide support in places where there shouldnt be any.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> An excellent thread all the way through. My personal feeling is that yes, the Mustang was the preeminent escort fighter of the war. While late war aircraft such as the P-47N might have eclipsed the Mustang in performance their introduction were too late to affect the course of the war the way the Mustang did. This has all been stated by others earlier. I also wanted to share the attached image which popped up on my FB feed yesterday. Seemed timely to this conversation. Unfortunately, the image has a couple issues....
> View attachment 583672


It is NA-73 Mustang I AG348 with short carb scoop. The carb scoop was changed and AG348 was shipped to UK via panama canal approx. July 1941.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jun 5, 2020)

I'm going to be the devils advocate and say the only reason the P51 could fly long range escort missions was because the Spitfires Typhoons and Tempests of the 2TAF and Thunderbolts of the US Eighth AF pushed the depleted remnants of the Luftwaffe back across the European continent to the point that venturing outside the German border was impossible, Galland I believe said that exact thing. In the Pacific the same, the Japanese were in an even worst situation having neither the planes nor pilots or command or control to mount anything in the way of an organised defense, having a storm responsible for the P51's worst loss's backs that up. As much as I admire the P 51 it was the glamour girl of the war, every book video or movie of the air war in WW2 shows ''D'' series 'stangs with twin drop tanks flying across Europe blasting Fw's and Me's out of the sky, that could only happen because of the four years of heavy lifting by other Allied aircraft

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 5, 2020)

The thing is the other aircraft could not fly the distances needed for the long escort missions even with the the Luftwaffe pushed back. 
It was also never intended (or actually done) for one group of fighters (P-51s) to accompany the bombers all the way to the target and back home again. 
They always planned to use groups of fighters operating in relays to escort the bombers and in fact some of the other fighter types were used as entry escorts or exit escorts leaving the Mustangs as the escorts on the deep penetration part of the missions. 

Your theory also does not explain how or why the fighter groups equipped with Mustangs ran up such large kill to loss ratios almost from the time they started flying Mustangs and a number of them were converting from P-47s. Same pilots, same missions, timing is off by only a few weeks (or 4--8 weeks). Was the Luftwaffe that much more badly beat up by the other planes in such a short period of time?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jun 6, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Your theory also does not explain how or why the fighter groups equipped with Mustangs ran up such large kill to loss ratios



It fought against obsolete and or poorly manufactured planes in both Europe and in the Pacific flown by pilots with minimal flight hours and experience, you could argue many German/Japanese pilots flying from 1944 were nothing but cannon fodder. The P 51 was the best escort fighter of the war in my opinion but only because it made good use of the situation it found itself in, nothing more.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 6, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> It fought against obsolete and or poorly manufactured planes in both Europe and in the Pacific flown by pilots with minimal flight hours and experience, you could argue many German/Japanese pilots flying from 1944 were nothing but cannon fodder. The P 51 was the best escort fighter of the war in my opinion but only because it made good use of the situation it found itself in, nothing more.


Was the opposition (both Luftwaffe and Japan) diminished by the time the Merlin Mustang got into combat? Sure.

Was the P-51 the best FIGHTER of the war? Absolutely. All that internal fuel and still faster and better climb at all altitudes. And no real weaknesses. Able to fly unheard of distances and defeat smaller point defense interceptors over their own territory. 

And the Luftwaffe was not that diminished in late '43. They had just soundly defeated the 8th AF in their two long range missions to Schweinfurt. 

Could the P-38 and P-47 win air superiority over Europe in time for the invasion by themselves? Maybe. Could the Mustang have done it by themselves? Certainly if available in the same numbers. 

The Spitfire was a great plane if their opponent was the English Channel and the low countries.


----------



## Denniss (Jun 6, 2020)

Like the Panther tank on the ground the P-51 was the best mix of desired combat abilities for a fighter aircraft.
But in my opinion the credit for depleting the Luftwaffe by killing lots of experienced pilots during the critical phase of late 43 to early 44 goes to the P-47.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 6, 2020)

Denniss said:


> Like the Panther tank on the ground the P-51 was the best mix of desired combat abilities for a fighter aircraft.
> But in my opinion the credit for depleting the Luftwaffe by killing lots of experienced pilots during the critical phase of late 43 to early 44 goes to the P-47.


Only because the P-51 was not there yet in '43 and in vastly fewer numbers in early '44. Mustang was better, just as fast and much better climb. And you weren't going to Berlin in a Thunderbolt.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 6, 2020)

As a long range escort, I agree


P-39 Expert said:


> Only because the P-51 was not there yet in '43 and in vastly fewer numbers in early '44. Mustang was better, just as fast and much better climb. And you weren't going to Berlin in a Thunderbolt.


Theoretically, you could get to Berlin in a late model P-47D with teardrop canopy, but you needed both underwing and fuselage drop tanks and the Jug was a real gas guzzler. It was better to use the Mustang.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 6, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> I'm going to be the devils advocate and say the only reason the P51 could fly long range escort missions was because the Spitfires Typhoons and Tempests of the 2TAF and Thunderbolts of the US Eighth AF pushed the depleted remnants of the Luftwaffe back across the European continent to the point that venturing outside the German border was impossible, Galland I believe said that exact thing. In the Pacific the same, the Japanese were in an even worst situation having neither the planes nor pilots or command or control to mount anything in the way of an organised defense, having a storm responsible for the P51's worst loss's backs that up. As much as I admire the P 51 it was the glamour girl of the war, every book video or movie of the air war in WW2 shows ''D'' series 'stangs with twin drop tanks flying across Europe blasting Fw's and Me's out of the sky, that could only happen because of the four years of heavy lifting by other Allied aircraft


Nice try but the thesis that 2TAF pushed the "depleted Luftwaffe back across the continent", is badly flawed. LuftFlotte 3 was the sword that was assigned and defended defense of the Kanalfront and was never pushed out until France was over run. Lwbh Mitte, then LuftFlotte Reich was the large unit with the rest of the western defense of Germany forces primarily from German Border east and north and south of Germany.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 6, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> I'm going to be the devils advocate and say the only reason the P51 could fly long range escort missions was because the Spitfires Typhoons and Tempests of the 2TAF and Thunderbolts of the US Eighth AF pushed the depleted remnants of the Luftwaffe back across the European continent to the point that venturing outside the German border was impossible, Galland I believe said that exact thing. In the Pacific the same, the Japanese were in an even worst situation having neither the planes nor pilots or command or control to mount anything in the way of an organised defense, having a storm responsible for the P51's worst loss's backs that up. As much as I admire the P 51 it was the glamour girl of the war, every book video or movie of the air war in WW2 shows ''D'' series 'stangs with twin drop tanks flying across Europe blasting Fw's and Me's out of the sky, that could only happen because of the four years of heavy lifting by other Allied aircraft


I always love a good contrarian argument. You are correct, the Mustang is _one_ of the glamour girls of the war, just as the spitfire, mosquito, lancaster, b-17, thunderbolt and a couple others hold mythic status. Did the Mustang arrive a little later in the war than the P-47 and Spitfire? Without a doubt. That doesn't change the fact that it was the best escort fighter of the war on the simple fact that the Mustang took the fight where the other fighters couldn't. Since a lot of credence is given to Eric Brown on such issues here are his thoughts on the Mustang:

Chief Naval Test Pilot *Eric Brown,* tested the Mustang at RAE Farnborough in March 1944 and noted, _"The Mustang was a good fighter and the best escort due to its incredible range, make no mistake about it. It was also the best American dogfighter. But the laminar flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky. It could not by any means out-turn a Spitfire. No way. It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problem was I wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire!"_

I do think the argument that the air war in Europe was pretty much over and Mustangs were just mopping up is incorrect. (disclaimer: I'm not a historian and I'm sure that I'm getting stuff wrong in this next part) My understanding is that there was redistribution of LW fighter strengths and types following USAAF bombing raids in 1943 to better enable the LW to attack the bomber streams once they had passed beyond the range of existing escort fighters. This seems like a sensible adjustment. On the other hand, the Luftwaffe still existed in strength in France and fully defended the continent. This can be seen in the USAAF/RAF pre-D-Day assessments that the the Luftwaffe controlled the air in early 1944. The USAAF/RAF campaign to establish air superiority over Europe (Big Week/Operation Argument) began in February 1944. One factor in the timing of Big Week was the activation of sufficient numbers of P-51's. Without Big Week, the Transport Plan has a more difficult execution also affecting the Normandy Landing. 

Was the P-51 the only fighter involved in Big Week? No, of course not. But, it was the plane that planners were depending on. Had the air war over France been determined by the time the P-51 arrived? No, as can be seen in the change in operations by the USAAF in the Fall of 1943. Is the Mustang a popular cultural icon? Yes, but so is the Spitfire among others. That shouldn't be something that is held against it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 6, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> I'm going to be the devils advocate and say the only reason the P51 could fly long range escort missions was because the Spitfires Typhoons and Tempests of the 2TAF and Thunderbolts of the US Eighth AF pushed the depleted remnants of the Luftwaffe back across the European continent to the point that venturing outside the German border was impossible, Galland I believe said that exact thing. In the Pacific the same, the Japanese were in an even worst situation having neither the planes nor pilots or command or control to mount anything in the way of an organised defense, having a storm responsible for the P51's worst loss's backs that up. As much as I admire the P 51 it was the glamour girl of the war, every book video or movie of the air war in WW2 shows ''D'' series 'stangs with twin drop tanks flying across Europe blasting Fw's and Me's out of the sky, that could only happen because of the four years of heavy lifting by other Allied aircraft


On an aviation forum it is very easy to make aviation the air battles the most important. In fact it was a military conflict, the allies used their air power to ensure that the war on the ground and on the sea was won. A large part was destroying the LW as much as possible on the air and the ground, but there were other parts, attacking oil supplies, the "transport plan", destroying defences in Normandy and destroying more defences away from Normandy so that Normandy wasn't seen as the obvious landing place. The problem for the LW was it wasn't a question P-51 or P-47 or even P-38 and Typhoon/Tempest because they had all of them to contend with. Some units re equipped with P-51s but others re equipped with longer range p-47s and some switched role to ground attack. I recently posted the history from Wiki of LW airfields in Belgium and Netherlands, few were hit by major raids by "heavies" but there were many attacks by P-47s initially fighters shooting them up on the way home then later as fighter bombers or escorting less glamorous raids with medium bombers. There is no doubt in my mind that the P-51 was the best long range escort, and so was best at forcing the LW into the air or hitting it on the ground, but all others played a part.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jun 6, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Nice try but the thesis that 2TAF pushed the "depleted Luftwaffe back across the continent", is badly flawed. LuftFlotte 3 was the sword that was assigned and defended defense of the Kanalfront and was never pushed out until France was over run. Lwbh Mitte, then LuftFlotte Reich was the large unit with the rest of the western defense of Germany forces primarily from German Border east and north and south of Germany.



LuftFlotte 3 was brutalized leading up to D Day, all it's facilities airfields and aircraft were rendered unusable, it was reinforced the week following the invasion but could not mount any kind of worthwhile offensive or defensive operations, to make matters worse, a number of it's Flak batteries were moved East to protect hydrogenation plants. The RAF and Eighth AF fought a war of attrition over France, the RAF focused on the Channel coast, 2nd TAF and Eighth AF inland. As quoted in The rise and fall of the German Air force, the Luftwaffe over France by August 1944 was an utterly spent force.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jun 6, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Only because the P-51 was not there yet in '43 and in vastly fewer numbers in early '44. Mustang was better, just as fast and much better climb. And you weren't going to Berlin in a Thunderbolt.



You just supported my argument, was the P 51 the best escort fighter of the war, absolutely yes, could it have done what it did before 1943 if hypothetically it was available, absolutely not.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 6, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> You just supported my argument, was the P 51 the best escort fighter of the war, absolutely yes, could it have done what it did before 1943 if hypothetically it was available, absolutely not.


The Mustang does have a competitor for the best escort fighter, one that was designed to be an escort fighter from the beginning, the Yak series of fighters. Not designed to escort heavy bombers, but attack aircraft.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 6, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The rise and fall of the German Air force, the Luftwaffe over France by August 1944 was an utterly spent force.



I wonder what allied aircraft was in use over Europe leading up to August 1944.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 7, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> LuftFlotte 3 was brutalized leading up to D Day, all it's facilities airfields and aircraft were rendered unusable, it was reinforced the week following the invasion but could not mount any kind of worthwhile offensive or defensive operations, to make matters worse, a number of it's Flak batteries were moved East to protect hydrogenation plants. The RAF and Eighth AF fought a war of attrition over France, the RAF focused on the Channel coast, 2nd TAF and Eighth AF inland. As quoted in The rise and fall of the German Air force, the Luftwaffe over France by August 1944 was an utterly spent force.


By August 1944 the same could be said for most of the German military, they were in retreat in the east, in Italy and south of France. It is less than 250 miles from Falaise to the Belgian border and all within reach of air forces based in UK and N France.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 7, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> As a long range escort, I agree
> 
> Theoretically, you could get to Berlin in a late model P-47D with teardrop canopy, but you needed both underwing and fuselage drop tanks and the Jug was a real gas guzzler. It was better to use the Mustang.


The teardrop canopy P-47s arrived too late for the battle for air supremacy over Europe.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jun 7, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> The Mustang does have a competitor for the best escort fighter, one that was designed to be an escort fighter from the beginning, the Yak series of fighters. Not designed to escort heavy bombers, but attack aircraft.


The only info I could find was that the Yak 3, an apparently very good dog fighter, did not have very good range compared to the P-51 and lower ceiling. Its light weight would question its armor protection. An interesting series on youtube titled The Attackers, which is based on front line aerodrome flying Yak 3s has the pilots complaining that the Bf 109s had armor seats, implying that the Yaks did not. I enjoyed the series which is a mishmash of combat and romance but shows what a combat squadron of Russian Yak 3s was like, at least from a Russian point of view. I would rate the Yak 3 as a very good low level, short range, tactical escort but not a strategic escort.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 7, 2020)

Tier 1 of the escort fighters was represented by Merlin Mustangs, P-38s and 'bubbletop' P-47s. Earlier in the war - Zero, Ki-61.
Tier 2 - other fighters outfitted with drop tanks.
Tier 3 - other fighters not outfitted with drop tanks. Here the Soviet fighters belong.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 7, 2020)

Wow! 28 pages, which I haven't read in their entirety.

I'd give a one word answer....Yes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jun 7, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> You just supported my argument, was the P 51 the best escort fighter of the war, absolutely yes, could it have done what it did before 1943 if hypothetically it was available, absolutely not.



====================================

Göring in long rant about how he cant even bomb Glasgow precedes this:
Galland replies immdiatey after:

Galland:
"I must say, in a Mustang - thats how you can do it."
ORIGINAL: (In einer Mustang! - muss man, dann auch sagen.)

Erhard Milch:
"The Mustang is in another class altogether"
ORIGINAL: (Der Mustang liegt in einer anderen Klasse.)
====================================

RLM stenographic records, 23rd May 1944, 11am.
(35mm microfilm from IWM London, Vol 64, Frame 6965)

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 7, 2020)

Thank you, Calum. Have some bacon

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 7, 2020)

davparlr said:


> The only info I could find was that the Yak 3, an apparently very good dog fighter, did not have very good range compared to the P-51 and lower ceiling. Its light weight would question its armor protection. An interesting series on youtube titled The Attackers, which is based on front line aerodrome flying Yak 3s has the pilots complaining that the Bf 109s had armor seats, implying that the Yaks did not. I enjoyed the series which is a mishmash of combat and romance but shows what a combat squadron of Russian Yak 3s was like, at least from a Russian point of view. I would rate the Yak 3 as a very good low level, short range, tactical escort but not a strategic escort.


I think you'll find the Yak is the only Allied fighter actually designed from the start as an escort fighter.


----------



## Dimlee (Jun 7, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> The Mustang does have a competitor for the best escort fighter, one that was designed to be an escort fighter from the beginning, the Yak series of fighters. Not designed to escort heavy bombers, but attack aircraft.



In the WWII Yak fighter series, only Yak-9D and Yak-9DD were designed as escort fighters from the beginning.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 7, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> In the WWII Yak fighter series, only Yak-9D and Yak-9DD were designed as escort fighters from the beginning.


They were designed as escorts from the beginning, light weight, light armament, highly manoeuvrable. The Yak-9D/DD just had longer range.


----------



## Dimlee (Jun 7, 2020)

davparlr said:


> I would rate the Yak 3 as a very good low level, short range, tactical escort but not a strategic escort.



Yak-3 was not an escort by design. It was used as an escort occasionally, when required, like all other Soviet fighters. But it was not well prepared for such missions due to the short range and primitive radio and navigation equipment.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 7, 2020)

The I-26, which begat the Yak-1 was designed as "....a front-line (tactical) fighter, for low and medium altitudes....". "Yakovlev's Piston-Engined Fighters" Gordon & Khazanov

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Jun 7, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> They were designed as escorts from the beginning, light weight, light armament, highly manoeuvrable. The Yak-9D/DD just had longer range.



Yakovlev tried to design the fighter which could oppose Bf 109 and to win the air dominance. Specialized "escort" fighters were designed by others and they were twin-engined in accordance with the pre-war doctrine. For the single-engined fighter, the escort duty was just a part of the job and not the most important.
When VVS gained more experience they began to develop tactical methods for various types. So, eventually, lighter Yak-1/1b/7 were found to be better for an escort at short range, La-5 - at longer range, P-39 was used as a "strike fighter" in more tactically advanced units as under Pokryshkin's command, etc.
Yak-9D was the first (and not very successful) attempt to overcome the disadvantage of Yaks in the range. Yakovlev was under a constant barrage of critics from the VVS and the Army. Yak-9DD became the better version and the first real, well thought, and suitably equipped, single-engined escort fighter of VVS which could follow Tu-2 and lend leased bombers in their "long" (by VVS standards) raids.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 7, 2020)

Was any aircraft designed as long range escort? The P-51 certainly wasn't. The Mosquito wasn't designed as a night fighter either. The B-24 and Wellington weren't designed for maritime recon or all the other roles they were crowbarred into. The war threw up roles that had not been previously considered, one of those was bomber escort.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 7, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> The Mustang does have a competitor for the best escort fighter, one that was designed to be an escort fighter from the beginning, the Yak series of fighters. Not designed to escort heavy bombers, but* attack aircraft*.



In which case just about every major air force had escort fighters. P-39s and P-40s were intended to escort A-20s and/or A-24s. French fighters were intended to escort French Attack aircraft the 109 was designed to escort Ju -87s and so on. Any nation with attack aircraft expected their fighters to escort said attack aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jun 7, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> ====================================
> 
> Göring in long rant about how he cant even bomb Glasgow precedes this:
> Galland replies immdiatey after:
> ...



After the war Galland also said he would have counted the P51 by hitting them as early as possible forcing them to drop their tanks, which did actually happen on the first escort missions. Don't get me wrong, I believe the P 51 was the best escort fighter of the war, what I don't believe is all the hype around it defeating the Luftwaffe, it delivered the coupe de gras, nothing more.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 7, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> After the war Galland also said he would have counted the P51 by hitting them as early as possible forcing them to drop their tanks, which did actually happen on the first escort missions. Don't get me wrong, I believe the P 51 was the best escort fighter of the war, what I don't believe is all the hype around it defeating the Luftwaffe, it delivered the coupe de gras, nothing more.


That is the obvious thing to do if you have the aircraft to do it. The Luftwaffe didn't have the planes or pilots to execute that strategy, to meet all attacks with similar numbers all around the air space Germany controlled would need thousands of fighters and pilots and all the other "stuff".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jun 7, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> After the war Galland also said he would have counted the P51 by hitting them as early as possible forcing them to drop their tanks, which did actually happen on the first escort missions. Don't get me wrong, I believe the P 51 was the best escort fighter of the war, what I don't believe is all the hype around it defeating the Luftwaffe, it delivered the coupe de gras, nothing more.



What gets me is when you spend 20minuites digging through microfilm, to provide an ACTUAL wartime spoken word quote about a plane, from someone there at the time, and you post it, and the response is "hype".

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 7, 2020)

By April 30th 1944 the 4th fighter group of the 8th AF has a score of 500 E/A claimed destroyed, 222 of those in April alone, the 355th Ftr. Grp, h/as 153 claims as of that date and the newly operational 352nd Group ans 140 E/A claimed by the end of of April. 

On May 8th the 352nd fighter group claims 27 E/A for the loss of one P-51. 

Now either the tactical fighter planes have beaten the crap out of the luftwaffe well before D-day or there is something wrong with the story that the P-51s just showed up in time to steal the glory of the other airplanes and only fought an already defeated Luftwaffe. 
The other aircraft did make a significant contribution but the Mustangs were in some hard fighting in the winter and spring of 1944.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 8, 2020)

pbehn said:


> That is the obvious thing to do if you have the aircraft to do it. The Luftwaffe didn't have the planes or pilots to execute that strategy, to meet all attacks with similar numbers all around the air space Germany controlled would need thousands of fighters and pilots and all the other "stuff".



I don't remember whom of the senior German officials said it nor the exact quote, but the gist was that the Jagwaffe needed 4 fighters for every US heavy bomber if they were to defeat the American day bombing campaign. This was in mid '43, when the 8th AF raids consisted of around 200 machines and before there were any long range escorts.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 8, 2020)

Stig1207 said:


> I don't remember whom of the senior German officials said it nor the exact quote, but the gist was that the Jagwaffe needed 4 fighters for every US heavy bomber if they were to defeat the American day bombing campaign. This was in mid '43, when the 8th AF raids consisted of around 200 machines and before there were any long range escorts.


Its a fair calculation if you want to stop an attack along all the coast Germany had to defend.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 8, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> ====================================
> 
> Göring in long rant about how he cant even bomb Glasgow precedes this:
> Galland replies immdiatey after:
> ...


You gotta have some sympathy for Galland. Having to explain why a Me 109 cant fly from France to Glasgow and back to the man who had been in charge of German aviation since 1933.


----------



## Dimlee (Jun 8, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Was any aircraft designed as long range escort? The P-51 certainly wasn't. The Mosquito wasn't designed as a night fighter either. The B-24 and Wellington weren't designed for maritime recon or all the other roles they were crowbarred into. The war threw up roles that had not been previously considered, one of those was bomber escort.



In the USSR, they were. Several aircraft were designed according to the concept of "Istrebitel Soprovozhdeniya"(literally, escort fighter)
Some were modifications of existing twin-engined aircraft: DI-8(ANT-46), Mi-3(ANT-21) and Mi-3D(ANT-21bis) by Tupolev and DB-3SS by Ilyushin.
Designed as escort fighters from scratch: G-38(LK-2) by Grokhovsky, DG-56(LK-3) by Grigorovich, TIS by Polikarpov, Gr-1(IDS) by Grushin, IS by Kurbala, MiG-5 (DIS-200, DIS-2AM37) by Mikoyan and Gurevich. 
DB-3SS was built in very small numbers (allegedly, according to some authors). Gr-1 was a mockup only. Others - several prototypes.

Wiki says that Tairov made his Ta-3 (Ta-1, OKO-6) as an escort fighter. But I failed to find any confirmation of that. According to Russian language sources, it was designed as a fighter-_shturmovik_ - a combination of the interceptor and the "tank buster".

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 9, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Its a fair calculation if you want to stop an attack along all the coast Germany had to defend.



To *stop an attack *being the salient point; inflicting such heavy losses that the bombers were prevented from fulfilling their mission. With the number of fighters available the defenders could inflict heavy losses on the 8th airforce, but the bombers still got through and bombed their targets.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 9, 2020)

Stig1207 said:


> To *stop an attack *being the salient point; inflicting such heavy losses that the bombers were prevented from fulfilling their mission. With the number of fighters available the defenders could inflict heavy losses on the 8th airforce, but the bombers still got through and bombed their targets.


Yes, the bombers did get through but the loss rate was unsustainable and led to the suspension of strategic bombing until the arrival of long range escort fighters.


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 9, 2020)

Having followed this thread from the beginning, I don't recall any discussion regarding what makes a good escort fighter. Here are my thoughts put together from a bunch of other threads and readings:

1. *Endurance* (not just range, but the ability to fly escort patterns, how long can it remain engaged in combat)
2. *Endurance after Engaging the Enemy* (I don't think this is thought about much, but if an aircraft relies on drop tanks for endurance how much capacity does it have to fight and return after they have been dropped)
3. *Speed to Engage* (The ability to gain a tactical position and put the enemy at a disadvantage, This isn't maximum WEP speed but how rapidly can the plane move efficiently to engage an enemy prior to the enemy attacking the bomber stream)
4. *Tactical Advantage at Altitude *(Does the plane perform better than the opponent at the altitude of engagement, bomber stream level and above)
5. *Tactical Advantage Below Altitude *(Does the aircraft perform better than the opponent at lower levels as conflicts tended to lose altitude during engagement)
6. *Ability to Return to Engagement *(How long does it take a given aircraft to return to the altitude and location of the bomber stream)

Those are just my thoughts on this. I'm sure some of you have a better way to think about it. As for the P-47, P-51, Yak-9DD debate I'm sure there are arguments for each to be considered best.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 9, 2020)

I have a question regarding the best of the best. 
Which aircraft was the most comfortable? How many hours in a cramped cockpit can a pilot take and not lose the edge? Which “smallest possible airframe with the largest possible engine” was the least pain inflicting? 
We talk hp to weight ratio, range, time to altitude, etc but how effective is the pilot after a 350 mile trip just to get to battle?
The Japanese ace Saburo Sakai was nearly shot down after attacking planes he thought didn’t have rear facing guns. I always thought that had to come from fatigue. 
Then again they probably all sucked.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 9, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> I have a question regarding the best of the best.
> Which aircraft was the most comfortable? How many hours in a cramped cockpit can a pilot take and not lose the edge? Which “smallest possible airframe with the largest possible engine” was the least pain inflicting?
> We talk hp to weight ratio, range, time to altitude, etc but how effective is the pilot after a 350 mile trip just to get to battle?
> The Japanese ace Saburo Sakai was nearly shot down after attacking planes he thought didn’t have rear facing guns. I always thought that had to come from fatigue.
> Then again they probably all sucked.


 Greetings SaparotRob,

I think that is a great comment. Here is a link to a discussion regarding the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference. It is worth scrolling through and some of the ratings are surprising. For instance, the P-47 wins for most comfortable cockpit but finishes well down in best overall cockpit. FWIW, I haven't read the entire report, but several excerpts and summations. 

REPORT OF JOINT FIGHTER CONFERENCE

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 9, 2020)

To paraphrase a myth or not, it was said that if a P-47 pilot wanted to avoid enemy gun-fire he would unbuckle his seat harness and run around the cockpit

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 9, 2020)

Thanks NevadaK, that was eye opening. I guess the P-47N was the best. The P51-D, however, was the one that was one on the scene when it counted.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 10, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Yes, the bombers did get through but the loss rate was unsustainable and led to the suspension of strategic bombing until the arrival of long range escort fighters.



Agreed, but that is from the American viewpoint, and why the P-51 was crucial to the day bombing campaign. However, for the Germans the bombers getting through was 'unsustainable', they needed to deter the bombers from getting through and bombing; but they never had enough fighters to do that, even before the bombers had escort all the way to the target.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Having followed this thread from the beginning, I don't recall any discussion regarding what makes a good escort fighter. Here are my thoughts put together from a bunch of other threads and readings:
> 
> 1. *Endurance* (not just range, but the ability to fly escort patterns, how long can it remain engaged in combat)
> 2. *Endurance after Engaging the Enemy* (I don't think this is thought about much, but if an aircraft relies on drop tanks for endurance how much capacity does it have to fight and return after they have been dropped)
> ...



Good summary - That said IMO a 'good escort fighter' should have the attributes listed save tactical advantage at altitudes. A Great escort fighter has all the attributes you listed. Parity in performance at extended range still yields a good to very good escort firghter.

In this discussion the P-47N and P-47D and P-38J-25/L merit conversation with the P-51B/D. Only the P-82 changed the dynamics by placing a second pilot available to fly extremely long range missions post VE Day.

There was no material difference in endurance bewteen a P-51D, P-47N and P-38L combat radius or time in cockpit.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 10, 2020)

drgondog said:


> In this discussion the P-47N and P-47D and P-38J-25/L merit conversation with the P-51B/D.


Agreed


> There was no material difference in endurance bewteen a P-51D, P-47N and P-38L combat radius or time in cockpit.


From what I remember the P-47N had more range than all of them...


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jun 10, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The other aircraft did make a significant contribution but the Mustangs were in some hard fighting in the winter and spring of 1944.



On the 25th Feb 1944, it was reported that the the percentage of P51s flying escort in relation to the total fighter escort force over Europe was 15%. - and that despite that relatively small number they were securing HALF the total kills from escort fighters on the same missions.

One can if of a cynical mindset say "well of couse, because Doolittle ordered the Mustangs to go forwards to sweep the fighters away"

To which you could say, "yes, and why did he pick the P51s to go on those forward sweeps in the first place?"

and on and on and on ....

I think at a certain point you have to realise these were not stupid men, and if the 47 and 38 were slowly withdrawn from service and replaced by 51`s,
it certainly wasnt because they got bored that day and decided to "mix it up" for fun, its because it was more likely to suceed in the role it was needed
for than the other (available) options.

Annoyingly these stats were in one of the giant microfilm rolls that you can order from AFHRA, of about 2000 pages and I cant sodding find it  I only
managed to post it here because last year I made a Tweet with the stats and the date (but not the microfilm reel# or frame #  - so annoyed !)

EDIT:

Realised that there was a modern paper written which had a table of roughly similar data. This seems to have used
a book as a reference which I do not have, so I cant vouch for it personally.

"Ethell, Jeffery. P-51 Mustang. Osceola, WI: Motorbooks International Publishers"

Amazon product (probably this ?)

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 10, 2020)

Wow the P-51 was really racking up some serious kills

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Wow the P-51 was really racking up some serious kills


True but the stats in percentages dont say that, probably more of a reflection of how things were progressing and tactics used by both sides.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> I have a question regarding the best of the best.
> Which aircraft was the most comfortable? How many hours in a cramped cockpit can a pilot take and not lose the edge? Which “smallest possible airframe with the largest possible engine” was the least pain inflicting?
> We talk hp to weight ratio, range, time to altitude, etc but how effective is the pilot after a 350 mile trip just to get to battle?
> The Japanese ace Saburo Sakai was nearly shot down after attacking planes he thought didn’t have rear facing guns. I always thought that had to come from fatigue.
> Then again they probably all sucked.


I think the biggest factors in "comfort" were cabin pressure and temperature, some were so extreme it went way beyond "comfort" into the dangerously unbearable.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2020)

Stig1207 said:


> To *stop an attack *being the salient point; inflicting such heavy losses that the bombers were prevented from fulfilling their mission. With the number of fighters available the defenders could inflict heavy losses on the 8th airforce, but the bombers still got through and bombed their targets.


But you cant need 200-300 miles to do it. If you surrender the first 50-100 miles of you lose a massive amount of industry, ports transport etc that cant be put elsewhere. To win Germany had to confront and stop attacks on or near the coast, had to protect its u boats and win the battle of the Atlantic. Also it had to strike back hitting the USA bombers at home in East Anglia, this was never even a remote possibility.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 10, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Yes, the bombers did get through but the loss rate was unsustainable and led to the suspension of strategic bombing until the arrival of long range escort fighters.



Did the medium bombers continue their missions?
Were the heavy bombers grounded or did they divert to less protected targets? Perhaps support the mediums.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 10, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> Did the medium bombers continue their missions?
> Were the heavy bombers grounded or did they divert to less protected targets? Perhaps support the mediums.



In pure numbers lost, the 8th AF was losing as many bombers per raid in early 1944 as it was in the latter half of 1943. The main difference being that they were sending 3 to 4 times as many bombers to target.

And it didn't seem to matter much that they had escort fighters - until the escorts started reducing the pool of "experten". Aircraft losses were also of concern to the Luftwaffe, but they could be replaced - the experten could not (in the time frame required).

Late in 1943 the 8th AF leadership were still keen on sending their bombers on missions, even though suitable escorts had not yet arrived. However, heavy losses in some raids slowed the pace of operations, as crew and aircraft numbers had to be rebuilt. And the weather of late autumn and winter played their part in halting operations in late 1943.


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 11, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> Did the medium bombers continue their missions?
> Were the heavy bombers grounded or did they divert to less protected targets? Perhaps support the mediums.


I think the answer is a bit more nuanced than simply saying that heavy bombers weren't grounded and the workload shifted to medium bombers. Here is how I understand the strategic air campaign in 1943 leading into 1944. (since the many of the members of the forum have better knowledge on this topic, I encourage your corrections)

1) The opening strategic bombing campaign was built on a theory that heavily armed bomber formations would overwhelm defensive fighter forces and be able to carry out a campaign to cripple a country's war industry and force surrender. As soon as the USAAF had placed a sufficient number of bombers in England they began to test this theory. As the USAAF gained experience executing this campaign there was a transition to ever longer missions that began to leave the umbrella of GB based fighter cover. Ultimately in September/October the 8th Air Force carried out a series of raids in Germany intended to cripple what was seen as a weakness in the industrial supply chain - ball bearing production. These raids were disasters for USAAF with the loss of over 30% of aircraft, including crews as well as additional wounded. Following these raids, the USAAF suspended all raids that exceeded the limits of fighter coverage.

2) Following what was perceived to be a defeat, USAAF reassessed its approach to strategic bombing and used the end of 1943 to:
a. Build infrastructure - Its often forgotten that the growth in USAAF presence in England also included one of the largest building campaigns of the 20th century including a whole string of airfields, fueling depots, repair shops etc to support its efforts.
b. Grow the bomber force
c. Grow the fighter force - especially aircraft capable of escorting the entire duration of an air assault
d. Build competency - This was crucial to the future success of the air campaign. In addition to losses in the face of the Luftwaffe, the air force had to learn how to manage large coordinated air assaults. This was done through a series of raids largely over France that targeted U-Boat pens, French factories contributing to the Nazi war effort, and shipping chokepoints. These were limited objective missions, but were really for building skill in the air and organizational competency.

3) While USAAF was reformulating its strategy and tactics, the Luftwaffe was also studying the air campaign of 1943 and reorganizing itself to better combat future air assaults. This included relocating fighters dedicated to attacking the bomber stream further east out of range of existing escort aircraft. Importantly, the Luftwaffe increased the potency of "bomber destroyers" by adding heavy cannons to several aircraft types. (Me 110, FW 190A) A key point in the LW plan to attacking bomber streams was the expectation that they would not face opposing bomber escorts. (see the chart attached below regarding escort range)

4) Having gained competency and the availability of new aircraft capable of long range escort, USAAF set a new priority, the destruction of the Luftwaffe rather than the destruction of industry. Officially titled Operation Argument, but commonly called "Big Week" the campaign to establish air superiority over Europe was conducted at the end of February 1944 and lasted through March, although the critical dates are 2/20 - 2/25. Anecdotally, I had a relative who was ground support then who called it the Air Corps D-Day. Big Week consisted of a series of raids intended to force the Luftwaffe to engage the bomber stream and more importantly, longer range escort fighters. Earlier in this thread, someone posted kill percentages for Big Week breaking down Mustangs vs Thunderbolts vs Lightings. The relatively higher kill percentage by Mustangs makes sense when you consider that these raids were of a distance where only the Mustang was escorting and the Luftwaffe was flying "bomber destroyers" that had so much added armaments as to lose their ability to dogfight. The Mustang was a huge surprise to the LW and the calculation that you could operate overloaded fighters against bombers without opposition was a major miscalculation.

The success of Big Week then allowed for the combined USAAF/RAF to transition to the Transport Plan and the assault on western Europe in preparation of D-Day. 

5) You asked about medium bombers in Europe and from what I can tell, the numbers were fairly limited in GB until late in 1943. It appears from the unit histories that I have been able to track down that the majority of MB's were assigned to the MTO until November/December. Then, in late 1943 and especially in early 1944, there is a huge increase in the number of medium bomber groups based in England. This makes sense as they would have a significant role in the Transport Plan, but not in the strategic bombing campaign. It also makes sense from an infrastructure standpoint as you will also need new air bases for medium bombing groups and you need time to establish that infrastructure.

Thats a long response to give better context to the question about the suspension of heavy bombing in 1943.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 11, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> I think the answer is a bit more nuanced than simply saying that heavy bombers weren't grounded and the workload shifted to medium bombers. Here is how I understand the strategic air campaign in 1943 leading into 1944. (since the many of the members of the forum have better knowledge on this topic, I encourage your corrections)
> 
> 1) The opening strategic bombing campaign was built on a theory that heavily armed bomber formations would overwhelm defensive fighter forces and be able to carry out a campaign to cripple a country's war industry and force surrender. As soon as the USAAF had placed a sufficient number of bombers in England they began to test this theory. As the USAAF gained experience executing this campaign there was a transition to ever longer missions that began to leave the umbrella of GB based fighter cover. Ultimately in September/October the 8th Air Force carried out a series of raids in Germany intended to cripple what was seen as a weakness in the industrial supply chain - ball bearing production. These raids were disasters for USAAF with the loss of over 30% of aircraft, including crews as well as additional wounded. Following these raids, the USAAF suspended all raids that exceeded the limits of fighter coverage.
> 
> ...


Wow. That’s good stuff.


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 11, 2020)

Just a couple follow up items. Here is link to a really cool map showing all of the air bases in the UK during the war.

Map of WW2 operational airfields in the UK

and for comparison: a flight plan of the Schweinfurt Raid and then a January 1944 precursor raid to Big Week illustrating the impact of the longer range P-47, P-38, and P-51. As you can see, the farthest reach is covered only by P-51's which was also the time when the LW would have planned on being able to attack an unescorted bomber stream.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## chipieal (Jun 11, 2020)

Jank said:


> Are you sure about those speed numbers davidicus? Didnm't think the Thunderbolt held a candle to the Mustang. Sure is a big plane.


Remember that the P47 - M was the test mule for the Chrysler Hemi Head aircraft engine. In that configuration to ran 504 mph. I am not sure of the feet at which this was done but OMG what a plane. Imagine the compression problems and supersonic propeller issues

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 12, 2020)

chipieal said:


> Remember that the P47 - M was the test mule for the Chrysler Hemi Head aircraft engine. In that configuration to ran 504 mph. I am not sure of the feet at which this was done but OMG what a plane. Imagine the compression problems and supersonic propeller issues



The XP-47H had the Chrysler IV-2220.

The actual performance of the aircraft is suspect.

"One of my sources (Green) says that during flight trails, one of the XP-47Hs actually attained a speed of 490 mph in level flight. However, another one (Wagner) says that the Chrysler engine failed to deliver the promised power output, and that the maximum speed attained during tests was only 414 mph at 30,000 feet,"

Republic XP-47H Thunderbolt 


The XP-47J was said to have a top speed of over 500mph. It was a lightened airframe with altered aerodynamics, noticeably around the engine cowling and air duct intakes. 
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1727 

The P-47M was a limited production model, of which 130 were built. These were based on the P-47D, with an updated more powerful (and less reliable) R-2800. It had a top speed of 470mph.

The P-47N was the one with all the range, based on the P-47M but with a new wing incorporating fuel tanks. That had a top speed of around 460mph.

Regarding the "Chrysler Hemi Head aircraft engine", the basic combustion chamber had been developed by Sam Heron working for the USAAC Engineering Division in the late 1920s. This was part of the "hyper" engine program that led to the Continental IV-1430 and Lycoming O-1230 and H-2470.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 12, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Agreed
> From what I remember the P-47N had more range than all of them...


It did - slightly, but what is the difference between 8 and 81/2 hours in the cockpit for a combat mission or 1/2 to 45 minutes on a max ferry mission?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 12, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> I think the answer is a bit more nuanced than simply saying that heavy bombers weren't grounded and the workload shifted to medium bombers. Here is how I understand the strategic air campaign in 1943 leading into 1944. (since the many of the members of the forum have better knowledge on this topic, I encourage your corrections)
> 
> 1) The opening strategic bombing campaign was built on a theory that heavily armed bomber formations would overwhelm defensive fighter forces and be able to carry out a campaign to cripple a country's war industry and force surrender. As soon as the USAAF had placed a sufficient number of bombers in England they began to test this theory. As the USAAF gained experience executing this campaign there was a transition to ever longer missions that began to leave the umbrella of GB based fighter cover. Ultimately in September/October the 8th Air Force carried out a series of raids in Germany intended to cripple what was seen as a weakness in the industrial supply chain - ball bearing production. These raids were disasters for USAAF with the loss of over 30% of aircraft, including crews as well as additional wounded. Following these raids, the USAAF suspended all raids that exceeded the limits of fighter coverage.
> 
> ...


Good synopsis - couple of comments. The impetus to assign 8th AF top priority for new deployments of P-38 came immediately at the end of Blitz Week - July 1943.. you can trace the beginning of the end to 'The Bomber will always get through' mantra. That date also points to serious discussion among AAF-HQ planners to re-evaluate the new P-51B-1 for consideration to re-allocate from committed TAC deployments to 8th AF. July 1943 also marked the top priority push to install more internal fuel in P-51B, P-38H/J and P-47D.

Post Schweinfurt, 8th AF was forced to re-evaluate tactics and absolute requirement for escorts to and from the target - but only the 55th FG was operational and the 20th would not emerge UK based training until late November/early December - the same time the new 354th FG Mustangs. The 8th also formed a training cadre for night bombing in concert with RAF - but IMO that was a 'bone' thrown to pacify Churchill and Harris in a politically sensitive time for Roosevelt. The AAF could NEVER have shifted ops to night bombing based on existing training and the pipeline of day bombing trained replacements - if shutting down daylight ops ever was mandated.

The combat radius charts are simply incorrect in more instances than correct. Neither the P-51 w/75 gal external or P-38J with 150 gal internals - but no 85 gal fuse tank or 55 gal LE tanks - were capable of escort to Berlin. Big Week saw the first intro of the additional combat radius availed by the increased internal fuel for the P-38J and P-51B-1, C-1, B-5s now in ETO and depot modified with the kits. The P-47D-25 was not at 56, 78, 353 or 356FG until May-June in squadron level quantity.

The combined 'deal killers' for deep daylight strikes November/December 1943 were inadequate fighter escort range of the P-47D, inadequate force in the two P-38/single P-51B FGs, the abysmal Europe weather and cloud cover forcing radar bombing in lieu of precision bombing, and last but not least replenishment of bomber forces and trained crews. Strikes were made to Bremen and Wilhelmshaven and Hamburg and Nantes, etc because adequate radar signature of the water gave hope that some bombs would actually land on the target and was good H2S/X pathfinder training for the future.

Even when the B-26 Marauder ops began in May 1943, the targets were tactical and never into Germany IIRC. All were France/lowlands airbases, bridges, electrical power plants, etc and usually escorted by RAF, then 9th AF P-47s beginning late 1943 - also used extensively as decoys to confuse the LW regarding track of main stream and target possibilities - nearly always a feint over water and never actually making landfall in that role.

That was a nice summary.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 12, 2020)

The video I posted in a thread says the P-47 could have escorted the heavies on the Schweinfurt raid.

USAAF Worldwide Operations Chronology, USAAF Combat Operations 1941 - 1945
Strategic operations didn't stop for the 8th AF in late '43.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 12, 2020)

Milosh said:


> The video I posted in a thread says the P-47 could have escorted the heavies on the Schweinfurt raid.
> 
> USAAF Worldwide Operations Chronology, USAAF Combat Operations 1941 - 1945
> Strategic operations didn't stop for the 8th AF in late '43.



Unfortunatley, author of the video is wrong on that assumption.


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jun 12, 2020)

"the P-47 could have" if somebody had given the Bomber Mafia an offer they couldn't refuse...
...or is this "could have" simply wrong? What were the abilities/limitations at the time of the Schweinfurt raids, Tomo?


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 12, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Good synopsis - couple of comments. The impetus to assign 8th AF top priority for new deployments of P-38 came immediately at the end of Blitz Week - July 1943.. you can trace the beginning of the end to 'The Bomber will always get through' mantra. That date also points to serious discussion among AAF-HQ planners to re-evaluate the new P-51B-1 for consideration to re-allocate from committed TAC deployments to 8th AF. July 1943 also marked the top priority push to install more internal fuel in P-51B, P-38H/J and P-47D.
> 
> Post Schweinfurt, 8th AF was forced to re-evaluate tactics and absolute requirement for escorts to and from the target - but only the 55th FG was operational and the 20th would not emerge UK based training until late November/early December - the same time the new 354th FG Mustangs. The 8th also formed a training cadre for night bombing in concert with RAF - but IMO that was a 'bone' thrown to pacify Churchill and Harris in a politically sensitive time for Roosevelt. The AAF could NEVER have shifted ops to night bombing based on existing training and the pipeline of day bombing trained replacements - if shutting down daylight ops ever was mandated.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this, Drgondog! I appreciate the added depth and clarity.

Kk


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 12, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> "the P-47 could have" if somebody had given the Bomber Mafia an offer they couldn't refuse...
> ...or is this "could have" simply wrong? What were the abilities/limitations at the time of the Schweinfurt raids, Tomo?



Abilities/limitations of P-47? Low drop tank capacity at least (performance/ability at 'bomber altitudes' was never a problem). The 200 gal external tank was intended and manufactured for ferry flights, it could not be efficiently pressurized in order to be used above 15000-20000 ft; no pressurization meant the fuel will start to boil at high altitudes. From what I've read at 'America's hundred thousands', it was also troublesome to detach from the aircraft. Crew were half-filling the tank at 1st, before the 'proper' drop tanks started arriving from US and British warehouses.
The other options (US 75 gal tank, British 108/110 gal tank) were not providing enough of fuel to extend the range deep in Germany. The US 150-165 gal tank (as used on P-38) will not fit under the belly. The wing racks were slow to come for P-47s (The AAF was too slow to order the modification? It took too long for Republic to make necessary mods? Both?) in order for two 108/110 gal tanks can be carried, along perhaps the 3rd tank under belly. 1st wing-racks outfitted P-47s were ferry flying in August 1943 via Grenland and Iceland, though I don't know the ration between the flow-in P-47s and those send by ships.
Unfortunately, the 8th AAF was not as quick on the ball as it was Gen. Kenney of 5th AF, who ordered the 'flat' (so they can fit under the belly) metalic tanks in Australia (produced by Ford at Brisbane?) - August 1943.
The AHT book also notes that there was another US tank, that of 205 gals, made by resinated paper, that also could not be pressurized, were leaking, and will not feed at high altitudes.

tl;dr - limitation was low fuel capacity of P-47s.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 12, 2020)

[QUOTE="tomo pauk, "Abilities/limitations of P-47? Low drop tank capacity at least (performance/ability at 'bomber altitudes' was never a problem). The 200 gal external tank was intended and manufactured for ferry flights, it could not be efficiently pressurized in order to be used above 15000-20000 ft; no pressurization meant the fuel will start to boil at high altitudes. From what I've read at 'America's hundred thousands', it was also troublesome to detach from the aircraft. Crew were half-filling the tank at 1st, before the 'proper' drop tanks started arriving from US and British warehouses.

*True. 8th ATS installed a horizontal keel on nose, top 1/3, to the 200 gal ferry tank to cause it to separate cleanly. Late July through mid August 1943 before 75 gal combat tank arrived in numbers*

The other options (US 75 gal tank, British 108/110 gal tank) were not providing enough of fuel to extend the range deep in Germany. The US 150-165 gal tank (as used on P-38) will not fit under the belly.

*The 'flat' 150 gal tank was designed for the P-47D C/L keel/bomb rack and began replacing the single 108/110 in December/January .*

The wing racks were slow to come for P-47s (The AAF was too slow to order the modification? It took too long for Republic to make necessary mods? Both?) in order for two 108/110 gal tanks can be carried, along perhaps the 3rd tank under belly.

*The primary issue, in contrast to P-38 and P-51, was that the P-47C/D production deliveries prior to P-47D-16 a.) Had no external wing racks, b.) did not have the plumbing to feed fuel from external tanks. IIRC several P-47D-6-RA in Summer but c.) kits for Depot level mods weren't available until late 1943 and and were MAJOR re-works of the wing for structural as well as the internal plumbing.. The ability for squadron level missions with 2x108 gal and then 2x150 gal wing tanks started around March 1944. Those P-47Ds could latch 1x108 on CL and 2x108 on wing racks.*

1st wing-racks outfitted P-47s were ferry flying in August 1943 via Grenland and Iceland, though I don't know the ration between the flow-in P-47s and those send by ships.
Unfortunately, the 8th AAF was not as quick on the ball as it was Gen. Kenney of 5th AF, who ordered the 'flat' (so they can fit under the belly) metalic tanks in Australia (produced by Ford at Brisbane?) - August 1943.

*The ATS/ETO were quick to pick up on Kenney's Australian based mfr but slower to receive deliveries.*

The AHT book also notes that there was another US tank, that of 205 gals, made by resinated paper, that also could not be pressurized, were leaking, and will not feed at high altitudes.

*It was a ferry tank similar to the 175 gal tank for P-39*

tl;dr - limitation was low *internal *fuel capacity of P-47s.

*The change from 305 gal to 370 gal internal fuselage capacity necessitated re-design and inserting into production for the -25 took about 5 months from July 1943 order from Giles (in contrast to two weeks for prototype 93 gal SS prototype tank for P-51B) and 1200 kits out the door in October 1943.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 12, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Just a couple follow up items. Here is link to a really cool map showing all of the air bases in the UK during the war.
> 
> Map of WW2 operational airfields in the UK
> 
> ...


A great post. The link proves what many suspected, the UK was actually just a huge aircraft carrier. There are five within walking distance of my home and it has missed out at least one. It also shows the parlous state of German defences even at that time in 1943. The distance travelled by fighters from Rostok and Bremen is greater than the distance that Battle of Britain squadrons were sent away from the battle to rest and recover, in normal battle terms they should be considered as reserves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 13, 2020)

So, I have a question in the p-51d vs p-47n debate. How does the p-51h compare?

it seems logical to compare latest model to latest model.


----------



## DarrenW (Jun 14, 2020)

I am a little confused by this range chart. Why does it seem like the fuel burn rate is greater with the 108 gallon belly tank than with two 150 gallon wing tanks? The average fuel efficiency round trip with 413 gallons of fuel is 1.45 mpg, while with 605 gallons it is 1.65 mpg. Wouldn't the two larger wing tanks cause more aerodynamic drag than the single belly tank and thereby decrease fuel efficiency, or am I missing something here?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jun 14, 2020)

wuzak said:


> The XP-47H had the Chrysler IV-2220.
> 
> The actual performance of the aircraft is suspect.
> 
> ...


It seems that the P47H only flew for a total of 18 hours before a porp failure grounded it. There is no evidence of it performing anywhere near expectations. That being said here is an interesting home movie of a flight of the P47H shot by a Chrysler engineer.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jun 14, 2020)

duplicate post


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 14, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> I am a little confused by this range chart. Why does it seem like the fuel burn rate is greater with the 108 gallon belly tank than with two 150 gallon wing tanks? The average fuel efficiency round trip with 413 gallons of fuel is 1.45 mpg, while with 605 gallons it is 1.65 mpg. Wouldn't the two larger wing tanks cause more aerodynamic drag than the single belly tank and thereby decrease fuel efficiency, or am I missing something here?



From what I can gather, with small total fuel capacity, the increased percentage of that fuel was used on high power/high consumption engine settings (take-off, climb, combat), while cruising part was not that long - thus total flight mileage was not that good. 
With total fuel capacity greatly increased, a small percentage of fuel was used on high power engine settings, and much greater percentage of fuel was used on cruising - the total flight mileage improved. 
Note that required combat time was 5+15min for both cases (108 gal or 300 gal of external fuel), and fuel reserve was the same (30 min). The difference in consumption per hour in hi-power and cruising settings was approx 2:1 up to 4:1.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 14, 2020)

The Basket said:


> Wasn't the Zero an escort fighter? For the time a very good one.


Admiral Yamamoto disagrees. Of course, sixteen P-38 vs. six A6M2 is hardly fair odds, but the Japanese shot down only one P-38 and didn't loose a single fighter themselves, whilst loosing both charges. It's akin to an ambush on POTUS, where the man dies, but the Secret Service force shoots at nothing and survives the day without serious injury, while the attackers get away with a single loss. 

Did the Zero ever successfully escort anything? It certainly has the range and can compete with anything that's coming after the Zeros' charges, but AIUI they usually had no radio and low ammunition capacity.

It's not the aircraft's fault, but the IJN pilots seems to tactically operate alone rather than in coordination. For example, at the Battle of Midway, Hiryū's first attack wave on USS Yorktown consisted of 18 D3As and six fighter escorts, but enroute two of the Zeros broke off to chase some of Enterprise's returning (and thus, of no threat) SBDs, leaving the 18 D3As with only four escorts, and seeing thirteen of the bombers shot down (in fairness, some by AA).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jun 14, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> From what I can gather, with small total fuel capacity, the increased percentage of that fuel was used on high power/high consumption engine settings (take-off, climb, combat), while cruising part was not that long - thus total flight mileage was not that good.
> With total fuel capacity greatly increased, a small percentage of fuel was used on high power engine settings, and much greater percentage of fuel was used on cruising - the total flight mileage improved.
> Note that required combat time was 5+15min for both cases (108 gal or 300 gal of external fuel), and fuel reserve was the same (30 min). The difference in consumption per hour in hi-power and cruising settings was approx 2:1 up to 4:1.



That does make sense. So basically a higher percentage of the total fuel load would be utilized during periods of better fuel economy. Got it!


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 14, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> I am a little confused by this range chart. Why does it seem like the fuel burn rate is greater with the 108 gallon belly tank than with two 150 gallon wing tanks? The average fuel efficiency round trip with 413 gallons of fuel is 1.45 mpg, while with 605 gallons it is 1.65 mpg. Wouldn't the two larger wing tanks cause more aerodynamic drag than the single belly tank and thereby decrease fuel efficiency, or am I missing something here?
> 
> View attachment 585011



Darren,

The Eagle is the same, IE a higher burn with one centerline vice two wing tanks. It’s due on the Eagle to how far the wing tanks are from the wing versus how close the centerline bag is. Parasite drag is greater on the centerline and assume it’s the same on the P-47. Or it’s the pancake centerline has more drag than the teardrop wings, or a little of both.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Darren,
> 
> The Eagle is the same, IE a higher burn with one centerline vice two wing tanks. It’s due on the Eagle to how far the wing tanks are from the wing versus how close the centerline bag is. Parasite drag is greater on the centerline and assume it’s the same on the P-47. Or it’s the pancake centerline has more drag than the teardrop wings, or a little of both.
> 
> ...


The ins and outs of this hurt my head and make my eyes bleed, as a pilot how much information do you have to know/use about maximising range?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 14, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The ins and outs of this hurt my head and make my eyes bleed, as a pilot how much information do you have to know/use about maximising range?



pbehn,

With the military equipment there is a ton of info, especially since varied external stores inflicts large swings in your drag. And with A/C that carry air to ground weapons there will be a tremendous amount of different configurations to contend with.

A simple example would be a pond (ocean crossing). Usually done in flights of six with each tanker (very simple example) in which fuel is calculated for numbers 1, 3 and 5. The wingmen, 2, 4, and 6 are considered to have the same gas as their flight leads. In reality they use more and refuel last so the flight plan has times and fuel required to start refueling for each “pair”. If someone can’t get gas for whatever reason they have usually a very small window in which to get it sorted then off you go as a pair to divert (have done this). The divert fuel will get you to an alternate with enough fuel to shoot several approaches if required. In peace time your flight plan will always have viable diverts. Wartime this can be waived situation dependent.

On a pond crossing the tanker launches first, followed 5-10 minutes later by the first 6 ship. We like to rejoin with the tanker above 10k as he will be at a higher speed and easier for us to form on. Additionally a spare 2 ship will launch with the lead 6 and follow them for quite awhile. The tanker will then cycle all of us across the boom, including the spares, to insure system functionality. The spares then tag along for about 45-60 minutes in case someone develops a mechanical and diverts.

After cycling the 6 across for a top off (in addition to the ops check), the tanker will usually refuel from another tanker met along the way. The end result is the lead tanker and all six chicks are topped off prior to entering the tracks (routes across the ocean also used by airliners). The two spares will then check in with each tanker / 6 ship as they RTB to see if there has been fallout. A no answer and onward they go to check in with last group then homeward bound. The two spares are usually very experienced guys / gals so they can fit in anywhere (flight lead, wingman or chase ship).

In fights you learn your fuel flows for 360’s (how much gas per) at high, medium and low altitude. You also will know how to execute a minimum fuel recovery by heart and will accomplish at least one for real sometime in your early Fighter career (everyone scares themselves at least once early on).

In the airline world in the days of paper charts / books we would look up our weights / altitude and figure out max range or endurance. Now with the Flight Management Computers (FMCs) they do it for you. Also the airlines further break down fuel / engine wear / time into a cost index, that gets loaded into the FMC. The lower the number the lower the power setting, and slower speed you climb at. The higher the CI the higher the power and speed used in the climb (the latter cuts time but increases the burn). 

Probably more than you wanted to know.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> pbehn,
> 
> 
> Probably more than you wanted to know.
> ...


Not at all, thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jun 14, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Darren,
> 
> The Eagle is the same, IE a higher burn with one centerline vice two wing tanks. It’s due on the Eagle to how far the wing tanks are from the wing versus how close the centerline bag is. Parasite drag is greater on the centerline and assume it’s the same on the P-47. Or it’s the pancake centerline has more drag than the teardrop wings, or a little of both.
> 
> ...



Thanks Biff, I never really realized that but it's a very good thing to remember.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Admiral Yamamoto disagrees. Of course, sixteen P-38 vs. six A6M2 is hardly fair odds, but the Japanese shot down only one P-38 and didn't loose a single fighter themselves, whilst loosing both charges. It's akin to an ambush on POTUS, where the man dies, but the Secret Service force shoots at nothing and survives the day without serious injury, while the attackers get away with a single loss.
> 
> Did the Zero ever successfully escort anything? It certainly has the range and can compete with anything that's coming after the Zeros' charges, but AIUI they usually had no radio and low ammunition capacity.
> 
> It's not the aircraft's fault, but the IJN pilots seems to tactically operate alone rather than in coordination. For example, at the Battle of Midway, Hiryū's first attack wave on USS Yorktown consisted of 18 D3As and six fighter escorts, but enroute two of the Zeros broke off to chase some of Enterprise's returning (and thus, of no threat) SBDs, leaving the 18 D3As with only four escorts, and seeing thirteen of the bombers shot down (in fairness, some by AA).


Zero’s did pretty good escorting bombers to Australia keeping defending Spitfires at a 1 to 1 ratio for Zeros and bombers combined. In fact I would love to see stats on Zeros escorting bombers over Darwin vs 109’s escorting bombers in the battle of Britain. They did fine against the fighters defending Midway. They also held off Wildcats well enough for Kates to put 2 torpedoes into Yorktown later in the day while heavily outnumbered. Zeros did ok until the P38 and Hellcat arrived.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tkdog (Jun 16, 2020)

None of which involved a highly coordinated attack on their charges.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 5, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> And they developed tested and fitted 85G auxiliary 75G drop tanks to the P51 to escort it, in about 18 months.


Not sure of your timeline. The first production Mustang fitted with bomb/external fuel tanks was the A-36 which first flew in October 1942. The first experimental 90 gal SS tank in P-51B-1-NA flew in mid-July 1943. I haven't nailed down the date of the first 85gal fuselage tank kit installation 'first flight' but believe it was early January 1944. The first squadron level deployment by 354FG with all equipped with the kits was early February 1944. Production article 85 gal fuse tanks in P-51B-10-NA and C-5-NT were operational in late March.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 5, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> The Spitfire IX was supposed to have 175 miles of combat radius when covering US bombers.


Tomo - can you point me to the source? Without external tanks or 85 gal Fuselage tank, the P-51B-1 with 180+gal had a 'combat radius' of approx 160 mi. Same engine, cleaner airframe. Was the RAF definition of combat radius different (less) with respect to AAF combat contingencies of 5 min WEP and 15 min MP? The P-47C and D with only internal fuel was good for approx 125 mi CR.

That said, what external tankage would permit 175mi CR?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Tomo - can you point me to the source? Without external tanks or 85 gal Fuselage tank, the P-51B-1 with 180+gal had a 'combat radius' of approx 160 mi. Same engine, cleaner airframe. Was the RAF definition of combat radius different (less) with respect to AAF combat contingencies of 5 min WEP and 15 min MP? The P-47C and D with only internal fuel was good for approx 125 mi CR.
> 
> That said, what external tankage would permit 175mi CR?



The 175 mile radius is stated in these two maps: picture, picture2. Unfortunately, it does not state the fuel tankage.
This map shows 200 mile radius; again, the fuel tankage of the Spitfire is not stated.

My take is that 90 imp gal (110 US gal) tank was the only addition for the 84 gal internal fuel tankage for the Spitfire for such calculations. Equals obviously to 174 imp gals, vs. 150 imp gals for the P-51B without fuselage tank and without drop tanks.

The P-47C and early D was supposed to get 175 miles of radius without drop tanks per these maps, as well as per this one. Expanded to 230 miles as US airmen gotten more experienced??

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 5, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> The 175 mile radius is stated in these two maps: picture, picture2. Unfortunately, it does not state the fuel tankage.
> This map shows 200 mile radius; again, the fuel tankage of the Spitfire is not stated.
> 
> My take is that 90 imp gal (110 US gal) tank was the only addition for the 84 gal internal fuel tankage for the Spitfire for such calculations. Equals obviously to 174 imp gals, vs. 150 imp gals for the P-51B without fuselage tank and without drop tanks.
> ...


Tomo - In my new book, I devoted several pages, tables and charts to explain Combat Radius per USAAF definitions and cross checked their assumptions based on flight testing results. Unfortunately, every map similar to the links you provided were a combination of undefined sourcing as well as errors in timeframe. Mike Williams has the most accurate baseline Test Flight docs for P-47C and P-51D. Dean AOHT has the best collection of the AAF combat radius tables used for ETO operations and was the foundation for cross checking my tables and map overlays.

As an example, look to the P-47C flight tests for the 125mi estimated combat radius (early) with 305 gallons (dec 1942).

The P-47D (pre-25) with full internal fuel of 305Gal, didn't approach 175 until the 205gal (100 usable) Ferry tank experiment. the streamlined 75 gal combat tank took it to 200-230

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Feb 5, 2022)

Gotta get that book.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 5, 2022)

Jank said:


> Well, let's hear it.


You don't get hit with 37mm flack while flying escort. That looks like ground attack.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Tomo - In my new book, I devoted several pages, tables and charts to explain Combat Radius per USAAF definitions and cross checked their assumptions based on flight testing results. Unfortunately, every map similar to the links you provided were a combination of undefined sourcing as well as errors in timeframe. Mike Williams has the most accurate baseline Test Flight docs for P-47C and P-51D. Dean AOHT has the best collection of the AAF combat radius tables used for ETO operations and was the foundation for cross checking my tables and map overlays.
> 
> As an example, look to the P-47C flight tests for the 125mi estimated combat radius (early) with 305 gallons (dec 1942).
> 
> The P-47D (pre-25) with full internal fuel of 305Gal, didn't approach 175 until the 205gal (100 usable) Ferry tank experiment. the streamlined 75 gal combat tank took it to 200-230



Dean notes that escort radius was being extended to 340 miles in August 1943 (pg. 288) - usage of 75 gal tank perhaps? On same page, the 'theoretical escort radius' was extended to 375 miles if the 108 gals belly tank is used on September 1943.
On pg. 287, he notes that the expedient of filling the ferry tank half-full (ie. ~100 gals) enabled the P-47s to meet the enemy at distance of 260 miles.
I'm not sure how long the combat time at these ranges was.

P-47C data here. Supposed to do 170 mile radius with 20 min combat on military power at 25000 ft, with 305 gals of fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 5, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Tomo - In my new book, I devoted several pages, tables and charts to explain Combat Radius per USAAF definitions and cross checked their assumptions based on flight testing results. Unfortunately, every map similar to the links you provided were a combination of undefined sourcing as well as errors in timeframe. Mike Williams has the most accurate baseline Test Flight docs for P-47C and P-51D. Dean AOHT has the best collection of the AAF combat radius tables used for ETO operations and was the foundation for cross checking my tables and map overlays.
> 
> As an example, look to the P-47C flight tests for the 125mi estimated combat radius (early) with 305 gallons (dec 1942).
> 
> The P-47D (pre-25) with full internal fuel of 305Gal, didn't approach 175 until the 205gal (100 usable) Ferry tank experiment. the streamlined 75 gal combat tank took it to 200-230


I just had a thought, that radius is obviously from a single point, but is pretty similar in its "reach" to what the Typhoon's radius of action was in the period, and Spitfire Mk IXs did escort Typhoons. Maybe a cross over of two different mission profiles. Typhoons and their escorts didnt all set off from a point in Cambridgeshire, they used airfields closer to the target which would push that radius out.


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 6, 2022)

For what it's worth, fighter escort ranges from the publication _Eighth Air Force Tactical Development, August 1942 – May 1945_ (p97):







Note that while the graphic shows the Feb. 1944 range of 475 miles being achieved with two 108-gallon tanks, the text says it was done with two 150-gallon tanks. I think the text number is a typo — it doesn't make sense to go from 425 miles with 150 gallons of extra fuel to only 475 miles with 300 extra gallons, or twice the external fuel load. But it does make sense to go from 425 miles with 150 extra gallons to 475 miles with 216 extra gallons.

ETA: The P-38 range is shown with 75- and 108-gallon drop tanks. But this publication, as well as Freeman's _Mighty Eighth War Manual_, state that only the 165-gallon drop tank was used by the P-38 on operations.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 6, 2022)

From the publication _A History of the VIII USAAF Fighter Command_ (Plate XII):






"Target support means the use of the airplane for a period of about 15 minutes or more over the target, only. Penetration support means their use as long-range escort, directly with the bombers, along some assigned part of the course."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 6, 2022)

I think this paragraph is the most important one and applies equally to the P-38 and P-51.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 6, 2022)

And lastly, there's this graphic, but unfortunately I don't recall from which publication it comes.





.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Feb 6, 2022)

The 23 July 1942 RAF Fighter Command Order of Battle has 310 squadron rearming with Spitfire Vc - Long Range. The designation Long Range continues into 1944, by then mostly for LF mark V squadrons. So it could be any 1943 Spitfire escort range is based on mark V, which had 40 miles more range than the mark IX and would use less fuel at full power. In 1942 the Spitfire V was in trouble over France, it was the main target, in 1943 with the Luftwaffe need to shoot down bombers and its pilots unable to distinguish between the mark V and IX until close, the mark V was doing better.

As of January 1944 external tanks for Spitfires being made were 30 gallon (Metal, wood, fibre) and 45, 90 and 170 gallon metal.

"relevant Spitfire VIII figures from the original sources quoting maximum weak-mixture power setting as 320 mph at 20,000 ft, consuming about 1.1 gallon per minute. This corresponds with an engine setting of 2,400 rpm, +4 lbs boost (66 gallons per hour). So this seems similar. From the same source, the RAF were allocating 23 gallons for take-off and climb to 20,000 ft, and 36 gallons for 15 minutes of combat, leaving 63 gallons for cruise. This gives an endurance of 57 minutes, or a range of 304 miles, for an escort radius of 152 miles." (no reserves)

So the following is based on an unrealistic flight profile of vertical climb, fast cruise all the way there and back, vertical descent, arriving with empty tanks.

People who have access to the relevant performance sheets can add the distance gains and losses for things like economic cruise to/from near enemy airspace, distance covered in the climb (Spitfire V with 170 gallon tank, 30 air miles covered climbing to 15,000 feet, 55 to 24,000 feet), extra distance covered in the descent, proper fuel reserves, external tank drag, formation flying etc.

The Spitfire V managed around 8.9 miles per gallon at maximum economical cruise, versus 5.7 at fast cruise (both at 15,000 feet)

Spitfire VIII with 122 gallons on board requires an extra 10 or so gallons to reach 175 miles escort range, with a 45 gallon external tank, 260 miles radius.

The mark IX with 85 gallons on board plus a 45 gallon external tank, 170 miles radius.

Or if you like, Spitfire IX enters combat with full internal tanks, uses 36 gallons in combat, leaving 49, able to fly 235 miles back to base, requiring a 72 gallon external tank to be at 235 miles from base.

For the mark VIII, it could be 415 miles from home entering combat on full tanks, needing 110 gallons of external fuel to get to 415 miles.

Remembering what the (unrealistic) flight profile is assumed to be.

Switching to what if for the moment, if Castle Bromwich was switched to mark VIII and the RAF was willing to use the 90 gallon external tank in combat, then under the mission profile the mark VIII radius would be 370 miles, the external tank being drained at 325 miles from base. Before any ideas of more internal fuel are considered.

The following is from Performance Tables of British Service Aircraft, Air Publication 1746, dated August 1939 but data includes 1940/41 aircraft. The ranges of fighters are shown as ranges on the fuel available, after deducting fuel used in 15 minutes at maximum power at sea level. This allowance is for warming up and climbing to operational height. Bomber ranges were calculated differently but come with the note they make no allowance for - (i) The effect of wind, (ii), The effect of formation flying, (iii) The use of full throttle over enemy territory. Fuel weights may be for different octane ratings. Note the drop in ranges between fast and economic cruise.

First Hurricane I Column, DH Propeller, second Hurricane I column Rotol Propeller.

CharacteristicUnitsHurricane IHurricane IHurricane IIAHurricane IICSpitfire ISpitfire IISpitfire VNormal Weight(Pounds)6,629​6,532​7,014​7,544​6,255​6,238​6,460​Cruising Speed(m.p.h)275​272​281​278​304​314​310​Cruise Speed HeightFeet15,000​15,000​15,000​15,000​15,000​15,000​15,000​15 Minutes allowanceRange (miles)340​335​314​311​415​335​335​15 Minutes allowanceEndurance Hours1.25​1.22​1.12​1.12​1.4​1.07​1.08​Fuel(for range, pounds)435​435​489​489​484​414​389​Fuel(for allowance, pounds)145​145​209​209​146​191​216​Fuel(Total, pounds)580​580​698​698​630​605​605​Fuel(Total, Gallons)77.5​77.5​97​97​84​84​84​Per 100 pounds fuelMiles78.2​77​64​63.6​85.8​80.9​86​Overload Weight(Pounds)6,768​6,661​Maximum Fuel (Cruise)Speed (m.p.h)275​272​Cruise Speed HeightFeet15,000​15,000​15 Minutes allowanceRange (miles)455​445​15 Minutes allowanceEndurance Hours1.65​1.64​Fuel(for range, pounds)580​580​Fuel(for allowance, pounds)145​145​Fuel(Total, pounds)725​725​Fuel(Total, Gallons)97​97​Per 100 pounds of fuelMiles77​78.2​Maximum FuelCapacity (Gallons)97​97​97​97​Maximum Fuel (Economical)Speed (m.p.h)180​170 - 180168 - 176165 - 170180 - 190180 - 190180 - 190Cruise Speed HeightFeet15,000​15,000​15,000​15,000​15,000​15,000​15,000​15 Minutes allowanceRange (miles)600​600​524​500​575​530​480​15 Minutes allowanceEndurance Hours3.35​3.4​3.12​3​3.1​2.86​2.6​Fuel(for range, pounds)580​580​489​489​484​414​389​Fuel(for allowance, pounds)145​145​209​209​146​191​216​Fuel(Total, pounds)725​725​698​698​630​605​605​Fuel(Total, Gallons)97​97​97​97​84​84​84​Per 100 pounds of fuelMiles103.5​103.5​107​102.5​118.8​128​123​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 6, 2022)

A simple solution to the Spitfires lack of endurance was to fit all MkVIII's and IX's with the 33G upper 42G lower rear fuselage tanks like the MkVXI and a drop tank, problem solved.


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 6, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Admiral Yamamoto disagrees. Of course, sixteen P-38 vs. six A6M2 is hardly fair odds,


They were specially prepared aircraft modified for that mission plus the pilots were advised by Charles Lindbergh on how to get the best economy possible. The P51 is the best VLR plane used in WW2

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 6, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> For what it's worth, fighter escort ranges from the publication _Eighth Air Force Tactical Development, August 1942 – May 1945_ (p97):
> 
> View attachment 657146
> 
> ...


You have put your finger on the dilemma I faced when I decided to include Combat Radius in the book. The AAF Combat Radius charts published in Dean's AOHT are the charts prepared following flight tests at both Eglin and Wright Field. The challenge with the charts and narratives in the many 8th AF histories are a.) multiple contradictions, b.) Cannot be logically connected to the Pilot Operating Manual, c.) do not present the uniform assumptions inherent in planning an escort mission.

Two of the best sources of data for Combat Radius OPERATIONAL practice are Encounter Reports and Macrs - which establish a pattern of actual ranges assigned and executed. For the P-47D for example, Brunswick/Celle/Kassel/Stuttgart are 'outer limits' for both through May 1944. Berlin/Augsburg for P-38J, Posnan for P-51B. Even this example has to be examined with care as Stuttgart for P-47D might represent 56th FG on April 24 performing a Sweep, with 355th and 357th FG P-51Bs escorting (and fighting) for 35-40 minutes around Munich, nearly to Austria. 

The Most important assumption is the calculation of fuel consumed from INTERNAL tankage for the 5 minutes of WEP and 15 minutes of MP, coupled with ejection of drop tanks when entering combat. The most common data for such combat fuel consumption are from the engine manufacturers P&W, Allison and Merlin/Packard and are 1. 111 gal for P-38H/J, 2.) 89 for P-47C/D, c.) 58 from P-51B. The second set of values for 30 min reserve are 1. 50gal for P-38, 40 gal for P-47 and 26 gal for P-51.

The AAF Charts are Conservative in this respect - they are for single aircraft, not formations in which additional fuel consumption is required to transform a combat unit from one to 48+ before climbing. Second, and not often stated, is that there is a difference between Penetration/Withdrawal Escort in which the time cruising with bombers is at reduced speed over straight line progress to maintain position versus fly a sweep or straight to the target for R/V and escort for 15-30 minutes before straight line cruise home.

The second chart does discuss the differences but like the first, brings no assumptions nor differentiates by time, field mods/new production articles which added internal tankage. P-51B 85 gal fuse tank +46%), P-38J 110 gal LE tank (+36%), P-47D-25 65 gal main tank (+21%) increases respectively. 

This is one of those situations where I say 'take what you want, and leave the rest'..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 6, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> And lastly, there's this graphic, but unfortunately I don't recall from which publication it comes.
> 
> View attachment 657149
> 
> .


You found it. Where? mine was hard copy in NAA files from folder with the NAA Field Service Bulletin NA-73/95 85 gallon fuselage Kit delivery forecast.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> They were specially prepared aircraft modified for that mission plus the pilots were advised by Charles Lindbergh on how to get the best economy possible. The P51 is the best VLR plane used in WW2


Yamamoto was shot down on April 18 1943.
Most sources say Lindbergh left the US to go to the Pacific on April 24 1944, just over 1 year later.
Sources say he flew his first mission in a P-38 on June 27th 1944 with 475th fighter group.
This was after 13 (?) Missions in Corsairs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ovod (Feb 6, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> *They were specially prepared aircraft modified* for that mission plus the pilots were advised by Charles Lindbergh on how to get the best economy possible. The P51 is the best VLR plane used in WW2



As is any Spitfire fitted with extra fuel tanks to complete its mission.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> They were specially prepared aircraft modified for that mission plus the pilots were advised by Charles Lindbergh on how to get the best economy possible. The P51 is the best VLR plane used in WW2


The only modification that was done to the aircraft on the Yamamoto mission was the use of larger drop tanks and the mission leader John Mitchell had a navy compass installed in his aircraft. As stated, Lindberg did not provide any training to the folks who flew the Yamamoto mission (339th and 347th FS)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 6, 2022)

The 18 P-38s that flew "Operation Vengeance" were standard P-38Gs.
No special prep (other than the USN compass fitted to Mitchell's P-38 as Joe mentioned) was done to the flight.

They were each equipped with one 165 gallon drop tank and one 330 gallon drop tank for the mission.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 6, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Two of the best sources of data for Combat Radius OPERATIONAL practice are Encounter Reports and Macrs - which establish a pattern of actual ranges assigned and executed. For the P-47D for example, Brunswick/Celle/Kassel/Stuttgart are 'outer limits' for both through May 1944. Berlin/Augsburg for P-38J, Posnan for P-51B. Even this example has to be examined with care as Stuttgart for P-47D might represent 56th FG on April 24 performing a Sweep, with 355th and 357th FG P-51Bs escorting (and fighting) for 35-40 minutes around Munich, nearly to Austria.



Definitely — what was actually done on operations is the best indicator. As far as I'm aware, those reports are not available online in any systematic was as are the RAF squadron ORBs. Otherwise, I'd have even more things to read!




drgondog said:


> You found it. Where? mine was hard copy in NAA files from folder with the NAA Field Service Bulletin NA-73/95 85 gallon fuselage Kit delivery forecast.



It's mentioned here (not too far down the page) — the descriptor below the image lists the origin. I downloaded the image from that site, and did some searching to see I could locate the originating document online.


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 6, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The 18 P-38s that flew "Operation Vengeance" were standard P-38Gs.
> No special prep (other than the USN compass fitted to Mitchell's P-38 as Joe mentioned) was done to the flight.
> 
> They were each equipped with one 165 gallon drop tank and one 330 gallon drop tank for the mission.



Regarding that operation, the YouTube channel WW2TV did an interview with Dick Lehr, author of _Dead Reckoning: The Story of How Johnny Mitchell and His Fighter Pilots Took on Admiral Yamamoto and Avenged Pearl Harbor._

It's an hour and 16 minutes, and can be watched here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 6, 2022)

Is there anything the P-51 was deficient in with regards to its escort fighter role? 

Yes the P-47 had longer range than the P-51, but the former cost US $83k vs. US $51k for the Mustang. If the P-47 costs more, may be slower to produce and has more range than necessary, I’d say the P-51 wins.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 6, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> Definitely — what was actually done on operations is the best indicator. As far as I'm aware, those reports are not available online in any systematic was as are the RAF squadron ORBs. Otherwise, I'd have even more things to read!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow - The ChicagoBoyz have not performed much personal research into the Arnold history or narrative and give undeserved credit to Wright Field Material Command for 'driving' the combat tank development. One of Arnold's top priorities in the Jauary-Feb 1942 Fighter Conference was to prioritize Combat Tanks and improve internal fuel capacity for existing fighters. Those turkeys actually believe Wright Field engineers drove development of external fuel tankage, when in fact they dragged their feet through 1942 and early spring 1943 Arnold tasked his Deputy Maj Gen Barney Giles to go take names and kick ass but have the long-range escort solution Jan 1 1944". He visited NAA, Curtiss, Lockheed, Bell and Republic to convey urgency in early June 1943. By that time his earlier initiatives had accelerated combat tank development and testing on 60 gal and 75 gal had been completed and set into production. Lockheed (P-38E Dec/1941, A-36 Oct 1942) already designed and incorporated external wing racks and plumbing for combat fuel tanks on their Own initiative. 

Kelsey does receive appropriate credit for his role at Lockheed, but NAA as the specifier for the A-36 did all the preliminary work on external wing rack capability with internal funding - ditto the 90 gal steel prototype P-51B-1 fuselage fuel tank which first flew in July 1943. Col Ben Bradley at MC should receive credit for expediting approvals for NAA proposals for 85 gal tank, six gun wing and bubble canopy project approvals.

Given the dating and tone of the blog I wonder if Greg Pascal drew on their 'lens' for his rant about politics stifling LR escort development? Wright Field was NOT an energetic 'enabler' of the LR escort solution, save Kelsey's undercover funding approval at Lockheed. If you want to direct credit - send it Barney Giles direction. Kesley was long gone from Wright Field after the Jan 1942 Fighter Conference and completely out of the loop for 55 gal LE tanks for P-38, 85 gal fuse tank for P-51B and additional 65 gal main tank for P-47D-25. 

General Echols in the meantime was twiddling funding and resources toward the GM P-75 as 'his solution'.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 6, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Yes the P-47 had longer range than the P-51,



It did?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 6, 2022)

wuzak said:


> It did?


This website says so, P-47 vs P-51: America's Best WWII Fighter? | International Aviation HQ but info on the interest is often worth what we pay for it.


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 6, 2022)

Edit fail on my part. D'Oh!

See subsequent post.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 6, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> The 175 mile radius is stated in these two maps: picture, picture2. Unfortunately, it does not state the fuel tankage.
> This map shows 200 mile radius; again, the fuel tankage of the Spitfire is not stated.
> 
> *My take is that 90 imp gal (110 US gal) tank was the only addition for the 84 gal internal fuel tankage for the Spitfire for such calculations.* Equals obviously to 174 imp gals, vs. 150 imp gals for the P-51B without fuselage tank and without drop tanks.



Not sure about that. Economical air cruising range for a Mk V was 465-500 miles (depends on engine and max approved boost) and for a Mk IX with a Merlin 66 at +18lbs was 434 miles (450 miles for the Merlin 61 version).

Spitfire LF IX November 1943 data card gives max still air range of* 724 miles with a 45 gal tank at most economical *after allowing for take off and climb to 20,000 ft (685 miles if tank is retained), and *387 miles at maximum weak mixture power*. Same data card gives* 980 miles max range with the 90 gallon tank* (900 miles if tank is retained) and *520 miles at maximum weak mixture power*.

As I understand it, RAF practice was that practical combat radius was between 33% and 40% of maximum still air cruising range (i.e. most economical power). After allowances for take-off/climb, combat power and reserves, the variance mostly depended on how much time was allocated for operating at most economical cruising power vs how much time was spent at 'fast cruising' - which was maximum weak/maximum continuous power. 

I'd argue that for Europe in 1942 to 1944 all Spitfire needs is the 45 gallon slipper tank for a true 200 mile effective combat radius (possibly only a 30 gal tank).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 6, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Yes the P-47 had longer range than the P-51 . . .



Given the relative air miles per gallon each aircraft achieved, that is all but impossible. At least on internal fuel only.




Admiral Beez said:


> This website says so, P-47 vs P-51: America's Best WWII Fighter? | International Aviation HQ but info on the interest is often worth what we pay for it.



It's never a good sign when the table of data comparing the two aircraft contains obvious errors. Look at the armament row — it shows the same info for both.

Even being charitable and saying the P-47 entry was just an accidental duplication of the P-51 data, the P-51D figure isn't right anyway. The ammo load of the P-51 was 400 rpg for the two inboard guns, and 270 rpg for the four outboard guns, or 1,880 rounds in all. (In some official sources I've seen it stated early P-51Ds had 500 rpg for the two inboard guns, which was subsequently lowered to 400.)


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 6, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Wow - The ChicagoBoyz have not performed much personal research into the Arnold history or narrative and give undeserved credit to Wright Field Material Command for 'driving' the combat tank development . . .
> 
> Given the dating and tone of the blog I wonder if Greg Pascal drew on their 'lens' for his rant about politics stifling LR escort development?



The phrase 'bomber mafia" turns up several times there, on other articles on the site covering the same basic subject. (I've seen that term used here by one or two people.)

I came across the site which running searches for fighter combat radius data. The site did provide some useful info for me such as the Tactical Development document I mentioned earlier, which I was able to find in full online, as well as acquainting me with Gen. Kenney's efforts in the Southwest Pacific. And it gave me more respect for the P-47 than perhaps I had previously.

That said, I am skeptical of the remainder of its claims. Using the term 'bomber mafia' doesn't inspire confidence either.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> This website says so, P-47 vs P-51: America's Best WWII Fighter? | International Aviation HQ but info on the interest is often worth what we pay for it.


We beat this up on a thread several years ago, it's not as cut and dry as that article makes it.






Range of P-51D and P-47N


Numbers vary, but what were the ranges and combat radius of the two fighters?



ww2aircraft.net


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 6, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> We beat this up on a thread several years ago, it's not as cut and dry as that article makes it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which has the longer range isn’t really important if they both have sufficient range to get the job done. After that it comes done to which one is cheaper and more easily produced.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 6, 2022)

And more economical for operations. P-47s were withdrawn from China, because their fuel consumption was eating up too much of the theater's fuel supply. B-29s were withdrawn for similar reasons. Since all supplies had to be flown in from India, the amount of resources had to be carefully husbanded.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Which has the longer range isn’t really important if they both have sufficient range to get the job done. After that it comes done to which one is cheaper and more easily produced.


Cheaper and more easily produced are not always the same thing. 
Case in point was the single source of supply for Merlin engines vs 5 sources of supply for R-2800 engines(in 1944).

This is also a simplification as not all R-2800 factories made the same model or types of R-2800s and they also changed back and forth at times. 

The Packard V-1650 was probably much cheaper than the R-2800s but if you decide to double the production of P-51s while cutting the P-47 it is going to take over a year (or considerably more) to get the V-1650 production up to what you need. 

If you decide in Feb 1944 that the P-51 was the answer to all your problems it was going to take well into 1945 to change the production over.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Which has the longer range isn’t really important if they both have sufficient range to get the job done. After that it comes done to which one is cheaper and more easily produced.


Points taken but it isn't that clear cut. How about maintenance and ease of operation? Which aircraft requires more pilot skill, training? Operating cost per hour?

And the question of range - the P-47D-40 is shown in that article with a range advantage over the P-51D (internal fuel). Those figure are based on optimum conditions for distance. Take the same P-47 and add in combat operations, full open throttle, autorich mixture, 5 minutes of WEP and see how that optimum range advantage compares when you put a P-51 in the same scenario. My final point? When making comparisons like this, don't trust internet articles - crack open a flight manual and calculate real world scenarios.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 6, 2022)

I thought we settled that whole "read the manual" thing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I thought we settled that whole "read the manual" thing.


It's settled if you read the manual *CORRECTLY*

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 6, 2022)

I know an expert who can help you with that.

_《ducks and covers》_

Reactions: Funny Funny:
8 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> I know an expert who can help you with that.
> 
> _《ducks and covers》_


Yep!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 7, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Yamamoto was shot down on April 18 1943.
> Most sources say Lindbergh left the US to go to the Pacific on April 24 1944, just over 1 year later.
> Sources say he flew his first mission in a P-38 on June 27th 1944 with 475th fighter group.
> This was after 13 (?) Missions in Corsairs.


From what I read there was no mention of Lindbergh being a fighter pilot so it could be that he was an adviser to the AF before joining?, I will do some research to refresh my memory.


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 7, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The only modification that was done to the aircraft on the Yamamoto mission was the use of larger drop tanks and the mission leader John Mitchell had a navy compass installed in his aircraft. As stated, Lindberg did not provide any training to the folks who flew the Yamamoto mission (339th and 347th FS)


For such an important one off mission those aircraft would be specially prepared, like the fit and finish and having the engines running right on tune, it's silly to think otherwise. From what I understand Lindbergh's contribution to the Yamamoto raid was teaching the pilots how to run the engines on lower RPM with lean mixture but higher boost giving the P-38's a few hundred more kms range,


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 7, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> I find it hard to believe they just grabbed 18 P38's and sent them for such an important one off mission, those aircraft would have every panel gap checked, paint rubbed smooth and polished and have the engines running right on tune. From what I understand Lindbergh's contribution to the Yamamoto raid was teaching the pilots how to run the engines on lower RPM with lean mixture but higher boost giving the P-38's a few hundred more kms range.



The mission was put together very quickly.

I suggest watching the video interview with the author to which I referred in post #633.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 7, 2022)

Yeah, there was not much time to put the operation together.
To get the strike force up to 18, they had to pull in elements from another FG and get everyone on the same page.
They weren't even sure the 330 gallon drop tanks would arrive from New Guinea in time.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 7, 2022)

I've been in maintenance of heavy equipment for 30 years, you don't send your gear out on important work without giving it some lovin.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 7, 2022)

Jabberwocky said:


> Not sure about that. Economical air cruising range for a Mk V was 465-500 miles (depends on engine and max approved boost) and for a Mk IX with a Merlin 66 at +18lbs was 434 miles (450 miles for the Merlin 61 version).
> 
> Spitfire LF IX November 1943 data card gives max still air range of* 724 miles with a 45 gal tank at most economical *after allowing for take off and climb to 20,000 ft (685 miles if tank is retained), and *387 miles at maximum weak mixture power*. Same data card gives* 980 miles max range with the 90 gallon tank* (900 miles if tank is retained) and *520 miles at maximum weak mixture power*.
> 
> ...



American practice in ETO escorting the B-17s and -24s from England was to cruise at 310 mph TAS at 25000 ft, 20 min combat, 30 min allowance for finding the proper airstrip and land. The closest British equivalent is the 'mwm' power?

Case with 90 gal drop tank for the Mk.IX HF (the only type I can find the data sheet fast).:
5 min of combat at 'combat power' setting was supposed to cut the range by 48 miles
4x48 miles = 192 miles.
550 miles of range -192 miles due 20 min of combat = 358 miles. 358 miles divided by 2 (to the target + back to base) = 179 mile radius.
I haven't subtracted the range to account for the 30 min allowance once above friendly territory.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 7, 2022)

From a website devoted to Lindbergh.






Lindbergh In World War II


Lindbergh In World War II




www.charleslindbergh.com










Charles Lindbergh and the 475th Fighter Group


Charles Lindbergh and the 475th Fighter Group




www.charleslindbergh.com


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> For such an important one off mission those aircraft would be specially prepared, like the fit and finish and having the engines running right on tune, it's silly to think otherwise. From what I understand Lindbergh's contribution to the Yamamoto raid was teaching the pilots how to run the engines on lower RPM with lean mixture but higher boost giving the P-38's a few hundred more kms range,


*Show us evidence of that! Specially prepared??? * What you're describing is normal squadron maintenance and meeting the requirements of approved maintenance manuals. "Fit and finish" is only addressed if there is visible surface irregularities such as wrinkles or missing fasteners, again routine maintenance. 

As stated, aside from the larger drop tanks and the navy compass installed on Mitchell's aircraft, these aircraft were "stock" from 2 operational squadrons.

*Lindbergh had absolutely NOTHING to do with this mission! *

Date of Operation Vengeance - *April 18, 1943*

Participating Squadrons* -* 347th and 339th FS

Lindbergh's time in the Pacific - *May 1944*

Units flown with - VMF 222, VMF 216, USMC, 433rd FS USAAF

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2022)

wuzak said:


> It did?


The max Combat Radius for -47N for max internal fuel (556) and external (440) for CR of 1000 mi.

P-51D with max (269) and external 110 gal tanks (220) had CR of 750 miles. I don't have CR with 165 gal externals but in the range of 900 mi.

One of the reasons why the P-47N was resigned to ANG post WWII - 2x to operate, 1.5 to buy.

I know that several of the posters regarding combat radius tables* inherently know and remember that Max combat radius is entirely based on internal fuel remaining when a.) entering combat, and b.) simultaneously dropping external tanks*. That which remains is a.) fuel to supply 5 min WEP and 15 min MP, b.) enough fuel to cruise back to base, and c.) have 30 minutes of fuel reserve at loiter settings to find place to land.

Another factor which is built into the AAF tables but not explicitly stated in the assumptions - are differences in inbound cruise speeds at specific altitudes based on the drag effect of the external tanks. For example, the P-51D (and B) with 75 gal tanks at 25K with optimal cruise settings, achieve ~ 300mph TAS while only 260+ mph TAS with 110 gal tanks. The result is about 10%+ difference in miles per gallon consumed. The tables show the result, but not the process.

This is why the actual 'extended' combat radius does not seem quite right when comparing 220 gal external to 150. It isn't a linear extension because of reduced cruise speed attainable economically with the larger tanks. 

All affected by winds aloft, actual combat consumption, and time to seek alternates in case of bad weather.

McGuire was KIA because he chose to engage with combat tanks still attached, at low level, with a far more maneuverable fighter - drop tanks are not your friend in a fight.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> This website says so, P-47 vs P-51: America's Best WWII Fighter? | International Aviation HQ but info on the interest is often worth what we pay for it.


These guys didn't get the geneology correct, mucho errors followed. 

The AP-10/XP-47 was an Allison powered lightweight in competition with Curtiss XP-46. When the R-2800 was introduced, AAC requested that (re-constructed Seversky Newco) Republic design an airframe around a turbo charged R-2800 and what emerged was XP-47B and a production contract was almost immediately let for P-47B.






Designing the P-47 Thunderbolt - Air Force Magazine


Although it came into being only eight months after contract, the P-47 had its beginnings in earlier a




www.airforcemag.com





Concepts of Range vs Combat Radius are understood by few, but bloviated by many in the publication world.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 7, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Points taken but it isn't that clear cut. How about maintenance and ease of operation? Which aircraft requires more pilot skill, training? Operating cost per hour?


How much new tech was on the P-47 that might tax maintenance and pilot operation? That supercharger assembly looks pretty advanced for the early 1940s. Is there an accurate TBO for these aircraft?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> How much new tech was on the P-47 that might tax maintenance and pilot operation? That supercharger assembly looks pretty advanced for the early 1940s. Is there an accurate TBO for these aircraft?


It's going to depend on certain factors - for maintainers it's going to be a matter of experience. The P-47 is a big machine, labor intensive. There is an engine TBO chart posted on here somewhere. Maintenance out doors is also a factor. As flight ops - again a big aircraft for a single engine fighter. Learning characteristics, landing speeds, power settings for cruise and combat, understanding how the aircraft will accelerate and decelerate during formation flying as some examples and that's why training for both pilots and maintainers is so important during the deployment of new equipment.

In the bigger picture it seems the P-51 was easier to maintain and fly


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> I've been in maintenance of heavy equipment for 30 years, you don't send your gear out on* important work without giving it some lovin.*


During combat operations *EVERY MISSION* is important work and aircraft maintainers are trained to keep their aircraft at 100% "Mission Capable" when possible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 7, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> During combat operations *EVERY MISSION* is important work and aircraft maintainers are trained to keep their aircraft at 100% "Mission Capable" when possible.


It amazes me that the aircraft mechanics could get any work done in the tight hangars on CVs. Look below, our maintainers need to have parts on hand, the skill set and the space to maintain what looks like a mix of Hellcats, Seafires and Fireflies (or is that a Tarpon?).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> It amazes me that the aircraft mechanics could get any work done in the tight hangars on CVs. Look below, our maintainers need to have parts on hand, the skill set and the space to maintain what looks like a mix of Hellcats, Seafires and Fireflies (or is that a Tarpon?).
> 
> View attachment 657273


I'd rather try to work there than outdoors in freezing weather.





photo credit shown

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Feb 7, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'd rather try to work there than outdoors in freezing weather


Agreed. I had to change the brake lines on a Fokker 100 outside, when it was -45. 
I don't recommend it

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Feb 7, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> How much new tech was on the P-47 that might tax maintenance and pilot operation? That supercharger assembly looks pretty advanced for the early 1940s. Is there an accurate TBO for these aircraft?


Does anyone have stats which reflect the operational readiness rates of the two during the time they flew ETO escort missions?

For example, during the Solomon campaign the allies had a multitude of fighters based there in December 1943 to help neutralize Rabaul. Of them, 71 F4Us were at a 66 percent mission ready rate, 58 F6Fs were at over 90 percent, 39 American/ New Zealand P-40s which also maintained a 90 percent rate, followed by 31 P-38s which understandably had the lowest rate at 38 percent. Sorry, I do not have the rate for the 69 P-39s which were stationed there too.

Knowing this, I think it would be more useful to compare the P-51 and P-47 rates, being that they were maintained by similarly trained and equipped service personnel (unlike in the Solomons where there were a mix of US Navy, Marine, and Army maintainers, along with New Zealand personnel).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 7, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> From what I read there was no mention of Lindbergh being a fighter pilot so it could be that he was an adviser to the AF before joining?, I will do some research to refresh my memory.


While barnstorming in southern Minnesota, Lindbergh met a graduate of the Army Flying School who told him that cadets flew the most modern and powerful airplanes. Lindbergh enrolled right away. He arrived at Brooks Field in San Antonio, Texas, on March 15, 1924. Lindbergh was joined by 103 other young men.

The cadets learned the essentials of aerodynamics, navigation, meteorology, and military law. Already a skilled pilot, military training taught Lindbergh precision flying techniques. In his first year, Lindbergh earned a 93.39 average, the second highest in his class.

But the training was tough. Only 32 cadets advanced to the next term held at nearby Kelley Field. The cadets trained in pursuit, attack, observation and bombardment. In one instance, Lindbergh was forced to parachute to safety when his plane collided with another while practicing formations.

On March 14, 1925, only 19 flying cadets graduated. This time, Lindbergh finished first in his class.









Army and Airmail


Charles Lindbergh enrolled in the US Army’s flight school, which gave him the training he needed to pursue a career in aviation.



www.mnhs.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2022)

DarrenW said:


> *Does anyone have stats which reflect the operational readiness rates of the two during the time they flew ETO escort missions*?
> 
> For example, during the Solomon campaign the allies had a multitude of fighters based there in December 1943 to help neutralize Rabaul. Of them, 71 F4Us were at a 66 percent mission ready rate, 58 F6Fs were at over 90 percent, 39 American/ New Zealand P-40s which also maintained a 90 percent rate, followed by 31 P-38s which understandably had the lowest rate at 38 percent. Sorry, I do not have the rate for the 69 P-39s which were stationed there too.
> 
> Knowing this, I think it would be more useful to compare the P-51 and P-47 rates, being that they were maintained by similarly trained and equipped service personnel (unlike in the Solomons where there were a mix of US Navy, Marine, and Army maintainers, along with New Zealand personnel).


I'm sure this will come up soon, but this is "in the weeds" information that needs to be considered when we make these comparisons. 

Completed sorties
Mission Capable Rates
Fully Mission Capable Rates
Mission Abort Rates

Then bounce that against Claims vs losses and you'll know statistically how well your fighter unit is doing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 7, 2022)

What's the difference between "mission capable" and "fully mission capable"? Is mission capable "Okay, I'll go, but I'm not really feeling it"?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> What's the difference between "mission capable" and "fully mission capable"? Is mission capable "Okay, I'll go, but I'm not really feeling it"?


Fully Mission Capable (FMC) usually indicates that all systems on the aircraft are operations. Mission Capable (MC) will indicate that an item or system isn't working or needs repair but the aircraft can still fly the mission.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 7, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> What's the difference between "mission capable" and "fully mission capable"? Is mission capable "Okay, I'll go, but I'm not really feeling it"?


Today we call it code 1, 2, or 3. Code 1 means fully mission capable, 2 means some stuff is broke but can still do combat, AKA mission capable, or code 3 which means it needs work before it flies again.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> Today we call it code 1, 2, or 3. Code 1 means fully mission capable, 2 means some stuff is broke but can still do combat, AKA mission capable, or code 3 which means it needs work before it flies again.


Ah yes - "Code 1" What we always strive for! 

I spent time in Plans and Scheduling with a bunch of old dogs from the SAC/ TAC days.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 7, 2022)

I love that kinda' talk.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 7, 2022)

drgondog said:


> The max Combat Radius for -47N for max internal fuel (556) and external (440) for CR of 1000 mi.



The claim by Admiral Beez, was based on an article that compared the P-47D and P-51D.

For Combat Range*, the article claims:
P-47D: 1,030 mi (1,660 km; 900 nmi)
P-51D: 750 mi (1,200 km; 650 nmi)

*Is that supposed to be radius?

So while the P-47N could outrange the P-51D, could the P-47D?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 8, 2022)

wuzak said:


> The claim by Admiral Beez, was based on an article that compared the P-47D and P-51D.
> 
> For Combat Range*, the article claims:
> P-47D: 1,030 mi (1,660 km; 900 nmi)
> ...


First - I will only comment on the October 1943 bar chart that was classified above as it dovetails to the USAAF Combat Radius Charts (and assumptions) reproduced by Dean in AOHT. The values below are for 25,000 feet, CR increases as altitude decreases.

The P-47C/D modified to add external wing racks and plumbing with internal capacity of 305 gal, plus 2x150 plus 1x110external tanks had a combat radius of 425 miles. Historically these were available late March-April 1944.

The P-47D-25 through D-40, Pre- P-47M and N, had an internal fuel capacity of 370gal. Its crafted USAAF Combat Radius with 2x150gal 'flat' (less drag) tanks was stated as 600 miles (statute). The D-25 was in combat ops in mid May, 1944 but not in squadron force until post D-Day.

The P-47N with 556 plus 440 gal (2x165 plus one C/L 110 gal) stated as 1000 miles. Also stated in notes is that Combat Radius only increases to 1025 miles when using 2x300 plus 1x110 ga tanks because of increased drag. P-47N and M operational in squadron force ~ March-April 1945

The P-51D with 269 gal internal plus 2x110 external tanks had a Combat Radius of 750 mi. The P-51B had about 25 mi greater CR due to lighter Gross Weight for comparable load outs. With 2x 165gal tanks the range was extended to ~950 mi CR. The P-51B with 85 gal fuselage tank was squadron level operational in late January 1944, the P-51D was squadron level operational in June 1944. 

At 10,000 feet the CR is ~ 3-4% greater.

The problem with every book chart overlay I have seen is that the assumptions and load outs and combat engagement criteria are rarely presented. It one author lifting from another from another, dropping important facts surrounding the presentation.

IMO, Range and Combat Radius are the two least understood topics by WWII aviation historians. I had some interesting arguments with Jeff Ethell on several subjects, but this is one where I had to bring in several mutual NAA/USAF test pilot acquaintances (Al White, Bob White and Jim Brooks) that not only understood the assumptions, understood the calculations at the weed level - but also LIVED it in combat operations during WWII in ETO/MTO. Jeff's fighter pilot dad Irv understood the subject but Jeff had never asked him. Jeff was somewhat notorious for copying and pasting the technical stuff as required.

Americas One Hundred Thousand by Dean lifts and reproduces the actual USAAF Tactical Planning Doc from 1945.

I spent a lot of time comparing those tables to all the reproduced charts in the posts above (and many more), as well as published flight test data, as well as performed Breguet equations to look at straight line cruise (clean)that could check 'return from combat at 25,000 feet at posted 'max cruise RPM/Boost' using flight test consumption rates per hour from extreme target radius (say Prague for P-51D or P-47M) to look at fuel consumed to reach Dutch/French Coast for let down point. I also pored over the Pilot Operating Manuals to cross check. They agree in the key segments required to build a flight plan to reconstruct a Combat Radius based on Max Cruise range power/rpm settings but I wasn't interested enough to look at all other power settings, save WEP and MP. 

The calcs indicated that the Charts/Tables contained in AOHT are somewhat conservative, but rational and consistent 

ALL Ranges cited are for 25K altitude.


The P-51D and P-51H were about the same. The P-51H had 255 gal (vs 269) internally, but lighter and slightly cleaner.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 8, 2022)

33K in the Air presented the baseline AAF combat Radius estimates and assumption in his post #623. This chart was modified in 1944 as flight testing on the P-47 with external racks was performed on the 150 gal 'flat tank'. Note also that neither 2x150 gal or 2x 165 gal external was tested on P-38 nor was the 110/108 gal external tank tested on the P-51B - at this time (10-43).

What is presented is a richer set of data about TAS cruise and the assumption that the fighters stay with bombers in Ess at Fighter cruise (~300mph TAS/210I AS).....





Later analysis and testing refined the inbound cruise speeds and fuel consumption with the varying drag increases associate with each external store combination. The final product is embodied in Dean's AOHT. In my book I combined all combinations and extracted gross internal fuel consumed for the definable legs Namely, TO and Climb before switching to external, Combat and Reserve/Loiter upon return. The TO and Climb was conservative and represented Tankless (clean) airframe for worst case.

Note also that there is a mistake re: B-17 TAS = 165mph. The B-24 formation cruise was 165-170mph IAS at 25K but B-17 operations dictated 150 IAS at 25 K to accommodate old tired aiframe/engines.

Another flaw (from actual operations) is that Break Escort usually occurred closer to Amsterdam/Brusselss, etc on a Withdrawal escort and closer to target on Penetration escort. One Size did not fit all. Somewhere in my archives is the clarification in communications from VIII Air Service Command and HQ MC at Wright Field to clarify that the Relay system had escort legs 'one way' in which the fighters were tethered to split ess covering bombers to maintain ~ same TAS over the ground for the entire gaggle. No P-47D (-1 to 023) EVER escorted to max Combat Radius from RV to Target and back to B/E to the oncoming Withdrawal escort relief.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Feb 8, 2022)

This has been posted before but may be of interest

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 8, 2022)

drgondog said:


> In my book I combined all combinations and extracted gross internal fuel consumed for the definable legs Namely, TO and Climb before switching to external, Combat and Reserve/Loiter upon return. The TO and Climb was conservative and represented Tankless (clean) airframe for worst case.



Pardon my ignorance, but which book is that? I'm still trying to connect board names to author names.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 8, 2022)

Regarding combat radius, there are also the Standard Aircraft Characteristics publications by the USAF.

The P-47N, carrying 997 gallons of fuel, had a basic combat radius of 800 nautical miles (920 statute miles).
The P-51H, carrying 480 gallons of fuel, had a basic combat radius of 770 nautical miles (886 statute miles).

The parameters were:

(a) Start engine, warm-up, take-off at sea level; 10 minutes at normal power.
(b) Climb to 25,000 feet at normal power.
(c) Cruise out with long range operation at 25,000 feet (external tanks are dropped when empty).
(d) Combat at 25,000 feet for 5 minutes with maximum power (fluid injection) and 15 minutes with maximum power (dry).*
(e) Cruise back with long range operation at 25,000 feet.
(f) Reserve: 5% of total useable fuel at take-off.

_* 5 minutes of maximum power and 15 minutes of military power for the P-47N_

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 8, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but which book is that? I'm still trying to connect board names to author names.








P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force : Marshall, James William "Bill", Ford, Lowell F., Gruenhagen, Col (Ret.) Robert W.: Amazon.com.au: Books


P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force : Marshall, James William "Bill", Ford, Lowell F., Gruenhagen, Col (Ret.) Robert W.: Amazon.com.au: Books



www.amazon.com.au


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 8, 2022)

Thanks! I suspected that was the one, but wanted to be sure. (There are lots of great books out there, new and old.)


----------



## drgondog (Feb 8, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but which book is that? I'm still trying to connect board names to author names.


Bill Marshall - the particular book is "P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that saved the 8th AF" James William Marshall and Lowell Ford Osprey 2020

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 8, 2022)

Previous include "Our Might Always: History of 355th FG in World War II" and "Angels, Bulldogs and Dragons; The 355th FG in WWII"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 8, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Bill Marshall - the particular book is "P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that saved the 8th AF" James William Marshall and Lowell Ford Osprey 2020



Thank you, sir!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Feb 17, 2022)

Was the P-51 the best ESCORT fighter of WWII?
ABSOLUTELY!

It was there when it was needed, it was fast enough, it went far enough, it was manouverable enough, it was easy enough to fly.

It wasn't the 'best' fighter, ( A Tempest would fly rings around it), but it was the best generalist - and you could build a P-51 in the same time it took to build a Spitfire with the same engine.

Spitfire? - didn't go far enough
P-47? - harder to fly
P-38? - Wasn't as manoeuvrable

_'You win a war being being the firstest with the mostest'_

And the P-51 was there when needed in huge numbers giving USAAF pilots a hotrod ride as good or better than the enemies over his homeland, and they tore the heart out of the Luftwaffe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 17, 2022)

Macandy said:


> _Was the P-51 the best ESCORT fighter of WWII?_
> 
> It wasn't the 'best' fighter, ( A Tempest would fly rings around it), but it was the best generalist - and you could build a P-51 in the same time it took to build a Spitfire with the same engine.


I wouldn't go so far as to say the Tempest would fly rings around the Mustang. They were both excellent fighters in my view and certainly the Mustang was better for long range escort. See ADFU Tactical Trials - Tempest V:

COMPARISON WITH MUSTANG III
Range and Endurance
25. By comparison the Tempest without nose tank or long-range tanks, has no range. When the extra fuel is available it should have a little more than half that of the Mustang III fitted with two 62.5 gallon long-range tanks, but without the extra 71 gallon body tank.

Maximum Speed
26. The Tempest V is 15-20 mph faster up to 15,000 ft., there is then no choice to 24,000 ft, when the Mustang rapidly pulls ahead, being about 30 mph faster at 30,000 ft.

Climbs
27. These compare directly with the results of the speed tests. At similar performance height the Tempest has a better zoom climb.

Turning Circle
28. The Tempest is not quite as good as the Mustang III.

Rate of Roll
29. The Tempest is not so good. This attribute may be improved upon later aircraft with re-designed ailerons.

Conclusions
30. The Mustang III has superior range of action and general performance above 24,000 ft. Conclusions should not be drawn below this height, but the Tempest has a much better rate of climb and speed below 10,000 feet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 17, 2022)

probably the P-51B/C/D/K were the best escort, but the trouble that left uncovered 3 years and 5 months, so it's sure the best escort from december '43, but before?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 17, 2022)

Vincenzo said:


> probably the P-51B/C/D/K were the best escort, but the trouble that left uncovered 3 years and 5 months, so it's sure the best escort from december '43, but before?


Best escort for who?
Or when?

If we agree the Zero was a good early war escort the Zero was only good from the end of 1940 to the end of 1942 (if then) so it leaves a a lot of the war uncovered.
The P-38 might be the best from late 1942 to the end of 1943. So it's time span wasn't that great.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 17, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Was the P-51 the best ESCORT fighter of WWII?
> ABSOLUTELY!
> 
> It was there when it was needed, it was fast enough, it went far enough, it was manouverable enough, it was easy enough to fly.
> ...


It wasnt there when it was needed because people said a long range escort couldnt be made and wasnt needed anyway. The P-51 started to go in service in late 1943, the huge numbers werent there until mid 1944, USA bombing missions started in 1942 with Spitfires, then P-47s then P-38s and P-51s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 17, 2022)

pbehn said:


> It wasnt there when it was needed because *people* *said a long range escort couldnt be made *and wasnt needed anyway. The P-51 started to go in service in late 1943, the huge numbers werent there until mid 1944, USA bombing missions started in 1942 with Spitfires, then P-47s then P-38s and P-51s.



Define long range please.

Now let sees what was actually available (in production in 1942) for a "long" range escort, like much beyond 300 miles round trip.
And a 300 mile round trip at the speeds and altitudes the B-17s and B-24s would fly.
Edit: sorry guys, I mean 300 mile radius, like England to the Ruhr. Brain fart. 

Anybody want to try to estimate the speed/altitudes of a Lancaster with reduced bomb load for a daylight raid go ahead 

Allison powered Mustang as B-17 escort even with drop tanks?
P-38 with 300 gallons of internal fuel and drop tanks? (Please use P-38F, but go ahead and throw in a 2nd generator and better cockpit heating)
P-47s are not available yet, regardless of drop tanks.
P-40F & L ? Go ahead and hang a drop tank under each wing, add 10-20 gallons more in the rear fuselage if you want.
The Groundhog with extra fuel where the wing .30 cal guns are 

Spitfire V with more than 30-40 gallons in the rear fuselage? (a lot easier to balance big rear tanks when you have a two stage Merlin in front)
A Typhoon?
Anybody seeing a problem here?

To escort the American bombers (or the big British bombers) you needed a plane that could not only fly the distance, it had to fly at a usable altitude and at a useable speed , enough to be able to respond to attackers. It had to be able to at least match the defending fighters.

The two stage Merlin might not have been the only answer but it gave enough power to allow take-offs with addition fuel without absurd runways. It gave enough power to actual fight at around 25,000ft and not just fly in a straight line. It showed up at the right time (or just a bit late) and it could be shoehorned into existing aircraft.
Without the Merlin you would have been looking at single escort fighters powered by the Sabre or Vulture for the British and the R-2800 (Surprise), the twin Allison, or one of the engines that never made it.
Or resort to twin engine fighters, like the P-38.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 17, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Best escort for who?
> Or when?
> 
> If we agree the Zero was a good early war escort the Zero was only good from the end of 1940 to the end of 1942 (if then) so it leaves a a lot of the war uncovered.
> The P-38 might be the best from late 1942 to the end of 1943. So it's time span wasn't that great.


Also this is true, not all need same escort, but a a fighter that can gain air superiority in enemy airspace, like the P-51, is sure the plus in the escort field.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 17, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> Regarding combat radius, there are also the Standard Aircraft Characteristics publications by the USAF.
> 
> The P-47N, carrying 997 gallons of fuel, had a basic combat radius of 800 nautical miles (920 statute miles).
> The P-51H, carrying 480 gallons of fuel, had a basic combat radius of 770 nautical miles (886 statute miles).
> ...


I've said it before and I'll repeat it here, I'm more impressed with the P-51H having a CR only 30 miles short of the P-47N... on less than half the fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 17, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> I've said it before and I'll repeat it here, I'm more impressed with the P-51H having a CR only 30 miles short of the P-47N... on less than half the fuel.



There is no doubt the P-51 is much more fuel efficient, which would reduce the logistical support, in regards to fuel, it would need as compared to the P-47.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 17, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> They were specially prepared aircraft modified for that mission plus the pilots were advised by Charles Lindbergh on how to get the best economy possible. The P51 is the best VLR plane used in WW2



Not at that time schooled by Lindbergh.


----------



## Macandy (Feb 18, 2022)

Mike Williams said:


> I wouldn't go so far as to say the Tempest would fly rings around the Mustang. They were both excellent fighters in my view and certainly the Mustang was better for long range escort. See ADFU Tactical Trials - Tempest V:
> 
> COMPARISON WITH MUSTANG III
> Range and Endurance
> ...



_"the Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest; extremely fast, highly-maneuverable and heavily armed"_
Hubert Lange


Although on paper the P-51D was slightly faster than the Tempest, in its element, the Tempest was faster, could out roll it with ease, (It could out roll pretty much anything one it got its spring tab ailerons) had a vastly higher rate of climb, and thanks to its higher P/W ratio, had very impressive acceleration.
There is at least one contemporaneous account of an irritated Tempest pilot turning on a P-51 that's bounced him and chasing it all over the sky to teach the pilot a lesson.


----------



## Macandy (Feb 18, 2022)

pbehn said:


> It wasnt there when it was needed because people said a long range escort couldnt be made and wasnt needed anyway. The P-51 started to go in service in late 1943, the huge numbers werent there until mid 1944, USA bombing missions started in 1942 with Spitfires, then P-47s then P-38s and P-51s.



Which must have come as a big surprise to the residents of Berlin who saw their city being bombed by huge numbers of USSAF bombers escorted by fighters in Feb/March 1944
I suspect it came as an even big shock to the very badly mauled Luftwaffe who realised their war was now lost - Nothing says you've lost like enemy fighters roaming at will over your country.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 18, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Which must have come as a big surprise to the residents of Berlin who saw their city being bombed by huge numbers of USSAF bombers escorted by fighters in Feb/March 1944
> I suspect it came as an even big shock to the very badly mauled Luftwaffe who realised their war was now lost - Nothing says you've lost like enemy fighters roaming at will over your country.


US bombing missions in Europe started in 1942 escorted by Spitfires.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 18, 2022)

Macandy said:


> _"the Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest; extremely fast, highly-maneuverable and heavily armed"_
> Hubert Lange
> 
> 
> ...


Entirely too glib. you have to look at the power available charts as function of altitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 18, 2022)

A lot of these tests are interesting but they only show the results when the test were done. 
The Tempest was not equipped with the standard fuel tank set up?
The Tempest was not using the standard engine used in production Tempests.

And the Mustang was using what for boost?
By April of 1944 they were using 67in of boost. this was with 100/130 fuel
In April and May of 1944 were testing with 44-1 fuel (104/150) so the 67in of boost was pretty standard. 

Mustangs also shifted from the V-1650-3 engine to the V-1650-7 engine with lower supercharger gears which allowed more power down low. 
Which engine and what boost limits were being used in the Mustang III in Jan/Feb of 1944?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 18, 2022)

Macandy said:


> _"the Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest; extremely fast, highly-maneuverable and heavily armed"_
> Hubert Lange
> 
> 
> ...


We are discussing the best escort fighter of the war, and we can make an excellent case for the Mustang.

The RAFs understanding was that the Typhoons and Tempests were to operate below 20,000ft, and the Spitfires were to operate above that altitude. Tempests lurked around German airfields as the Me-262s look off and landed, and were vulnerable to attack. Tempests were very heavily armed, and they were operating at their best combat altitudes, so they were dangerous for piston engined fighters to mess with. Mustangs operated at high altitudes where Me-262s had the time and the ability to accelerate to some 100mph faster.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 18, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of these tests are interesting but they only show the results when the test were done.
> The Tempest was not equipped with the standard fuel tank set up?
> The Tempest was not using the standard engine used in production Tempests.
> 
> ...


The Mustang III in the AFDU tactical trials was fitted with a V-1650-3 engine with maximum engine settings of 3,000 rpm and 67" (+18 lbs.) Fuel capacity was 154 gallons. The Tempest V in the AFDU tactical trials was fitted with a Sabre II engine of "approximately 2090 h.p. (same as Typhoon IB)". Test of  Tempest V JN.731 from November 1943 to March 1944 fitted with a Sabre IIA engine had operational limitations of 3700 rpm and +9 boost. The Tempest V with Sabre IIA aircraft data card shows 2,180 hp at SL at 3,700 rpm and +9 lbs boost and is in reasonable agreement with these tests. The fuel capacity of the Tempest tested at AFDU was 132 gallons. Perhaps of interest here is US comments of Tempest V JN.729 dated 4 December 1943. "Present limit of the Napier Sabre II A is 3700 rpm and 7 lbs/sq. inch boost. This rating gives approximately 2100 horsepower. The rating is being increased at this time to 3900 rpm and 9 lbs/sq. inch." I'm not sure they got that quite right.

Clearly both Tempest and Mustangs had engine changes and power increases from the summer of 1944 with the Mustang fitted with the V-1650-7 operating at 72" with the US and 80" (+25 lbs) with the RAF while the Tempest V fitted with the Sabre IIb put out 2,420 h.p. operating at 3,850 rpm and 11 lb.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ovod (Feb 19, 2022)

Macandy said:


> _"the Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest; extremely fast, highly-maneuverable and heavily armed"_
> Hubert Lange
> 
> 
> ...



I would have thought the Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the P-51 - weren't the overwhelming majority of Me 262s shot down by the Mustang?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 19, 2022)

Ovod said:


> I would have thought the Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the P-51 - weren't the overwhelming majority of Me 262s shot down by the Mustang?


Yes - more than 50%. Distribution included engagements at high altitude through landing approaches. Damaging one engine was largely fatal to the pursued Me 262. The 8th, 9th, and 15th AF owned the eastern territory of the Reich ranging from Stettin through Prague, Munich and Vienna where far more 262s were based than Rhine region.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 19, 2022)

Ovod said:


> I would have thought the Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the P-51 - weren't the overwhelming majority of Me 262s shot down by the Mustang?



According to this Quora poster, Steve Rusling:

_
Only nine squadrons had become operational on Tempests before the end of the war. The type was a rare sight over NW Europe in late 1944 and early 1945. This alone must make it difficult to describe as the Me 262s worst enemy. USAAF escort fighters were far more likely to meet the Luftwaffe Me 262s and it was these aircraft, predominantly P-51s, that accounted for most Me 262s destroyed in aerial combat.

Of the squadrons operating Tempests:

No.3 was credited with 1 Me 262 destroyed and 2 damaged.

No.56 was credited with 2 Me 262s destroyed and 1 damaged.

No.80 was credited with 1 Me 262 destroyed and 1 damaged.

No.274 was credited with 2 Me 262s destroyed and 3 damaged.

No.486 (RNZAF) was credited with 2 Me 262s destroyed and 1 damaged.

The Tempest was fast and heavily armed. It could certainly shoot down an Me 262 if it could catch it.
_

I can't vouch for these numbers, but he has a point that Mustangs would, in their huge numbers and role as escort, should have far more opportunity to fight the jets.

In the typical scenario of attacking -262s on climb-out or approach, a Tempest should perform at least as well as the Mustang, if not better what with 4x20mm armament.

Both of them would be great dangers to the 262 in the typical scenario.

And our own 

 drgondog
has this to say:

_The 8th FC were credited with (IIRC) ~ 139 air credits against German jets of all types and ~110 air to air victories over the Me 262. The 56th got 7 as the 'all P-47' equipped and I think the 78th and 353rd got a couple more before transitioning to 51's. The P-51 was close to 100 and the 8th FC lost 12-15 fighters to Me 262s.



Also the P-51B scored a couple in fall 1944 (Ditto P-47M in 1945) - but have to check for totals._

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 19, 2022)

Just a cursory glance - 4th FG 6x262, 20th 5.5x262, 55th FG 16x262, 78FG 3x262 P-47/9x262 P-51, 339th 11x262, 352nd 7.5x262

Basically individual 8th AF FG, each having more than sum of all Tempest 262 credits

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ovod (Feb 19, 2022)

I always knew that the Mustang had the highest tally against the Me-262, some online searching brought me to this website with some extra information - with close attention being paid the post below:

Which Allied aircraft scored the most air-to-air kills against the Me 262 in WWII?



> By combining the three tables, of known Me262 losses; claims by USAAF; and claims by RAF, in Foreman, _Me 262 Combat Diary_ (1990), assuming that the German numbers are correct, and also that all the dates are as stated, I have obtained the following statistics. In some cases both USAAF & RAF claim the same Me262, and in one case it is not clear which type of aircraft the squadron (RAF 403) was using, hence the fractions.
> 
> Shot down by USAAF Mustang 92.5
> Shot down by USAAF Thunderbolt 18.83
> ...



Make of the data what you will, but I think we can all agree: that an aircraft's ubiquity is as important a fighting quality as its flying and handling qualities for combat effectiveness.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 19, 2022)

Macandy said:


> _"the Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest; extremely fast, highly-maneuverable and heavily armed"_
> Hubert Lange
> 
> 
> ...


Is that a direct quote? I thought it mentioned "at low altitude" and stated "was a dangerous opponent"

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 19, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> According to this Quora poster, Steve Rusling:
> 
> 
> _Only nine squadrons had become operational on Tempests before the end of the war. The type was a rare sight over NW Europe in late 1944 and early 1945. This alone must make it difficult to describe as the Me 262s worst enemy. USAAF escort fighters were far more likely to meet the Luftwaffe Me 262s and it was these aircraft, predominantly P-51s, that accounted for most Me 262s destroyed in aerial combat.
> ...



Mr. Rusling is a member here, too. A well-informed chap, to say at least.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 19, 2022)

Small world!


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 19, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Mr. Rusling is a member here, too. A well-informed chap, to say at least.



I"m glad to learn this, hopefully I get the opportunity to make his acquaintance.


----------



## EwenS (Feb 19, 2022)

RAF Tempest V units in WW2

486 5 aircraft only from 1/44 to 2/44. Fully re-equipped from 4/44.
3 from 2/44
56 from 6/44
Fighter Interception Unit from 6/44 to 8/44. Merged into 501 squadron
501 from 7/44
80 from 8/44
274 from 8/44
287 from 11/44 (second line squadron for target towing and gun laying)
56 OTU from 12/44
33 from 12/44
222 from 12/44
349 (Belgian) from 2/45 to 4/45. Conversion abandoned.
485 from 2/45 to 4/45. Conversion abandoned

The FIU and 486, 3, 56, 80, 274 and 501 squadrons flew as part of Air Defence of Great Britain initially, covering the D-Day landings and then intercepting V1 from June 1944. At the end of Sept 1944, the first 5 of these squadrons joined 2nd TAF on the Continent along with 2xSpitfire XIV squadrons in exchange for 3 Mustang III and 4 Spitfire IX squadrons. It was felt that Tempests and Spitfire XIV would be better able to tackle the air opposition then being encountered, including the German jets. At the same time the long range Mustang units were needed to support Bomber Command daylight raids. 501 remained in Britain to the end of the war.

33, 222, 349 & 485 were all 2nd TAF squadrons that returned to the U.K. to re-equip. 33 and 222 returned to the Continent in Feb 1945 with their Tempest V for the final few months of the European War. 349 and 485 followied in April on Spitfire IX/XVI.

183 and 247 squadrons were the first to receive the Tempest II in August 1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 19, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Just a cursory glance - 4th FG 6x262, 20th 5.5x262, 55th FG 16x262, 78FG 3x262 P-47/9x262 P-51, 339th 11x262, 352nd 7.5x262
> 
> Basically individual 8th AF FG, each having more than sum of all Tempest 262 credits



I knew you'd have the dope. Thanks, bud!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------

