# p51 vs p47



## brad (Jun 7, 2004)

which one


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2004)

P-47 8)


----------



## Erich (Jun 7, 2004)

is this a question and why ? two different capable a/c and used for different missions in different theaters of the war. P-47 tops as a heavy ground attack machine, P-51 tops as a long range high altitude interceptor

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## brad (Jun 8, 2004)

> is this a question and why ? two different capable a/c and used for different missions in different theaters of the war. P-47 tops as a heavy ground attack machine, P-51 tops as a long range high altitude interceptor


then which one


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

P-47!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2004)

to close to call for me..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2004)

P-47!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

the P-47 looked a tiny tiny bit better perahps.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2004)

looked a lot better


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2004)

not sure though......................


----------



## ev0 (Jun 20, 2004)

you can't really compare the aircrafts but as the situation is, when someone is putting a gun to my head and asking me (;D ) i must say that the p47 perhaps was better. It could do several jobs as dive-bombing, intercepting and dogfighting. But as I said, You can not compare the aircrafts.....


----------



## Tomtebo (Jun 20, 2004)

P 47 good dammit


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2004)

i think the P-51 has the better looks, just.........................


----------



## Dan (Jul 2, 2004)

speaking of p-51 there's this guy in Ohio selling a perfectly good P-51 
here's the add (it's actually a web page): http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/p51sforsale/4413016mar2003.shtml


----------



## kiwimac (Jul 2, 2004)

TA-152 

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2004)

oh yeah..........................


----------



## Schrage Muzik (Jul 17, 2004)

I prefer the P-47. The M model was faster than most mustangs, the N model had a ridiculous range, and, 8 Browning .50's is better than six. I don't know nearly as much as the rest of you, but it could almost certainly dive faster, and was probably tougher to kill and more rugged. The P-51 has it in high-altitude performance, and probably is a bit more manuverable, but I'd still take the Jug.

Plus, I think it looked so much more manly, I love radials.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2004)

The P-51 had a longer range, too. The N was a little too late for the war, although I believe it saw some service in the Pacific.


----------



## Schrage Muzik (Jul 18, 2004)

Ah, yes, longer range.

I belive that the N did see service escorting B-29's during some of the final runs, it had a range of 2350 miles with tanks, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Dec 10, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> looked a lot better



Amen to that brother!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 11, 2004)

I thankee


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 25, 2004)

German documents/interviews I've come in contact with credit the P-47 as much more instramental in the defeat of the Luftwaffe.

The P-38L beats them both!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 26, 2004)

no it didn't.................


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 27, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no it didn't.................



In what respect? It flew, climbed, and accelerated faster, carried more flew further, and higher, out rolled, and out turned them. 

In the words of a P-51/P-38 combat pilot (Ithink it was Art Hieden) "There is nothing a P-51 can do that a P-38L cant Do better" he flew the P-38s first. 8). In interviewing a number of P-51/P-38 pilots, C.C. Jordan, some of whom prefered the P-51 the most derogitive comment was that it was an "icewagon" ( early models). All conceeded the P-38 gave nothing away in ACM.

The P-47 had a survivability edge at straffing but that's it unless you want to figure in the P-51H and the P-47N/M then they have a top speed advantage. As the wildcat showed that isn't enough by itself.

Sorry I know this is a P-47/P-51 duel.


----------



## Erich (Dec 27, 2004)

every German Luftw vet said the P-51 was the contender for air space over the Reich from the summer of 44 till war's end.............sorry guys


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 28, 2004)

That may be so, however the German leaders gave the P-47 the credit for destroying the Luftwaffe.

The P-38s were being used more for ground attack after early summer '44 but was in a large part responsible for the air control that was achieved by that time. Remember the P-38 gave better than it got when the Germans owned the sky over Germany when the odds were 10-50 to one.


----------



## Erich (Dec 28, 2004)

German leaders such as whom sir ?


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 29, 2004)

Many of Germanys Top Aces in Europe were shot down by P-47's, as well as a few Me262's...... It was a good plane.....

But I agree with Erich, that the majority of Luftwaffe pilots respected the P-51D more so than the P-47.....


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

Kind of an unfair comparison. The P-47 did a reasonable job for bomber escort before the P-51s arrived. Obviously, the range of the 51 was it's greatest strength. After the P-51s got to Europe in numbers, the P-47 was more focused on ground attack, which it did very well. Even then though, it still managed to wrack up quite a number of air-to-air kills. For the pilots, I am sure they would say the P-51. I am not sure what the guys on the ground at the airfields would say, but I would venture to guess the P-47. It kind of depends on what you see more of, I would think.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Many of Germanys Top Aces in Europe were shot down by P-47's, as well as a few Me262's...... It was a good plane.....
> 
> But I agree with Erich, that the majority of Luftwaffe pilots respected the P-51D more so than the P-47.....



I'm not sure where the statements about the P-47 doing the most damage came from but I've seen that statement from several sources and it does include the ground attack portion. I'll try to fing some of those references. 

As an escort the P-51s would be the focus of the fighter pilot so naturaly they would consider them the greater opponent.

The P-51s smothered more than out fought the Luftwaffe. It was good enough, more than the best aircraft. They also had training/experiance over just about any aircraft in the war, even more so, as the war went on.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 30, 2004)

The P-47 was the first aircraft to down a -262.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2004)

was the -262 on it's take off/landing approach??


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2004)

No, no it was not.


----------



## redcoat (Jan 4, 2005)

The P-51 was the best US fighter.
The P-47 was a very good fighter, but it was an even better ground attack aircraft.
The P-38 (AKA The Icebox)was a failure as a fighter in NW Europe, but it was a reasonable ground attack aircraft.

But the best Allied fighter to see service in Europe was the Spitfire mk XIV,
No if, buts or maybe's \/


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 5, 2005)

i'd agree with that.................


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 5, 2005)

redcoat said:


> The P-51 was the best US fighter.
> The P-47 was a very good fighter, but it was an even better ground attack aircraft.
> The P-38 (AKA The Icebox)was a failure as a fighter in NW Europe, but it was a reasonable ground attack aircraft.
> 
> ...



The P-38 was not a failure! As stated before it maintained in the ETO:

4/1 ratio in combat
Historians award 2,500+ kills
2 f/g accomplished a 4/5% bomber loss rate not bettered by 7 P-51 2 P-47 (long rangs escort) f/gs

They did this while 

Developing the P-38
Learning Tactics and gaining experiance The P-51/P47s benefitted from
Bad gas and ground support infrastructure Also benifitting following planes
Close escort
Experianced German resistance (requiring bringing 'Wild Bore' f/s to daylite operations.
Air superiority over Germany was established by march 44 when the P-51s were just reaching parity with the P-38s

Furthermore there is a famous story about a Spit XIV vs P-38 dogfight where they sized eachother up then the P-38 got on the Spit's tail and stayed there up to and including a low level, low angle split s that the P-38 followed through but was dangerously low so the fight was called off at that point before someone got hurt - the point having already been made.

Your comments are uninformed, Try the following web pages

P-38online http://p-38online.com
Planes and Pilots of WWII This one has very good articles.
p-38(C.C.Jordon) http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

There are also several books out there that clear up a lot of the misconceptions about the P-38.


The P-38 had problems in the ETO, but when needed - in spite of the Problems - it allowed the bombers to continue deep raids for at least 6 months at a critical time, and gave much better than it took! 

In the MTO and the Pacific The P-38 was the best. Historians credit it with 5,730+ in the PTO and 608 in the MTO ( included in the 2,500). Considering they did this while doing Close escort, ground attack and more experianced adversaries And less airsraft 10,000 P-38s (8,200+ kills total for the war) to 15,000+ p-51s (5,932 kills for the war) and 16,000 P-47s (7,000+ kills for the war) is even more remarkable.

Even if you take the, incorrect, 1,771 ETO + the 5,730+ PTO = 7501+ more than the P-51 anyway!

The P-51B/C/D/K has only three things it can do better than a P-38L
1. Cost $53,000 vs 115,000
2. Visability no booms to look around
3. 56% of the P-51s fuel is internal the P-38 has 41% internal though the P-38 flew longer operational missions.

The P-38L did everything else better, period. 

The P-51 was the best single engined (that's why most comparisons include that qualification!) fighter. It was compettetive wint anything else it had to fly against and had the range to take it to the enemy and still go home.


----------



## Erich (Jan 5, 2005)

hmmmmmmmmm no I would not agree that the March 1944 date would be true. Possibly during Normandie and afterward.

The birth and life of the 354th fg overshadowed any other fighter group in the ETO with the pilots flying the P-51 which they favoured over the P-47 later in the fall of 44.

Wilde Sau fighters from JG 300 were not brought over to fly day time missions until June of 44 and later JG 301 flying out of Austria and Hungary until being pulled back in the fall of 44 to the Reich defence.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 5, 2005)

Erich said:


> hmmmmmmmmm no I would not agree that the March 1944 date would be true. Possibly during Normandie and afterward.
> 
> The birth and life of the 354th fg overshadowed any other fighter group in the ETO with the pilots flying the P-51 which they favoured over the P-47 later in the fall of 44.
> 
> Wilde Sau fighters from JG 300 were not brought over to fly day time missions until June of 44 and later JG 301 flying out of Austria and Hungary until being pulled back in the fall of 44 to the Reich defence.



Erich, I was being careful not to exagerate but I think that is close.

i will try to find the exact source but one of mine mentioned Galland bringing either 1 or 2 F/Gs into the daylite raidsin November '43 to bolster the me-110s in the bomber attack role as the fighters were being countered by the P-38 escorts.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 5, 2005)

Erich said:


> hmmmmmmmmm no I would not agree that the March 1944 date would be true. Possibly during Normandie and afterward.
> 
> The birth and life of the 354th fg overshadowed any other fighter group in the ETO with the pilots flying the P-51 which they favoured over the P-47 later in the fall of 44.
> 
> Wilde Sau fighters from JG 300 were not brought over to fly day time missions until June of 44 and later JG 301 flying out of Austria and Hungary until being pulled back in the fall of 44 to the Reich defence.



The P-38s started earnest escort in late October '43 with 2 F/Gs the first P-51Bs were just starting to arrive. The first P-51 F/G went operational in late December '43 reaching parity with the P-38s in mid to late Spring '44.
The P-38s began ground attack (in earnest) in the ETO about the same time (mid-late spring '44) to prepare for D-Day. They were phased out of the ETO escort roll by late September '44.


----------



## Erich (Jan 5, 2005)

I think what you meant to say is that twin enigne night fighters were called to help stem the tide of heavy day light bombers.

In the fall of 43 through spring of 44, Bf 110G's with heavy radar as well as some staffels equipped with the twin Br 21cm rocket launchers............

as friend and ace Peter Spoden has told me, (he flew one of these heavy beasts), if any Allied escorts were in the area, we knew we would be dog meat............

E ~


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 5, 2005)

Erich said:


> I think what you meant to say is that twin enigne night fighters were called to help stem the tide of heavy day light bombers.
> 
> In the fall of 43 through spring of 44, Bf 110G's with heavy radar as well as some staffels equipped with the twin Br 21cm rocket launchers............
> 
> ...



That could be, my source did not specify groups or aircraft just that the P-38 escorts caused a rethink and using previously night fighter F/Gs transfered to daylite operations.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 5, 2005)

i think that the 2 aircraft have different their role, so its performance are different:
Speed: Depending he model
Range: P-51(obviously)
Performance above 15,000 ft: P-51
Performance below 15,000 ft: P-47
Ground Attack: P-47
Manuverablilty: P-51(takes it 2 do a full loop 360 degrees at 15000 ft:15 seconds, P-47: 19 seconds)
firepower: P-47
Pay-load: P-47
Easy-to-control: P-51
More nosy: P-47
Wasting more fuel Per hour: P-47
Better Dogfighter: P-51
Faster Climb Rate: P-51
gun easier 2 jam: P-51
ummm...i think i wrote 2 much here... anyway in my opinion i think the P-51 is gonta gun down a P-47 first...


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 5, 2005)

and also if i could choose, i would choose the P-38


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2005)

The thing you have to remember is that shooting down a P-47 is almost impossible. You have to fill it so full of lead, it's too heavy to fly! From my last presentation:
_June 23, 1943
Early in the morning forty-eight Thunderbolts took off from the advanced base at Manston. Having previously been criticized for going off on his own, this morning Johnson resolved to stay in formation. The three squadrons of the 56th Fighter Group were all up: the 61st (Johnson's), 62nd, and 63rd. Before the mission, Johnson felt the cold fear that he always felt, and which he was able to channel into higher alertness. They flew up, over the Channel, into France, and soon spotted sixteen Fw-190s. Before Johnson could communicate or coordinate with his flight, he was hit. 20mm cannon shells ripped through his plane, smashing the canopy, punching holes in the plane, and inspiring in Johnson an overwhelming urge to bail out. More explosions smashed the plane, and Johnson's frantic "Mayday!" calls drew no response. Fire began to envelope the cockpit. 

The Thunderbolt spun crazily out of his control and the twisted and jammed canopy frame resisted his repeated, superhuman, full-body efforts to open it. As he struggled vainly with the canopy, the engine fire miraculously went out, but he could hardly see, as oil spewed back from the battered engine. He tried to squeeze out through the broken glass of the canopy, but the opening was just too small for both him and his chute. Trapped inside the P-47, he next decided to try to crash-land and evade. He turned the plane south, toward Spain - the recommended evasion route. After struggling with hypoxia and hallucinations, his thoughts came back into focus and he realized that the aircraft was still flying fairly well. He headed back for England, counting on his high altitude to help him make a long, partially-powered glide back home. 

The instrument panel was shattered. The wind constantly blew more oil and hydraulic fluid into his cut up face and eyes. He had neglected to wear his goggles that morning, and any attempt to rub his eyes burned worse than ever. He and his plane were horribly shot up, but incredibly he was still alive. He made for the Channel, desperate to escape the heavily defended enemy territory. 

Swiveling constantly, he froze in horror as he spotted a plane approaching him, an Fw-190, beautifully painted in blue with a yellow cowling. Johnson was totally helpless, and just had to wait for the German to get him in his sights and open up. The German closed in, taking his time with the crippled American fighter. Johnson hunched down behind his armor-plated seat, to await the inevitable. The German opened up, spraying the plane with 30-caliber machine gun fire, not missing, just pouring lead into the battered Thunderbolt. Johnson kicked his rudder left and right, slowing his plane to a crawl, and fired back as the German sped out in front of him. 

The Focke-Wulf easily avoided the gunfire from the half-blinded Johnson, and circled back, this time pulling level with him. The pilot examined the shattered Thunderbolt all over, looking it up and down, and shook his head in mystification. He banked, pulled up behind Johnson again, and opened up with another burst. Somehow the rugged Republic-built aircraft stayed in the air. The German pulled alongside again, as they approached the southern coast of the Channel. Still flying, Johnson realized how fortunate it was that the German found him after his heavy 20mm cannons were empty.

As they went out over the Channel, the German got behind and opened up again, but the P-47 kept flying. Then he pulled up alongside, rocked his wings in salute, and flew off, before they reached the English coast. Johnson had survived the incredible, point-blank machine gun fire, but still had to land the plane. He contacted Mayday Control by radio, who instructed him to climb if he can. The battered plane climbed, and after more communication, headed for his base at Manston. Landing was touch and go, as he had no idea if the landing gear would work. The wheels dropped down and locked and he landed safely.

Johnson relates:
"There are twenty-one gaping holes and jagged tears in the metal from exploding 20mm cannon shells. I'm still standing in one place when my count of bullet holes reaches past a hundred; there's no use even trying to add them all. The Thunderbolt is literally a sieve, holes through the wings, fuselage and tail. Every square foot, it seems is covered with holes. There are five holes in the propeller. Three 20mm cannon shells burst against the armor plate, a scant inch away from my head. Five cannon shell holes in the right wing; four in the left wing. Two cannnon shells blasted away the lower half of my rudder. One shell exploded in the cockpit, next to my left hand; this is the blast that ripped away the flap handle. More holes appeared along the fuselage and in the tail. Behind the cockpit, the metal is twisted and curled; this had jammed the canopy, trapping me inside."
_

That was none other than Robert Johnson, in his earlier days. Who was the pilot that failed to shoot him down? Egon Mayer! Egon Mayer was later killed in a crash after being shot down later, by a P-47!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 6, 2005)

wmaxt, it was a Spitfire Mk. IX not a XIV. The P-38 got 1.1:1 kill ratio, not 4:1 in the ETO.


----------



## redcoat (Jan 6, 2005)

Adolf Galland said:


> More nosy: P-47
> .


----------



## redcoat (Jan 6, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> The P-38 was not a failure! As stated before it maintained in the ETO:
> 
> 4/1 ratio in combat
> Historians award 2,500+ kills
> ...


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 6, 2005)

redcoat said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > The P-38 was not a failure! As stated before it maintained in the ETO:
> ...


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> wmaxt, it was a Spitfire Mk. IX not a XIV. The P-38 got 1.1:1 kill ratio, not 4:1 in the ETO.



No it was a XIV. and Fighter to fighter was 1/4 the 1.1/1 ratio is loss to kill ratio not the same. Check out the following web site:

http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

It's a little reading but it relates both the Spit story and the kill ratio.

The Spit XIV was the equal of the P-38L in all but range and payload. The pilot made the difference when maneouvering.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 6, 2005)

Adolf Galland said:


> i think that the 2 aircraft have different their role, so its performance are different:
> Speed: Depending he model
> Range: P-51(obviously)
> Performance above 15,000 ft: P-51
> ...



Seems like a pretty good comparison


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

Yep but the P-47 Gets my vote, I love the damn thing 8)

Amazing story BTW Evan


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2005)

Yes, I thought so too! It was part of my presentation last month and it definitely raised a few eyebrows. I am sure though that for every story like that, there were many that were not so lucky.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 6, 2005)

> there were many that were not so lucky.


Amen Brother.... Amen........


----------



## redcoat (Jan 6, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> [http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
> 
> It's a little reading but it relates both the Spit story and the kill ratio.


Unfortunately for your case it refers to a Spitfire XV............

There was no XV mark Spitfire  


as for the 4 to 1 ratio.... if you want to believe it, that's OK with me......

Just don't expect me too


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 6, 2005)

There was a Seafire Mk XV tho.....


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 6, 2005)

> As for the claim that the P-38 could outmanuever a Spitfire, one must remember that the pilot who made the claim has a few details missing in his story, such as claiming the mock dogfight was against an ace RAF pilot (who doesn't show up on any list of RAF aces), and against a fighter version of the Spitfire Mk.XI (that also didn't exist)...He's also the guy who claims that in 1944 he shot down Adolf Galland while the latter was flying an Fw 190 - and that "Galland" went down with the aircraft. Use your own judgement about his credibility


I have the book in front of me, Top Guns, by Joe Foss and Matthew Brennan... The story is called "Big John" and it is about a Colonel John H. Lowell..... Credited with 16.5 kills, 9 Probables, 11 damaged...

I will type all this by hand....

The Group, 364th FG, had just recieved P-38L's just before the P-51's arrived...
"On a day that we were "stood down", General Eisenhower arranged for one of the top English aces Wing Commander Donaldson, to come to Honnington and show slides of English Spitfires....

S/Ldr. Edward Mortlock (Teddy) Donaldson, a Cranwell graduate took over Command of No 151 Squadron flying Hurricane's in November 1939. He shot down 5½ enemy aero planes up until August 1940. He survived the war ending up as an air Commodore with C.B, C.B.E.,D.S.O. and A.F.C.

This is a REAL PERSON..........

After the briefing, Donaldson said,
"If one of u bloody bastards has enough guts, Ill fly mock combat above ur field and show u how easily this Spit XIV can whip your best pilots ass..."

The entire group started clapping and hollered, "Big John, Big John!"
That was me, so I asked him, "What is your fuel load?"
He replied, "Half Petrol."
"What is your comabt load?"
He replied, "No ammo."

We agreed to cross over the field at 5,000 feet, then anything goes... I took off in a new P-38L.... I climbed very high, so when I dove down to cross the field, my speed would be close to 600 mph...... When Donaldson and I crossed, I zoomed straight up while watching him try and get on my tail... When he did a wing-over from loss of speed, I was several thousand feet above him, so I quickly got on his tail... Naturally, he turned into a full-power right lLufberry as I closed in... I frustrated that with my clover-leaf, and if we'd had "hot guns," he would have been shot down.

He came over the field with me on his tail and cut throttle, dropped flaps, and split-S'ed from about 1,000 feet... I followed him with the new flaps, banking only 45 degrees, below the tree tops... All I had to do was move over behind his Spit again.. He was apparently surprised...."

This story also explains about this::


> He's also the guy who claims that in 1944 he shot down Adolf Galland while the latter was flying an Fw 190 - and that "Galland" went down with the aircraft. Use your own judgement about his credibility.


The story does not included Galland being shot down... This dude is pumping misinformation out.....

"One of our last P-38 missions was a flight to protect bombers on a mission near Berlin.. We were flying Top Cover..... We were bounced by 16 long nose Fw-190's... A flight of 4 overflew us and slowed down... I looked up at a German plane... The pilot was looking down at me as he eased ahead and close above me into sure death, unless he could take violent evasive action.... He split S'ed and I followed him.. He nearly got out of sight because if the P-38's high-speed compressability problem... Finally he turned into me and I cut across to close with him...

"Then the fight started...."

He was a fantastic, wild, talented pilot who pulled all the tricks i had ever seen... But finally I got into a tight Lufberry with him and used my clover-leaf surprise to get a few strikes... None of them harmed his power unit....

When his methyl injection was gone, he dived to the deck and dropped into a tar pit that was 500 feet deep and big enough to turn a fighter in... I got a few more strikes on him... A portion of his vertical stabilizer and one wingtip flew off..... As I was getting low on fuel, I headed back to England... I looked back over my shoulder to see the Fw-190D going in the opposite direction, wagging his wings...."

A few years ago, the American Fighter Aces had thier annual reunion at Maxwell AFB in Alabama....

"Ace Gabreski saw me and called me over to his little group... He introduced me as the highest scoring P-38 Ace in Europe... Whn I shook hands with German General Adolf Galland, I said "Adolf, did u ever shoot down a P-38?"

He replied, "Yah I shoot down 8."

I proceeded to tell the group about this dogfight over the tar pit.. I was using my hands and looking down as I described this engagement... When I looked up, he was pale white...

He said, "You son of a bitch! You dom neer keel me dat day!"

Holy Mackeral!!! All the pilots that heard our conversation bellowed their surprise, including myself... Adolf wouldnt let me out of his sight..."

I think redcoat, tht u should be alittle most questionable on ur sources......

What a great book this is....... It has the personal stories of Bruce Morehead, SW Vejtasa, Jack Ilrey, Robert Lee Scott, Leslie Smith, Sam Silber, Alexander Vraciu, John Lowell, Jeff DeBlanc, Hub Zemke, James Percy, Tom Blackburn, Kenneth Dahlberg, James Swett, William Shomo, William Cullerton, John Galvin, and Edward Rector...


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2005)

Great story! I think I just found a new book to pick up on my next trip to the bookstore. 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 6, 2005)

Seriously man, this book is great.. Its a few years ago, but still a great read.... Many great stories.....

Pocket Books, Copyright 1991


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 6, 2005)

Y'know something? I've seen this book at the base library here, and I just managed to flip through it. It does look like a great read. I'm definitely going to have to sign it out now, I think.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

From all the stories I've heard about the -38 - Spit encounter it was a Mk. IX.

And there was no Mk. XV Spitfire. It was a Seafire Mk. XV


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 7, 2005)

The incident happened in mid 1944... I dont think a W/C would have been in a IX.. He was flying a Mk XIV....


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

Mk. IXs were used right up until the wars end.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 7, 2005)

This is true... 

Anyways the subject is moot, because he was flying a Mk XIV....


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> From all the stories I've heard about the -38 - Spit encounter it was a Mk. IX.
> 
> And there was no Mk. XV Spitfire. It was a Seafire Mk. XV



In the book he Specificaly states "5 blade prop and Griffon engine" He also misquotes Gallands kills when he recounts his encounter with Galland in a 190Dora.

The Spit story in the book was told several years later and coroberated by others. The story about Galland and the fw-190d was coroborated by Galland himself in the preseance of others. I've seen different stories to the same end but cannot cite sources so I won't. 

Thanks for reminding me where I first found the Spit story, Primus.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 7, 2005)

He does claim Galland had over 300 kills, but i dont think that was John Lowells messup, i think it was the individual that did the final write for the book....

It does not say anyhting about a griffon engine, but does say 5 bladed prop....


----------



## Erich (Jan 7, 2005)

better check your sources friend, Galland never flew a Dora 9 on missions. He went from JG 26 to the Generalstab until his commanding posting to JV 44 and Me 262 in 1945


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 7, 2005)

The story refers to them as "Long-Nosed" -190's.... Galland has confirmed this engagement and story.... Maybe it wasnt a -9????


----------



## Erich (Jan 7, 2005)

just re-read the story, what fantasy. Ja I shot down 8 P-38. He got one truthfully while flying a Me 262 in JV 44. The story is nonsense....sorry guys......


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 7, 2005)

Hmmmm...... Kinda bursting my bubble Erich..... **sniffles...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

If I am flying a ground attack mission, I want the P-47. If its a air-to-air mission I have to prefer the P-51.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

i'd agree with that............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 8, 2005)

Id just take the P-47 in any circumstance...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

Im with LG and Lanc on this one....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

The P-47 didn't handle nearly as well as the P-51 in air-to-air. The P-51 would out run, out climb, and out turn the P-47. Even in the areas where the P-47 had some advantage (dive and roll) the P-51 was still better than most of the opponents it would be facing.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 9, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> He does claim Galland had over 300 kills, but i dont think that was John Lowells messup, i think it was the individual that did the final write for the book....
> 
> It does not say anyhting about a griffon engine, but does say 5 bladed prop....



It said "bigger engine" *I* intrepreted that to mean Griffon as that was the only bigger engine available. Maybe I was off base if so I appoligize, it's not my intention to exagerate the P-38 has had enough of that in both directions already!


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 9, 2005)

Erich said:


> just re-read the story, what fantasy. Ja I shot down 8 P-38. He got one truthfully while flying a Me 262 in JV 44. The story is nonsense....sorry guys......



Galland was/is known for his exagerations, but why admit he was on the wrong end of an engagement? Remember to, he didn't tell the story he only confirmed it!  

All I ask is that people look at all the P-38 data and give it the same unbiased view they give other aircraft, including their favorites.


----------



## Erich (Jan 9, 2005)

how could Galland first hand confirm a situation when he wasn't there ? must have heard this through other German pilots flying the Dora.

As I said Gallnd was promoted and put into the Generalstab until very late in the war when he was part of the formation against Görings orders .............Me 262 equipped JV 44.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 10, 2005)

plan_D said:


> From all the stories I've heard about the -38 - Spit encounter it was a Mk. IX.



As I recall, it was a brand new P-38L vs. a very new XIV.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 10, 2005)

lesofprimus,

Is that the whole story of the Spit XIV vs P-38L encounter?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 10, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Erich said:
> 
> 
> > just re-read the story, what fantasy. Ja I shot down 8 P-38. He got one truthfully while flying a Me 262 in JV 44. The story is nonsense....sorry guys......
> ...



Because it would make for a good laugh, a good story, and he had a sense of humor?

Seriously, without more we just don't know if he was serious or joking.

============

I do give the P-38 the same unbiased view I give other planes. In the late J and L form, it was an excellent plane. Prior to those late models, it had lots of little problems that added up to large deficits.

The P-38L was competitive with the P-51 at lower speeds, at higher speeds it suffered from compressability issues that were never resolved. The P-38L might have beaten several "better" fighters in low speed combat, but a smart pilot would never let that happen.

Overall, for US fighters I rank them as follows (as pure fighters):

F4U-4
P-47M
P-47N
*F4U-1d
*P-38L (and late J)
*P-47D (per R. Johnson's with ~2700 HP and paddle prop)
*P-51B (with malcom hood and ammo feed motors)
P-51D
P-38H
F6F
etc...

* very close (but still organized in order of pref).

The F4U-4 stands out for its combonation of speed, climb rate, excellent high speed manuverability, and toughness (Corsairs were tougher than even the P-47). The P-47M and N are so fast they would control the fight with slower planes, espeically the M. P-47's could also roll quite well while under G load, P-38's (and P-51's and F4U's and F6F's) could not.

The P-38's are also hurt by their relative fragility.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 10, 2005)

But in a P-38 of an engine gets taken out then youve still got the chance of making it back on the other engine, a chonce you dont get with the single engined fighters...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

Relative fragility of the P-38? I've never heard that before. P-38s were known to survive head-on collisions with enemy fighters and still return to base.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 11, 2005)

There are many reports where the propeller has come off the engine and severed the cockpit, and the pilot.....

2 engines aint always the best.....


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 11, 2005)

The P-38 engines, and especially turbo-supercharger units which extend well back on the booms on the P-38 are very exposed and have practically no protection. The P-47 turbo-supercharger is less exposed, the maine turbine unit being fairly well protected and the tubing for its induction and intercooler systems being protected both by the double-thick alluminum of the P-47's general construction and some armor, and by the thickness of the fuselage in general. The main turbines of the P-38's turbo units are just sitting their exposed on the tops of the booms behind the engines and a prime targets for the most common type of deflection shots against a turning target.

Furthermore, until the late J, L and F-SB models , P-38's only had a generator on the left engine. If the engine with the generator was shot out, the other engine was running on battery power and was going to shut down as well as soon as the battery ran down.

Another issue was the drop tanks, which could be dropped when full at airspeeds up to 400 mph, but when empty could not be dropped above airspeeds of 160 mph without serious risk of damage as they may hit the tail or booms. Most other planes could drop empty tanks at any speed.

Finally, the R-2800 was much tougher than the Allison (or Merlin for that matter). R-2800 powered planes could take engine hits and still fly long distances home. Almost any hmg or cannon hit, and even most lmg hits, to a liquid cooled engine, or its cooling system, means that engine will be finished within 5 minutes or less. Even though the P-38 had two engines, it still would not fly as well as an R-2800 plane missing a couple of its 18 cylinders. Often when an Allison engine was taken out by enemy fire, it's prop could not be feathered, in which case the plane was flyable, but barely, and was not going far. And the area of exposure of the R-2800 was much much smaller than that of a liquid cooled engine and its radiator, so it was less likely to be hit in the first place.

I'm not saying the P-38 was fragile, just that it was no where near as rugged as the Corsair (which was the toughest fighter in WWII), or the P-47 (arguably the 2nd toughest, though the Tempest could also be argued for).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 11, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> There are many reports where the propeller has come off the engine and severed the cockpit, and the pilot.....
> 
> 2 engines aint always the best.....



Actually pretty rare, the phisics of the outward rotating props tend to throw them away from the pilot. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I have heard where the supercharger turbine took out a pilot to. For many/ maybe most the second engine was a good thing. In combat all things are possible.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 11, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> The P-38 engines, and especially turbo-supercharger units which extend well back on the booms on the P-38 are very exposed and have practically no protection. The P-47 turbo-supercharger is less exposed, the maine turbine unit being fairly well protected and the tubing for its induction and intercooler systems being protected both by the double-thick alluminum of the P-47's general construction and some armor, and by the thickness of the fuselage in general. The main turbines of the P-38's turbo units are just sitting their exposed on the tops of the booms behind the engines and a prime targets for the most common type of deflection shots against a turning target.
> 
> Furthermore, until the late J, L and F-SB models , P-38's only had a generator on the left engine. If the engine with the generator was shot out, the other engine was running on battery power and was going to shut down as well as soon as the battery ran down.
> 
> ...



I think your overstating the vunerablbility of the P-38 a bit.  The early (before the Js) with the wing leading edge interior intercoolers were more likely to be damaged but the main P-38 types J&Ls only had half the plumbing the P-47 had and so was at least as good as the P-47 turbo system damage wise.

The drop tank limitation was for the 300/310 gal tanks.

The engine didn't shut down with the generator out (The magnetos generated their own power, all the engine needed to run) but the prop could go 'wild' with low battery voltage. The proceedure was to set the prop and shut down power as much as possible. It also helped if you went to a warmer altitude. I do agree the single generator was a bad idea, but not as bad as you infer.

The 2,800 was/is a great power plant and did fantastic things but was NOT twice as reliable as the Inline engines. There are stories of several cyl shot out and comming home - how many didn't? Let's keep it reasonable. 

Lastly with cylinders shot out a 2,800 needed to be carefuly nursed home, damage to oil tank/oil lines/main bearings was instant death. The P-38 on one engine flew just fine up to and including rangees of 800mi, speeds over 300mph, on occasion engaging the enemy and any manuver desired. The only critical point was landing where the 500ft/120mph rules were absolute.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 11, 2005)

On the P-38, the pilot was protected my armor on the inboard sides of the turbos. This provided protection from hurled blades. The alignment of engines and turbos also provided excellent protection for the pilot from flanking fire (and personally, I would much rather lose and engine that my life). Also, a P-47 with a shot up engine will not be continuing a fight. It will most likely be doing the same thing a one-engined P-38 would be doing, trying to make it home. An individual R-2800 was superior to an individual V-1710, but I'm not certain it was superior to two.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 12, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> On the P-38, the pilot was protected my armor on the inboard sides of the turbos. This provided protection from hurled blades. The alignment of engines and turbos also provided excellent protection for the pilot from flanking fire (and personally, I would much rather lose and engine that my life). Also, a P-47 with a shot up engine will not be continuing a fight. It will most likely be doing the same thing a one-engined P-38 would be doing, trying to make it home. An individual R-2800 was superior to an individual V-1710, but I'm not certain it was superior to two.



FYI, The reference to the turbo incident was from Col. John Lowell in the book 'Top Guns" where he saw it happen. 

I agree with you completly, in many, many stories of the P-38s tell of shot up engines and a trip home on one. 

Ground attack especialy in the ETO was a very dangerous game. 

An interesting Paper on relative silouet sizes (as large dimentionaly large as the P-38 is, it's front and side views are quite small) is in the "Planes and Pilots of WWII" website (I can't put the address here I don't know how to type the horizontal squigle that is contained in it, maybe someone can tell me how?).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

Do you mean this page?

http://home.att.net/~ww2aircraft/Profiles.html

============================

BTW: the easiest way to copy a link to a post is to simply open the desired page in your browser, highlight the link in the address bar, hit ctrl+c to copy the link, then switch to the post you're editing and hit ctrl+v to paste the link into the post.

If you want to make a word (or phrase) a link, as in:

P-38 vs single engine profiles

it is a little more complicated. First copy the link as above into the post, then highlight it and click the "url" button in the post editor (above the text entry area). This will give you something like.... (using curly brackets in place of square brackets)

*{url}http://home.att.net/~ww2aircraft/Profiles.html{/url}*

then edit that to the following

*{url=http://home.att.net/~ww2aircraft/Profiles.html}P-38 vs single engine profiles{/url}*

putting the mouse over the URL button will show you the format. This is particularly useful for very large urls, espeically if you want to put them inline in the flow of the text.

Hope this helps.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 12, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Do you mean this page?
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



Yes That One. Thanks, I've been using computers in work settings since the mid-eighties but there are still things I'd like to know.

By the way, I Respect the width and breadth both of your knowledge and data, very impressive  , no puns intended, (I'm used to people coming to me) so I hope you don't take it personaly when I come back on something. I know I wont.

wmaxt


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Do you mean this page?
> ...



I wouldn't be here if I didn't enjoy a good debate. Most topics are mostly a matter of opinion anyway right?

 

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 12, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > RG_Lunatic said:
> ...



Ya!  

Most especialy where aircraft of this performance level is concerned. In Any of the top fighter aircraft it was pilot mastery of capabilities, tactics and stratagy in relation to the other guy that determined the outcome. Everything in between is debatable


----------



## Erich (Jan 12, 2005)

thought I would throw this in since Jack is shown in the above pic. Sadly he passed away this past fall. A very neat man.....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 12, 2005)

As you mentioned before Erich, the old timers are passing away fast. Natural, but a shame none the less.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 13, 2005)

Jack Ilfrey was the sterotypical fighter pilot. His life and experiences might make for a very good movie. Especially his escape from internment in Portugal.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 13, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> As you mentioned before Erich, the old timers are passing away fast. Natural, but a shame none the less.



My Dad passed away last May. I used to ask him about various planes, but his knowlege was mostly post-WWII.

I'd love to ask him what he thought of the Lightning. We spent over a year in Europe, mostly in England, while he taught NATO pilots how to fire air-to-air missiles. He spent some time attached to both the RAF and the RN and flew most planes, even a Spitfire and I think a SeaFury too.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 13, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Nonskimmer said:
> 
> 
> > As you mentioned before Erich, the old timers are passing away fast. Natural, but a shame none the less.
> ...



Sorry to hear that RG.

We will miss these men and women. 

The Moxie of those men is incredable, can you imagine flying 2 people in a P-38 or P-51 cocpit? Jack did, I think that one was a P-51.


----------



## Erich (Jan 13, 2005)

thought I would throw this little pic in here.....I sure like those lines....


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 13, 2005)

Chuck Yeagers ride.....


----------



## Erich (Jan 13, 2005)

yes sir...........another, from the 55th fg with Birtceil at the controls


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 13, 2005)

I've seen a picture of two men in a P-38 cockpit. Interestingly, getting into the cockpit (done almost instantaneously under enemy fire) took them more than 10min when the press wanted a photo of the event!


----------



## Erich (Jan 14, 2005)

Dick Hewitt flying tandem in the present day.....what a guy ! He was always thought the Jug was a better airfield beater and the Mustang a better dogfighter


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

How come one of those German kill marks isn't complete, has it just faded?


----------



## Erich (Jan 14, 2005)

looks like it has been tweaked anyway. This was not the final tally of the 78th fg commander, Colonel Landers. The a/c in real life during the war was clean as a whistle with 12 Japanese kills followed by his air and ground victories in the ETO underneath which were 24. He had an extra swastika placed before the second row of Jap kills.....he was a hot pilot but so was Dick Hewitt in his hot rod "Big Dick"

E ~


----------



## Erich (Jan 14, 2005)

here is a pic of Dick and his heavy babe P-47 bubble top


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 26, 2005)

The P51 is the better of the two in aerodynamics alone, The P47 looks like a huge flying housebrick!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> How come one of those German kill marks isn't complete, has it just faded?



A half kill, perhaps?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 15, 2005)

Well, since no model of the P-51 or P-47 is specified, I will go with the P-47.

The "N" model of the P-47 actually saw combat in significant numbers and could beat the tar out of any P-51 model that saw action.

Additionally, I think that at very high altitudes, say above 32,000ft, the P-47D outfitted with the paddle blade propeller could probably take a P-51 as well.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 15, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Well, since no model of the P-51 or P-47 is specified, I will go with the P-47.
> 
> The "N" model of the P-47 actually saw combat in significant numbers and could beat the tar out of any P-51 model that saw action.
> 
> Additionally, I think that at very high altitudes, say above 32,000ft, the P-47D outfitted with the paddle blade propeller could probably take a P-51 as well.



The P-47D with ADI and paddle prop was really a whole new plane compared to the eariler incarnations. It was almost as potent as the P-47M, many were quoted as putting out over 2700 HP after the flight mechanics got done with them.

In the flight tests of the FW190A vs. P-47, the FW pretty handily beats the P-47C, but in the later test, with a very well running FW, the P-47D with ADI but no paddle prop is the superior plane.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## superunknown (May 25, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> If I am flying a ground attack mission, I want the P-47. If its a air-to-air mission I have to prefer the P-51.



I totally agree, a USAAF pilot once wrote something about the P-51 P-47, I won't even pretend to know who.

"If you wanted to impress your girl back home, you would get your picture taken in a Mustang, however, if you wanted to get back home to your girl you would fly a Thunderbolt"

Or something along those lines.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2005)

What? The P-47 looks way, way better than the Mustang 8)


----------



## Monkeysee1 (Jul 18, 2005)

I keep hearing something on this thread that amazes me. Up high the P47 smoked almost anything. It had a much higher ceiling than the P51 and was faster than the P51 up high. The P51's best altitude was, from people who actually flew it in combat, was about 25,000'. Above that it didn't have the engine power to compete. Guys who I have spoken with say that for escort work they preferred the P47 over the P51, because they had 8 .50's, and were a lot faster up high. Down low the P47 was a hog because it was so big. Up high with less friction it could go... and you all know the reason the damn plane is so big? Its basically a giant flying turbo supercharger. That allowed it to keep its max power output up higher than most planes. At low and medium altitudes the P51 could out turn and out accelerate the P47 but go high and the P47 wins everytime. 

Remember too, in Europe the turning fights were rare. Most attacks were boom and zoom. So why is the P51 so beloved?

It was a great airplane and the first that could escort the bombers all the way. (the P38 doesn't count, it did not work well in the ETO) That's half the USAAF who is appreciating the P51 right there. It used less fuel and lets face it, if you're a pilot, you want a small nimble looking little beastie to kill people with. Not something that rivals the size of the bombers your escorting. 

When the long range tanks were developed for the P47 and its range increased it did high altitude escort better than anyone. When it was sent down low it was just damn awesome at ground attack. 8 guns vs 6, faster, higher, more damage resistant... Hmm.... Yeah, the P47 is the better airplane...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2005)

Actually I think if you read the posts over again you will see we all pretty much came up to the concesus that the P-47 was better than the P-51. There are a few P-51 die hard fans but just about all of us agree on the P-47.

As for teh P-38 she was not as bad in teh ETO as you say she was. She did not do that bad.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 18, 2005)

No as an ETO plane the P-38 is underrated.

And yeah I agree the P-47 is better than the Mustang. The P-51 is way, way, way over rated.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 18, 2005)

yes the P-51 is very over rated, hor only really good point was her range, and possibly her speed............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 18, 2005)

Well it was a good plane, but nothing really special.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 18, 2005)

still a legend though........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 18, 2005)

Definately.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 18, 2005)

The P-51 is nowhere near being over-rated. The P-51 was a marvel of an aircraft! It may not have been the best turning machine of World War 2 - it may not have been the most durable aircraft of the war either but it did the job extremely well. 

The P-51 entered a fight at high speed and high altitude - the perfect situation for any pouncing action. As previously mentioned most aircraft shot down never saw their attacker - the P-51 therefore didn't need to be quick on the turn. It needed to be fast at cruising while going all the way with the bombers - the majority of P-47s couldn't go all the way from Britain to Berlin and back, the P-51 however could. 

The P-51 was a stable platform and six M2 .50 cal are certainly enough to bring down any interceptor. It was also an easy aircraft to fly - and more importantly an easy aircraft to mass produce! The mass numbers of P-51s roaming the sky is something to credit to the P-51s design - the simple design was something that allowed the U.S to produce it in such numbers to allow that many in the sky. 

And what was cheaper out of the P-51, P-47 and P-38? The P-51. What was easier to produce? The P-51. What would be better for a country at war with the need for a lot of good aircraft, very quickly and at a cheap price? The P-51. 

War isn't about perfection - it's about above-average product in vast quantities and cheap cost. The P-51 served a wars purpose better than both the P-47 and the P-38. 

From a pilots point of view - you could take any three of them and praise them to high heaven. But when it comes down to winning a war - you want the most # from the least $ which can do the job - and what better than a P-51?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 18, 2005)

Very well said, D.


----------



## superunknown (Jul 18, 2005)

I totally agree, anyone who says that the P-51 was overrated needs a slap.
The P-47 was built as a heavyweight fighter, nothing more, nothing less, it did it's job to the best of it's ability and beyond. However the P-51 could quite literally do any job it was given and do it well, a jack of all trades, master of none. The P-51 was the backbone of the USAAF, and served with more countries worldwide than any other WW2 generation fighter, it also outlived them all, in the guise of the Cavalier which was still in mainline service with the USAF until the late 70's, not a bad achievement for the US built "forgein" fighter that no one wanted. The original Mustang was built to an RAF specification (as a replacement for the underwhelming P-40) which NA did, after various tests with the US army it was modified into the A-36 which did it's job with merit over North Africa, Italy CBI, even destroying 100+ aircraft in air to air combat even though the Allison engine was only designed for low altitude use. Once the stable airframe was married to the RR Merlin they had a real contender. I have said this before but, comparing two fighters against each other all depends on who is using it, where it is being used and for what purpose, the P-51 can satisfy all these catogories as it has been in practically evey situation possible for a fighter, could you say the same for the P-47?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 18, 2005)

Thank you, thank you. This reminds of the time everyone was calling the Spitfire over-rated - and I put them straight too.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 18, 2005)

The Spit overrated?! 
What the...?! Ok, ok...deep calming breaths now...Ah, better.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 18, 2005)

I know, I know - I was ed too.


----------



## Erich (Jul 18, 2005)

the P-51 was the preferred ETO escort fighter. Boys in the 9th AF when receiving the Jug cried out "give us back our Stangs !" Then354th fg was the top scoring fighter group in the ETO. Originally based here in Oregon


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 19, 2005)

but then, there were pilots that cried, "give us back our jugs" when they got 'stangs


----------



## superunknown (Jul 19, 2005)

The P-51 fighter project was the most sucessful of all time, before the Phantom took the title.
Both the Mustang Phantom served far and wide, with a long service history, and both served well. 

And as for pilots crying for their P-47's after being given a P-51, I would have done as well, it's like driving a shelby cobra and then having to drive a standard run of the mill ford mustang..... but it's still a legend. 
"If you wanted to impress your girl back home you flew the 'tang, If you wanted to get home to your girl, you flew the jug"


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2005)

And as I've already mentioned; from a pilots point of view the P-47, P-51 and P-38 can all be praised. Each pilot had his own choice of aircraft because they were all good but from a grand point of view - the P-51 was the best!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2005)

OK - I'm going to jump in here and stir the pot a bit.

The P-51 over-rated?!? I think it was a bit and I'll tell you why.....

Pound for pound we have discussed on this fourm other aircraft's advantages over the -51, for example the -109K, the -190D, the P-38Ls and P-47 M and Ns (I wrote that on purpose!). It wasn't the fastest, it wasn't the most maneuverable, it didn't have the best climb and it always wasn't a pilot's favorite. Where my comments come from it being over rated is from some writers (Like Osprey Books) and in some cases USAAF personnel painting a veil of invincibility with regards to the -51. As Super Unknown mentioned, it was the most successful fight program in history until the Phantom came along because it offered "competitive" performance, ease of production compiled with a cheap price. It was an aircraft where a good pilot could jump into it and become a great pilot but by far it wasn't invincible and it actually really sucked as a ground attack aircraft, mainly because of its vulnerable to ground fire. But when you combine its positive attributes you do come up with an over-all great fighter, perhaps the over-all greatest fighter of WW2, but not in the perspective painted by many writers and some pilots who would have you believe that the -51 was indestructible! It's easy to paint that picture when you out number your enemy 12 to 1!


----------



## Erich (Jul 19, 2005)

sorry Lanc but no P-51 wanted the Jug back. It was used for it's intent in the ETO and that was dive-bomber ground attack as priority in the 9th AF. No-one wanted it back. Only the 56th fg contined to fly the bird successfully in the escort role. In Pacific it may well have been a different tune but P-38's were still fown there as well on a steady basis.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2005)

I am sorry but as CC put it there was nothing special about the P-51. She was fast and had great range but she was not the greatest thing since bread and butter. Neither was the P-47 but she was a better overal aircraft.

I do agree with the assumption though that the P-51 would be better because of cost. You could get more into the air for less money which is what you want in war.


----------



## Erich (Jul 19, 2005)

Adler I will be blunt. the P-51 was the top escort fighter of the war.......period. In fact to be purely honest there waas nothing really great about any WW 2 fighter from any side, the one advantage the Me 262 had was flat out speed but suffered in other respects such as faulty engignes and poor fuel consumption.

It all added up to pilot technique and experience and this was either going to lead him to victory or defeat during an aerial engagement and certainly luck, but I do not believe in luck, so when the cards are dealt there is no going back.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2005)

Agreed with you completely Erich. The P-51 was the best escort fighter but it was not the best aircraft. I do agree with you also on the fact that no aircraft was really special and all had there faults.


----------



## Jank (Jul 19, 2005)

Thought the P-47N was a better escort plane than the Mustangt.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

The P-47N was extremely late in the war and probably was a superior escort fighter to the P-51D - but so what? You could get more P-51s in the air than P-47s. P-51s could handle themselves in the air and they were the best escort fighter from a countries point of view. 

I already said they were not the best dogfighter, they were not the best interceptor, they were not the best bomber destroyer, they were not the best ground attack aircraft but they were the best escort fighter. 

They got those bombers to Berlin and back better than anything else out there. It might have been due to high numbers but you cannot build high numbers of a complicated aircraft. The P-51 was a sturdy, reliable, easy aircraft. 

I don't care if a Bf-109K-4 could out-climb it - the P-51 wasn't an interceptor. I don't care if a Fw-190D-9 could out-roll it, the P-51 wasn't a dogfighter. I don't care if the Typhoon packed more of a punch, the P-51 wasn't a ground attack aircraft or a bomber destroyer. It was an escort fighter and escort fighters do one thing - they keep the interceptors off the bombers and the P-51 did that, it kept the daylight offensive alive. 

Before anyone mentions it - I know the A-36 was a ground attack aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I don't care if a Bf-109K-4 could out-climb it - the P-51 wasn't an interceptor. I don't care if a Fw-190D-9 could out-roll it, the P-51 wasn't a dogfighter. I don't care if the Typhoon packed more of a punch, the P-51 wasn't a ground attack aircraft or a bomber destroyer. It was an escort fighter and escort fighters do one thing - they keep the interceptors off the bombers and the P-51 did that, it kept the daylight offensive alive.



Well put


----------



## d_bader (Sep 6, 2005)

I feel that the p-47 was underated and has not been given the credit it is due but however i voted 4 the p-51 because it is the one i would prefer to fly if i had the option.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> the simple design was something that allowed the U.S to produce it in such numbers to allow that many in the sky.



The P51/A36 used a laminar flow wing design. While this type of wing is very efficient, its also very complicated to build in quantity. NAA performed a miracle in tool design that this type of wing could be built to very tight tolerances in a mass production enviornment.

A saying came about in WWII that describes the Mustang well: "The Mustang won't do what a Spitfire does, but it does it over Berlin". ....They weren't the best turning planes in the air, but by the time they were widely in use pilots understood that turning was a very limited performance characteristic in combat - what was required of newer fighters was speed. And the P51 had it in droves; it was faster than almost everything in the air, climbed reasonably well, and suffered much less high speed maneuverability loss than most of its opponents, due to the wing design.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 6, 2005)

First the P-38 kept the daylite raids going before the appearance of the P-51 escorts by themselves for the first two months and parity of the P-51/P-38 was not reached untill the end of May '44. The P-51 after that and was adopted fir two reasons it was easier to build in numbers and the desire to cut as much out of the logistics demand as possible (as confirmed by Doolittle himself the man who the final decision in the ETO), period.

The P-51 came at a time that gave the 8th an excuse for not escorting the bombers from the start, that the P-38 wasn't used but was available was an embarassment that would have otherwise cost Arnold, Eaker and Spatz their jobs.

One example of the attitude was that only 165gal drop tanks were ever used in the ETO Though 300 gallon tanks were available and in use everywhare else in the world, this limited the range of the early P-38 just enough to give the P-51 an ~ 100mi range advantage. 

The P-38, as an example, had better performance every where except cruise speed, In the 8th (the only place we have a direct comparison) a better kill/loss record (twice the P-51) and was 3.82 times (adjusted for sorties) more likely to come home. The P-38 escort in the 8th was against a more experianced foe who also had numerical superority.

As for cost, even today a pilot is the most expensive part of a fighter, the loss of 4 P-51 pilots for each P-38 pilot is a lot. The P-51 was cheapper to buy and fuel.

The P-51 was the worst of the AAF fighters from a ground attack point of view even including the P-40 that could carry about as much and less suceptable to ground fire.

The P-51 was a competant fighter that had numerical superiorority over a diminished enemy. The P-51 smothered the German fighters more than out fought them. Very Overrated.

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Sep 6, 2005)

The P-38 didn't keep the daylight raids alive. The US 8th Air Force was on the brink of cancellation of daylight raids until the Mustang came along. But you're absolutely right about the two reasons it was chosen but there just might have been another reason. The P-38 was a harder aircraft to fly than the P-51. The P-51 was a rookie's machine, and most airmen were rookies. 

The P-38 was more expensive to build, harder to fly and harder to build. It wasn't a good war weapon. The P-51 could be up there in larger numbers due to it's design. 

No, during World War II life was cheap. It was the cheapest in the Soviet Union and Germany but it was still cheap in the Western Democracy. It needed to be cheap or we would have lost the war. The U.S could train pilots at an extremely high rate, high rate enough to say; man all their air force? Which they did and there was more to their air force because there was a nice easy plane to build, the P-51. 

Entering combat at a higher speed than your opponent is a distinct advantage. The P-51 entered combat on the advantage almost everytime, even if it was on it's own. But, you're right, it smothered it's enemy and the ability to do so was from the fact that the plane was cheap and easy to build. 

The pilots like the P-38 better but who cares what they say? It's the production that'll win the war, they're just the middle-man. # for $ wins wars, not turning circles.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> The P-51 was a competant fighter that had numerical superiorority over a diminished enemy. The P-51 smothered the German fighters more than out fought them. Very Overrated.
> 
> wmaxt



Agreed with overwellming numerical numbers in fact.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 7, 2005)

When you make a list of all the factors that make up a fighter, the P51 was good in enough of them to make it overall, a high quality aircraft. Best in all catagories? No. Good in all of the catagories? YES!

Was there some glaring defect in the plane that made it substandard? Or are the Spit and 109/190 fans jealous that the range of the Mustang enabled it to fly to where the action was when those other planes were on the ground refueling?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> When you make a list of all the factors that make up a fighter, the P51 was good in enough of them to make it overall, a high quality aircraft. Best in all catagories? No. Good in all of the catagories? YES!



When you make up a lilst of all the factors that make up a fighter was the 109/190/152 eneogh to make them the best? No. Good in all catagories? YES!



syscom3 said:


> Was there some glaring defect in the plane that made it substandard? Or are the Spit and 109/190 fans jealous that the range of the Mustang enabled it to fly to where the action was when those other planes were on the ground refueling?



No the range was the 51's only real relevant advantage. When it was taking the fight to Germany, the German fighters did not need the range, they just had to go up and fight.

Are the Mustange fans just jealous that it was overated?


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 7, 2005)

[quote="DerAdlerIstGelandet]
No the range was the 51's only real relevant advantage. When it was taking the fight to Germany, the German fighters did not need the range, they just had to go up and fight.

Are the Mustange fans just jealous that it was overated?[/quote]

I don't know if jealous is quite the right word but thats close to the truth.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

I just think it is funny, especially after he made that dumb comment. Most fans (again I said most of us) of the 109/190/152 accept the faults that they had because they know that no plane is perfect, but Mustang fans like himself, who think that the 51 was the greatest thing since bread and butter, believe that it had no faults and was the greatest thing.

Each aircraft was good at somethings and bad at others. Some people dont seem to realize this especially the guys who live by the P-51.

Do I think the 51 is crap. NO! It was a great plane. Was it remarkable. NO! Was the Bf-109 remarkable? NO! Was the Fw-190 remarkable? NO! Well actually each of these planes is remarkable in its own way.

Now can we please get back to the point of this thread?


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The P-38 didn't keep the daylight raids alive.
> 
> The P-38 was more expensive to build, harder to fly and harder to build. It wasn't a good war weapon.
> 
> ...



Wheather you admit it or not from the period from Oct '43 to the end of Dec it was all P-38. From January to May there were more P-38s than P-51s. Without the P-38s the long range bombing would have stopped until June '44 at the earliest.

Doolittle admits he made the decision to go with the P-51 over Both the P-38 and the P-47 based on logistics, not cost. 
2. Also the P-38 was Second sourced in Jan '45 a YEAR after the P-51s showed and 6 monthe after the 8th and only the 8th decided to go with 1 prime fighter other that the P-38. If it was cost for a medeocer aircraft they would have cut back. 
3. The WPB refused a 2/3week delay to get the K on line because they would lose ~50 planes, cost was not the issue.

Higher speed? P-51s flew 250mph out of Britain, and up to 350mph out of Italy, as confirmed by WWII P-51 pilots. The P-38L cruised most efficently at 290mph. With a P-38 at 290mph and a P-51 at 350mph full throttle will get both to 420 at the same time. If you were bounced and never saw it it doesnt matter how fast your going.

As for the Pilots They just wanted the best and when a P-51 pilot says that to fight a P-38 with a P-51 you better start a lot higher and faster to have a chance, it isn't because he thinks the P-51 is better.

The P-51 did win the choice in the 8th and it was probably a lot due to production numbers and maybe a little on the demand for the P-38 elswhere. The P-51 was 90% fighter capabilities against the 190/109 and even the P-38L, It was aircraft numbers that made the difference.

I'm not saying the P-38 was gods gift to fighters the P-38 was not perfect and the early planes had some serious issues but it was noticeably better than the P-51 which was a good, solid, competitive fighter with long legs.

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I just think it is funny, especially after he made that dumb comment. Most fans (again I said most of us) of the 109/190/152 accept the faults that they had because they know that no plane is perfect, but Mustang fans like himself, who think that the 51 was the greatest thing since bread and butter, believe that it had no faults and was the greatest thing.
> 
> Each aircraft was good at somethings and bad at others. Some people dont seem to realize this especially the guys who live by the P-51.
> 
> ...



Your right, and maybe you said it better than I did. Its time to get back to the thread.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2005)

Now we just have to figure out how.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 13, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > ....Also the P-38 was Second sourced in Jan '45 a YEAR after the P-51s wmaxt
> ...


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 13, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > plan_D said:
> ...


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 14, 2005)

wmaxt, youre right. C-V built some P38's at their Nashville plant. I had forgot about them. Than ks for reminding me.

Im looking at my P38 book. They were P38L-5-VN, tail numbers 43-50226 through 43-50338. I dont have any delivery dates for them. Ayone know? The book has a big blank on delivery date for this batch.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 14, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> wmaxt, youre right. C-V built some P38's at their Nashville plant. I had forgot about them. Than ks for reminding me.
> 
> Im looking at my P38 book. They were P38L-5-VN, tail numbers 43-50226 through 43-50338. I dont have any delivery dates for them. Ayone know? The book has a big blank on delivery date for this batch.



They might of been scrapped at the factory....


----------



## evangilder (Sep 15, 2005)

Here is what I have:

43-50226/50338 Lockheed P-38L-5-VN Lightning
50281 (F-5G-6-LO)

50310 to NC75666, to the Caribbean Legion on Cayo Confites base of MRD (Movimiento Revolucionaria Dominicano), 08/47 taken over by Cuba as CAEC 126

50312 to NL5016N, to the Caribbean Legion on Cayo Confites base of MRD (Movimiento Revolucionaria Dominicano), 08/47 taken over by Cuba as CAEC 122.

That info is from Joe Baugher's serial number search page.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/usafserials.html

He has a pretty comprehensive database for serial numbers. He also has one for Navy aircraft.


----------



## lonestarman63 (Oct 23, 2006)

alway think the 47 is a better aircraft for many reasons, but most of all , It is one tuff bird


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 24, 2006)

yey... annother dead horse to flog


----------



## twoeagles (Oct 24, 2006)

In terms of maintainability, durability, diversity of missions, 
and numbers built, then P-47. It's just so damned ugly.


----------



## mad_max (Oct 26, 2006)

Getting shot at...P-47.
Shooting....Pony.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Oct 29, 2006)

Yeeeeeeeeehaaaaaww!!!


----------



## p-51 mustangman (Mar 3, 2008)

is the picture above a TA-152 or a FW-190 D9. It is amazing to me herr Hitler limited the long nose focke wulf to ground attack. There may be limitations I do not know about but it would seem that this airplane would have been a good stopgap until the ME-262 came along


----------



## DBII (Mar 3, 2008)

Looks like a tie to me. Back in the 90's I was digging around a used book store for aircraft book when the lady I was with started talking to an elderly man. He was a big firt. It ended up that he flew P-47 and transitioned into the A-37 and then P-51. I talked with him several years ago. I think he was in MTO. He did not have any air kills. He flew CAS missions. THe pilot said that everyone was always surprised that he liked the P-51 over the P-47 for the ground attacks. He said that the handling ablilies of the P-51 more than make up for having only six .50 cals and the fact the P-47 could handle more damage. 

I am leaning toward the P-47 Razorbacks.

DBII


----------



## drgondog (Mar 5, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Here is what I have:
> 
> 43-50226/50338 Lockheed P-38L-5-VN Lightning
> 50281 (F-5G-6-LO)
> ...



His data base is extensive. In the research I did on 355th and SF a/c I found a high error rate, however, so my opinion is use it as a start - collect and correct from other sources, then send Joe your updates to help this public source improve over time.

Still a superb place to start.


----------



## merlin (Mar 5, 2008)

From a British perspective - it has to the Mustang! After all if it wasn't for the British Purchasing Commission, North American wouldn't have designed and built it!


----------



## fly boy (Mar 7, 2008)

now from what a vet said to one of my friends if you flying a p-47d if you put the thottle at like 1/4 power and pull flaps all the way out if would almost turn on its axis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 17, 2008)

It would depend on the model (ie weight and wing loading) and the load of the a/c. 

But even if you can turn tight it doesn't mean you can turn fast: turn radius is NOT turn rate or turn time. Plus there's instantaneous turn vs sustained turn.

Wing loading and CL are the biggest factors of turn radius, turn rate is much more affected by power loading (though both are affected by power and wing loading) and a clean airframe with good energy retention (for which good power loading and high lift:drag ratio are very important) are most important in sustained turns.

Look at the P-38, it had a very good turn rate but high wing loading (albeit with a high aspect ratio and high-lift airfoil) but very good power loading and could turn better (turn rate) than the F4U (for example: P-38L vs F4U-4), but the F4U could turn tighter (radius) and likely had a higher max instantaneous turn rate. (all anecdotal data, mostly from others statements on this forum and from other discussions, along with some test info from memory)


What you are describing is an instantaneous turn which can quickly brig an a/c to stall if sustained for any meaningful length of time. The P-51 could "flick stall" and turn 360 degrees (with a very skilled pilot and luck) and get behind a chasing opponent.

See: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdCm5z2RpI8_


----------



## Flightcommander (Mar 20, 2008)

p-47 would probably beat the p-51 it's elliptical wing made for good turns and it had much more firepower than the p-51


----------



## Flightcommander (Mar 20, 2008)

forgot to say that it had a much much more powerful engine, the Pratt and whitney could get about 2750 hp.


----------



## B-17engineer (Mar 20, 2008)

Well it just depends.....The P-47 and P-51 were different and had different roles. The Story of RObert Johnson just goes to show just how durable the jug can be. The dogfight episode said that he counted 200 holes without even moving. 


The P-51, was a remarkable plane, it had the new Laminar flow wings which reduced drag. But, I have heard plenty of accounts of a P-51 catching up to a Me-262 and shooting them down. 

Overall, I am gonna go with the P-47. For defense it is very durable and when you are on the offensive you have those 8 nasty .50 cals....


----------



## Flightcommander (Mar 21, 2008)

I saw that Dogfights episode, totally awsome, for all you undecided people...
vote P-47!!


----------



## B-17engineer (Mar 21, 2008)

Agreed


----------



## Njaco (Mar 21, 2008)

I believe that most of those claims of Me 262 kills by P-51s were as the jets were in landing circuit or taking off. That was the most vulnerable time for them. Drew Urban (I believe thats it) caught 2 of them on one pass for a double kill as they took off. 

And there is a thread somehwere here that goes over jet kills during the later half of WWII.


----------



## Hollywood (Mar 22, 2008)

If Hitler hadn't been a "NUT" and left his Generals alone we'd all be speaking German........Ta152rules.......


----------



## renrich (Mar 22, 2008)

From one of the US fighter conferences during WW2 showing stall speeds in 3G turns, the P51D-15 was a substantially better turning airplane than the P47D-30.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 23, 2008)

The flaps worked quite well to increase CLmax (CL= lift coeficient) on the P-51's otherwise low-lift wing.

I don't know where the


> p-47 would probably beat the p-51 it's elliptical wing made for good turns and it had much more firepower than the p-51


 comes from (probably due to the spifire) but the only thing the eliptical shape does is increase lift to drag ratio, in a full eliptical wing (like the Spit) this also makes for violent stalls, but the straight leading edge of the P-47 mitigates this iirc. (fairly gentle stalls, moreso than the P-51 as well)




> forgot to say that it had a much much more powerful engine, the Pratt and whitney could get about 2750 hp.



Power doesn't mean much on is own. I's when you put weight into the equation that you can get a comparable figure. Hell the P-38L had over 3500 hp in WEP! Plus the P-47M/N had the R-2800-57C capable of 2,800 hp in WEP up to 32,000 ft. The R-2800-59/63 of the P-47D was cleared for 2,600 hp with 100/150 avgas at 70" HG. (but 70" was only good up to ~23,500 ft) with this a late model P-47D could manage 444 mph at critical altitude. Some may have been tuned up to 2,700+ hp as well.

But bact to power-loading (weight/power) or (what I prefer) power/weight: the late P-47D weighed 14,600 lbs (clean, full internal fuel), the P-51D in the same configuration was 10,100 lbs. The P-47D had 2,600 hp, the P-51 had ~1,700 hp. So: P-47D: .178 hp/lb P-51D: .168 hp/lb. P-47 is ~6% better. But this is just one simplified comparison.


----------



## I love Jugs (Oct 4, 2008)

Go easy on me fellas,my first post........
Just to add to the p51/p47 debate,here's 2 Mustang pilots with different, personal,opinions to Clayton Kelly Gross when he remarks on how good the 'stang' was:-

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuJSH3QkMZ4_ ???


----------



## otftch (Oct 4, 2008)

I think in generic terms the P 51 was more maneuverable but I'd sure not want a P-47 on my tail.
Ed


----------



## KrazyKraut (Oct 4, 2008)

P-51 D, no contest.


----------



## blkstne (Oct 10, 2008)

Up in the thin air P-47

Low level fighting P-51


----------



## renrich (Oct 11, 2008)

These kind of debates are fun and interesting and educational but one has to determine what the conditions under which the comparison will be made are. Average pilots or not, altitude, air to ground or air to air, how far from base, etc. A bit like comparing a tiger and a tiger shark. In the water or on land?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 11, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The flaps worked quite well to increase CLmax (CL= lift coeficient) on the P-51's otherwise low-lift wing.
> 
> *There was a definite airspeed limitation on deployment of flaps on a 51. The P-38 manuevering flaps on the other hand were designed (for late J and L) for combat speeds.*
> 
> ...



Back to drag. The 47 compared speed wise above 30,000 feet because the R-2800 blower was more efficient than the Merlin above 25,000 feet (for the -7)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 11, 2008)

THat post _is_ 7 months old Bill. I've learned a few more things from you guys since then. (and my reading on the subject)  
Thanks for adding it in though.


On the stall issue, I think a distinction should be made between a gentle stall and a well warned stall. In the case of the P-47 (or P-38 ) I believe the stall its self was quite gentle and easy to recover from. (with spins very unlikely, or nearly impossible in the P-38's case, unless the pilot intended to spin) With the P-51, there was a lot of warning but the stall was rather violent. (I believe the Spitfire was somewhat similar -both being pretty snappy-)


Also, in the case of power, at the full 70" WEP had a critical altitude (for the R-2800-63 or -59) was only ~24,000 ft. (though I'm not sure how the V-1650-7's power curves compare with 100/150 grade)


I also am not sure how the airfoil properties wouls compare, as I have no information for the P-47's wing other than it used the Seversky S-3 airfoil.


I agree that P-51 was a much cleaner plane. (even with size taken into account) The XP-47J's cowling arrangement would have substantially improved this for the P-47, but that's another issue.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 12, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> THat post _is_ 7 months old Bill. I've learned a few more things from you guys since then. (and my reading on the subject)
> Thanks for adding it in though.
> 
> 
> ...



True.


----------



## Timppa (Oct 23, 2008)

As, this poll is still alive, P-51. Considered the best by most German and Japanese opponents.
P-47 is close second, lower total loss rate AFAIK.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

Well, if i was meeting my twin brother in a battle at equal attitude, I would choose a P-51, climb my ass off till I was 2000 feet above him, then dive down on him!


----------



## HoHun (Apr 17, 2009)

Hi Timppa,

>As, this poll is still alive, P-51. Considered the best by most German and Japanese opponents.

Since I just posted an analysis of the P-47D here ...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/performance-analysis-p-47-a-17937.html

... I have the data now to prepare a comparison of two late-war examples of the two fighters "competing" here.

If there's anyone left who has not yet voted, that might be of interest for him 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## cuccos19 (May 11, 2009)

The P-38 Lightning was better aircraft than these two in many aspects. Far versatile could use in all kind of task nearly. P-38 was available from the 1st day of the USA's war or far before that. It had two engines what gave him a second chance to go home if one had shot. It's firepower was concentrated into "one point" nearly much easier to aim. Its 4x .50MG had 500rpg, like P-51(D for example, as the most famous and widespread) only had 4x 270rpg and 2x400rpg in same caliber. P-38 total was 2000rounds, P-51D was 1880rounds, and less firing time. Oh yes, and Lightning had an extra 20mm cannon with 150rounds.

Lightnings major problem were less roll rate until it got the hydraulic aileron boosters, difficult to recover from diving what had solved with the diving-flaps, insufficient cockpit heat(!), and the fact that USAAF used bad fuel to operate those Allison engines with the GE turbosuperchargers in the ETO (8th AF I think what based in the UK, GB or whatever). The engines simple went wrong or "blown-up" after 80-100hours of work. But there were no problem with P-38s in the MTO (North Africa where the conditions were much worse) and in the PTO or China-Burma-India theater. They serviced the plane there with right fuel simply.

An other choice instead off the P-47 would be the F4U Corsair. Simply superior in my oppinion, but it was for the Navy and Marines. Navy and Marines simply could not use the Thunderbolts, so the Army could not get the Corsairs, there were too few of them. P-47 and F4U used quite the same P&W R-2800 engine, but the Corsair's one had a big disadvantage. It had mechanical supercharger but Thunderbolt's had turbosupercharger which didn't required and pilot management.


----------



## HoHun (May 11, 2009)

Hi Cuccos,

>The P-38 Lightning was better aircraft than these two in many aspects.

Hm, here is a thread with a comparison to the P-51:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/p-38-lightning-vs-p-51-mustang-better-fighter-3867.html

Post #329 has a similar performance comparison as the one above.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## aads (May 15, 2009)

The p-47 served for longer
It was faster 
it was the first to down a 262
the top ace in the ETO flew one exclusively
It had better firepower and survivability
the p-51 came in as the luftwaffe was waining and pilots were in short supply , luftwaffe numbers were lower
could out dive anything else
the most produced allied fighter

anything i missed?

oh and the 56th who flew it exclusively had the best record in the ETO - 1000 + destroyed ????
ohh and the mustang was a failure untill it got an english engine

Ads


----------



## renrich (May 15, 2009)

Nothing like jumping in fearlessly!


----------



## Glider (May 15, 2009)

aads said:


> anything i missed?
> 
> 
> Ads



Yep. the P47 lacked the range to do the job that needed to be done, when it needed to be done.


----------



## aads (May 18, 2009)

P-47 n

By the way hello every one.

and the 47s were the best plane at the time before the p-51d came along , then in turn the p-47n beat it on range . 

Ads


----------



## Glider (May 19, 2009)

aads said:


> P-47 n
> 
> By the way hello every one.
> 
> ...



I think you missed the When it needed to be done. The P47N was way too late


----------



## aads (May 19, 2009)

Ok then, just say ithe n was too late - what of these other points are the mustang better at?

Any?


----------



## Glider (May 19, 2009)

It doesn't matter. If you are too late into the fray, then you may as well not be there. As an example, many people believe that the TA152 was the best piston engine fighter of the war, but it doesn't really matter, as again it was too late.

The P47N and the P51H were both too late as the piston engine era was almost over. After all, the P47 was taken out of service if I remember correctly by 1949 whereas the P51 served in Korea. On that basis the P51 had the edge.


----------



## aads (May 19, 2009)

It served in Korea as there were not as many N model p-47s , plain and simple , it was the preferred ground attack weapon , which was mainly what the 51 was used for in korea , but for comminality problems the 51 was used as there were several more in theatre at the time.

Range is the only place really it had the 47 beat the numbers speak for themselves. It cant speak dont lie as they say


----------



## Coors9 (May 19, 2009)

As long as it has a birdcage, I'll take either one.......Boy their pretty


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2009)

aads said:


> Ok then, just say ithe n was too late - what of these other points are the mustang better at?
> 
> Any?



How about climb, acceleration, manuever, take off roll, landing roll? The P-47N and P-51H came into the USAAF inventory at nearly the same time but the USAAF kept them stateside.

The 47 had twice as many combat sorties and a little over half the air to air record and far less in groaud awards of enarmy aircraft as the P-51. It had a much lower air to air ratio and in the 8th AF did not have a significant advantage in strafing losses.

Until the P-47D-27 and beyond, the Jug was playing Penetration and Withdrawal support up to the German/French border while the Mustangs were taking on the Luftwaffe over Berlin

As to Korea -

PRE-Korea the USAF did not have an unlimited budget and the choice was jet for air superiority (P-80 then F-86), jet for gound support (F-84), P-51 for strategic escort, P-82 for long range escort and all weather night fighter as the P-61s were being retired.

The USAF, had it had long range crystal ball, in 1946 relative to Korean War, would have been better served to get an air force version of the A1-D rather than the P-47 or P-38. They weren't stupid, the P-47N and P-38L were both more expensive, not perceived as good for strategic escort, and nowhere close to P-80 or F-84 or F-86 in air superiority role. 

So 38 and 47 were cut.


----------



## renrich (May 29, 2009)

There ain't no free lunch when it comes to airplanes. An extreme example is the F4F. One of it's shortcomings was lack of range(compared to the Zeke) Grumman solved that problem with the F4F7 which carried 685 gallons of fuel, 555 in a "wet wing". They only built 21 of them because the performance suffered so much among other problems. The P47 N suffered a little like the F4F7


----------



## pinehilljoe (May 3, 2016)

I can't help thinking one reason (and perhaps dominating reason) the P-51 was chosen for post war service over the 47N was North American management was better at politics and lobbying than the Republic Management.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> I can't help thinking one reason (and perhaps dominating reason) the P-51 was chosen for post war service over the 47N was North American management was better at politics and lobbying than the Republic Management.


The P-47 served in national guard units till 1953.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 3, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> I can't help thinking one reason (and perhaps dominating reason) the P-51 was chosen for post war service over the 47N was North American management was better at politics and lobbying than the Republic Management.


The P-47's days were numbered as the war drew to a close.

It was the right aircraft in the right place at the right time and it delivered tremendous hurt to the enemy, butnthere were other aircraft that were being developed during the P-47's service life that would eclipse it. Therefore, it remained in active service with the Air Force until 1949 and as Joe mentioned, in service with National Guard units until 1953.

What replaced thet P-47?

The Douglas A-1D, which was being developed latewar and may have even seen combat if the Pacific war continued longer than it did. But the fact of the matter is, the A-1 was far better suited to the ground attack role than the P-47. It had decent speed, excellent range and it's bombload was the same as a B-17's max. - 8,000 pounds, which was 5,500 more than the P-47.

While the A-1D may not have had the 8 .50 cal. MGs, it did have 4 20mm cannon, which is a considerable amount of damage to anything on the receiving end.

So really, by the time the Korean war started, the P-47 was simply not needed.


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 4, 2016)

... and it was costly


----------



## davparlr (May 19, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The P-47's days were numbered as the war drew to a close.
> 
> It was the right aircraft in the right place at the right time and it delivered tremendous hurt to the enemy, butnthere were other aircraft that were being developed during the P-47's service life that would eclipse it. Therefore, it remained in active service with the Air Force until 1949 and as Joe mentioned, in service with National Guard units until 1953.
> 
> ...


The P-47D-25, in service at the end of WW2 had a max weight to empty weight of 9400 lbs compared to the AD-1, under development at the end of the war, which had a max weight to empty weight of about 7500 lbs (according to Wagner's "American Combat Planes"). The AD-1, did seem to have a significant range advantage. The P-47N, also in service at the end of the war would have been comparable to the later model ADs, including power. Range always seemed to be a strong point for the ADs.

My opinion has always been that the P-47 would have been a better aircraft than the P-51 for the AF in the Korean War due to the fact that both aircraft had poor air-to-air capability and were used primarily for air-to-gnd attack where the P-47 was definitely superior.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (May 21, 2016)

Which aircraft, the P-47 or the P-51, could better perform the role of interceptor to protect the Continental US?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Which aircraft, the P-47 or the P-51, could better perform the role of interceptor to protect the Continental US?



In what part of the country?


----------



## gjs238 (May 22, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In what part of the country?


Ah, good point. I remember the east coast (P-47, Republic Aviation, Farmingdale, Long Island, New York) vs west coast (P-51, North American Aviation, Los Angeles, California) point came up in other threads.

I forget, but were P-51's stationed post war on the west coast and P-47's in the east?


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 4, 2016)

P-47 for versatility


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 6, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The P-47's days were numbered as the war drew to a close.
> 
> It was the right aircraft in the right place at the right time and it delivered tremendous hurt to the enemy, butnthere were other aircraft that were being developed during the P-47's service life that would eclipse it. Therefore, it remained in active service with the Air Force until 1949 and as Joe mentioned, in service with National Guard units until 1953.
> 
> ...


The A-1 didn't replace the P-47, it was a Navy aircraft. The USAF didn't use the A-1 until Vietnam. The P-47 was replaced in the fighter-bomber role by the F-51, F-80, and F-84. The F-47 would have been useful in Korea, it just wasn't available. Also the range of the Mustang was needed early on when mission were flown from Japan.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> The A-1 didn't replace the P-47, it was a Navy aircraft. The USAF didn't use the A-1 until Vietnam. The P-47 was replaced in the fighter-bomber role by the F-51, F-80, and F-84. The F-47 would have been useful in Korea, it just wasn't available. Also the range of the Mustang was needed early on when mission were flown from Japan.


The Skyraider did indeed replace the P-47 with it's mission profile in a direct/indirect way.

As for the P-51D, it's max. bombload was 1,000 pounds (divided by one hardpoint on each wing), the P-47D could carry up to 2,500 pounds of bombs max. The F-82 carried a max. Bombload of 4,000 pounds.

The Skyraider could carry up to *8,000* pounds - this also happened to be the max. load/short range rating for the B-17G!

Yes, it was requested by the USN, but it ended up service with the USN, USMC and USAF.

In addition to it's warload and tremendous survivability from ground defenses, it had good range and exceptional loiter time.

And to compare it to the first and second generation jets is apples and oranges.

By the way, the P-80 could carry up to 1,000 pounds of bombs, the F-84 could cary just over 4,400 pounds of bombs and the F-86 could carry a max. bombload of 5,300 pounds, but that would eliminate it's droptanks, cutting into it's range quite a bit.

On the Navy side, the F9F could carry a max. of 2,000 pounds, the F2H could carry up to 3,000 pounds of bombs.

So yes, the USAF may not have "replaced" the P-47 directly with the Skyraider, but in Korea, the Skyraider performed in the exact capacity as the P-47 had done in WWII and again, in Vietnam.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 6, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The Skyraider did indeed replace the P-47 with it's mission profile in a direct/indirect way.
> 
> As for the P-51D, it's max. bombload was 1,000 pounds (divided by one hardpoint on each wing), the P-47D could carry up to 2,500 pounds of bombs max. The F-82 carried a max. Bombload of 4,000 pounds.
> 
> ...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> Closet thing the USAF has in Korea was probably the B-26.


Well, the USAF used a blend of all the fighter types for close air support. The F-84 actually performed two impressive strikes, taking out both the Toksan Dam and the Chasan Dam, both near Pyongyang.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> ...AFAIR, the USN even did a successful 'Dambusters' strike on North Korea, using the Skyraider in its torpedo bomber role.


Yes, at Hwachon dam.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 8, 2016)

James W. said:


> Ta for that G-G, I always thought that was an example of brilliant lateral thinking,
> I wonder if that attack was filmed, & if so, where the footage is now?


I'm not aware of any footage ever taken, although it would be impressive to see.

There were, however, realtime strike assesment photos taken during the mission.

A good overview of the mission, including some actual photos of the dam being hit, can be found here: Skyraiders Torpedo the Hwachon Dam | Defense Media Network

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 9, 2016)

James W. said:


> Good stuff! Ta, G-G.
> I guess the old salts who knew the torp-tech were proud to get a gig for their long-dormant tin-fish.
> Wonder if running in fresh water required any buoyancy/depth adjustments?
> Perhaps the strike-spread was a calculation, or maybe it was was just - 'Let 'em have it!'?
> ...


The pilots were certainly skilled, no doubt.

Though I haven't heard of any mock dogfights, they did score aerial victories in Vietnam.

20 June 1965, two Skyraiders of VF-25 (USS Midway) were flying top cover for a Sandy mission to recover a downed Air Force pilot, when they were bounced by two NVAF MiG-17s. The MiGs launched missiles and a burst of cannon fire at Lt. Hartman III, "Canasta 573" (A-1H BuNo 137523) and Lt. Johnson, "Canasta 577" (A1-H BuNo 139768) who immediately went evasive and manouvered to engage. Lt. johnson fired a short bust of the Syraider's M3 20mm cannon, missing the MiG which then made a turn and approached the two Skyraiders head on. As the MiG approached, both Skyraiders opened fire, the cannon rounds landing around the MiG's intake, fuselage, wing root and canopy. Instead of returning fire, the MiG rolled over on it's back, went into a shallow dive and impacted a low hill. The other MiG immediately retreated.
Lt. Hartman and Lt. Johnson shared the victory.

9 October 1966, four A-1Hs of Va-176 (USS Intrepid) were on a RESCAP mission (loitering on station in case of a downed airman) when they were jumped by 4 NVAF MiG-17s. The Skyraiders went defensive and engaged, with Lt. Patton "Papoose 409" (A-1H BuNo 137453) landing cannon hits to the lead MiG's tail structure, causing it to dive violently into cloud cover below. Lt. Patton dove after it and as he emerged from the clouds, he saw the NVAF pilot's parachute, the MiG tumbling away below.
The other Skyraiders also scored hits on the remaining MiGs and in the end, the talley was one confirmed MiG, one probable downed and one severely damaged.

Other notable incident would be in 1954, when two Slyraiders shot down two Chinese La-9 fighters over the South China Sea.

By the way, while on the subject of the last piston fighters downing jets, I think the engagement on 8 August 1952 between a Sea Fury from the HMS Ocean and a North Korean MiG-15 in which the MiG-15 was downed. While there is some controversy as to whom actually downed it, the fact remains that a MiG-15 was killed by a Hawker.

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


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 9, 2016)

Lt. Peter "Hoagy" Carmichael (2nd from the right) and his MiG killing Sea Fury

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Michael Paquette (Aug 4, 2016)

Tight race. I choose Thunderbolt as an all around combat aircraft but in if it's a plane vs plane much, I'd give it to the Mustang, but he'd have to be a good pilot. I could see a Mustang using all it's rounds and if not well placed, could leave the Thunderbolt flying.

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


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 29, 2017)

There is, somewhere on the Web, an essay by a USAAF pilot who flew both in combat. 

My suspicion, after all the hype and bother, is that the answer to which was better is dependent on time and place.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 28, 2018)

The Mustang was a far better aircraft than the Thunderbolt.
Was a better dogfighter, excellent ground operations as demonstrated in Korea.
Far less expensive to build, maintain, service, used a lot less fuel for long range missions.

The Thunderbolt would not have been effective in Korea.
It could not use the Japanese bases as it would not get off the ground, Even without a bomb load. 
It would have same issues that the Corsair and other Recips had with large oil tank, cooler and turbo.
If hit would burst into flames.

It’s only advantage was in high altitude top coverage and diving speed.
One good attribute was that the Thunderbolt came with far less reliability issues.

One of the unreported attribute of the Mustang that they remained on station longer because of its range.
They were very effective in ground attack.


----------



## lonestarman63 (Jun 28, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> The Mustang was a far better aircraft than the Thunderbolt.
> Was a better dogfighter, excellent ground operations as demonstrated in Korea.
> Far less expensive to build, maintain, service, used a lot less fuel for long range missions.
> 
> ...


 seems folks forget about jets that take longer runways and they were there ? and yes 51 they could ground strike but why use them for that unless you just wish to find what a bullet does to the cooling system .fact is the mustang was a bad turn fighter. just there were so many of them ,so the best thing about the 51 was the range . and yes they were cheap and you get what you pay for ,


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> The Mustang was a far better aircraft than the Thunderbolt.
> Was a better dogfighter, excellent ground operations as demonstrated in Korea.
> Far less expensive to build, maintain, service, used a lot less fuel for long range missions.
> 
> ...


While I agree with some your comments about operational costs and sustainability, I don't know where you can find basis for that comment and your other comments about issues with the oil tanks and turbos and their vulnerability to ground fire. Do you have take off performance charts to show that P-47s couldn't operate from Japanese fields??? Additionally recips were way better suited for ground support as they had no coolant system, the Achilles heel of the P-51. 

The Mustang were plentiful, had a good supply chain and was well liked by USAF brass so it was almost a shoe in for Korean war service. Misawa, Iruma, Naha (Okinawa) Yokota, and Tsuiki, were/are all under 500' MSL and even the heaviest loaded P-47 would have no issues getting off the ground. From another post -

_"Combat radius per USAF requirements (take off, climb to 25000 ft, cruise at 210 mph indicated air speed, 15 min of combat on military power, 5 min of combat on war emergency power, return to base at 25000 ft and 210 IAS, 30 min reserve) was *700 miles for the P-51B/C/D/H and 1000 miles for the P-47N.*
Source: USAF table found in 'America's hundred thousand', pg. 599 and 600". (Tomo Pauk) Range of P-51D and P-47N_

The P-47 remained in USAF service well into the 1950s and although more costly to operate would not have been a liability in Korea and in many cases may have been a welcomed asset, so unless you have some other supporting documents, pilot reports or data, I look forward to FACTS to support your comments...


----------



## Smokey Stover (Jun 28, 2018)

P-51 was a better dogfighter, although the P-47 could hold its own also. P-47 was a better ground attack fighter bomber because it had better firepower/bombload and could absorb more enemy fire and still keep flying.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> P-51 was a better dogfighter, although the P-47 could hold its own also. P-47 was a better ground attack fighter bomber because it had better firepower/bombload and could absorb more enemy fire and still keep flying.


During the Korean War, either aircraft wasn't going to see much dog fighting.


----------



## mad_max (Jun 28, 2018)

By the time the P-51 was available in the European Theater the P-47 had cleaned out a large percentage of the better German pilots. The Jug broke the camels back and the Pony finished the rest.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 28, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> While I agree with some your comments about operational costs and sustainability, I don't know where you can find basis for that comment and your other comments about issues with the oil tanks and turbos and their vulnerability to ground fire. Do you have take off performance charts to show that P-47s couldn't operate from Japanese fields??? Additionally recips were way better suited for ground support as they had no coolant system, the Achilles heel of the P-51.
> 
> The Mustang were plentiful, had a good supply chain and was well liked by USAF brass so it was almost a shoe in for Korean war service. Misawa, Iruma, Naha (Okinawa) Yokota, and Tsuiki, were/are all under 500' MSL and even the heaviest loaded P-47 would have no issues getting off the ground. From another post -
> 
> ...


 Do I have them...they had a hard time taking off from IWO fully loaded. During WW2 they required using the bomber bases because they were so damn heavy. They information is out there all over the place. It took 3 days to change a Thunderbolt engine. Less than one day for a Mustang. Recips had a huge problem with large oil tanks and coolers. The Thunderbots were not armored and neither were the Corsairs. Until the AU1 and they fell at the same sortie rate in Korea. Easy to look up. The AD1 later models were armored but suffered same issue until reinforced.

Few countries took the Thunderbolt. Chennault took all available for Formosa. It is fine to have combat performance above 25k but the dogfighting was done at 25k and below. It was the same with the ajets in Korea. You do not do tight maneuvers in thinner air at 30k.

As far as I am concerned the P47 was a pig of an aircraft. It was more reliable than the P38 until 1944 when they got sorted out. I know a lot about the amustang at IWO because my Uncle was Fighter Pilot with the 7th Squadron. They use to dog fight the touted P47N and no Mustang last a dog fight with a Thunderbolt. 

As for service Mustangs were used up to 1972. Few wanted the Thunderbolt. In Korea the Mustang and acorsair suffered the same persortie loss. Slightly better then the Corsair. Yet were exposed to combat longer because of their range and small signature. The Thunderbolt took twice the fuel load to half as far as the Mustang. Logistics wise the Thunderbolt would have used up too much precious fuel. Being a large easy to see target would have suffered similar loss per sortie.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 28, 2018)

lonestarman63 said:


> seems folks forget about jets that take longer runways and they were there ? and yes 51 they could ground strike but why use them for that unless you just wish to find what a bullet does to the cooling system .fact is the mustang was a bad turn fighter. just there were so many of them ,so the best thing about the 51 was the range . and yes they were cheap and you get what you pay for ,



First you have to hit the cooling system. If you did the Mustang had 15 minutes to,leave the area.
That did not happen to the Corsair when hit in the oil tank and cooler. As for a turn fighter. It was very maneuverable. Especially at higher combat speeds.
May want to talk to a Chris Fahey of Planes of Fame. You can reach him on Facebook on the Mustang blogg. At IWO Jima the Thinderbolts always picked fights with Mustang pilots getting into dogfights. the Mustang pilots never lost a dog fight. My Uncle Walt Krieman was one of those Mustang Pilots.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Do I have them...they had a hard time taking off from IWO fully loaded. During WW2 they required using the bomber bases because they were so damn heavy. They information is out there all over the place.


 Then post it. I guarantee you the take off distance at a S/L base wasn't that much more than any other heavy fighter of the period. Yes, it would require a longer runway than a P-51 the P-47 would definitely "get off the ground>"


Dan Fahey said:


> It took 3 days to change a Thunderbolt engine. Less than one day for a Mustang.


I don't know where you got that from but the P-47 used a QEC and I doubt it took more than a day.


Dan Fahey said:


> Recips had a huge problem with large oil tanks and coolers. The Thunderbots were not armored and neither were the Corsairs.
> Until the AU1 and they fell at the same sortie rate in Korea. Easy to look up. The AD1 later models were armored but suffered same issue until reinforced.


 And the P-51 had a high attrition rate to ground fire because of the cooling system. Personally I'd rather get shot at while in a P-47 than in a P-51!!!


Dan Fahey said:


> Few countries took the Thunderbolt.


I show 23 countries operated the P-47


Dan Fahey said:


> As far as I am concerned the P47 was a pig of an aircraft. It was more reliable than the P38 until 1944 when they got sorted out. I know a lot about the amustang at IWO because my Uncle was Fighter Pilot with the 7th Squadron. They use to dog fight the touted P47N and no Mustang last a dog fight with a Thunderbolt.


 And that's your opinion. In Korea the P-47 would not have had many dogfights as did the P-51. As far as "mock" dogfights - unless unless controlled conditions are set and you match pilot skills and combat scenarios. Good for your uncle, the P-47 did very well in the PTO. ~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html


Dan Fahey said:


> As for service Mustangs were used up to 1972. Few wanted the Thunderbolt. In Korea the Mustang and acorsair suffered the same persortie loss. Slightly better then the Corsair. Yet were exposed to combat longer because of their range and small signature. The Thunderbolt took twice the fuel load to half as far as the Mustang. Logistics wise the Thunderbolt would have used up too much precious fuel. Being a large easy to see target would have suffered similar loss per sortie.


 And for the most part I agree with most of your statement however at the beginning of the Korean War the P-47 could have performed the same mission as the P-51, at greater operational cost but still effective


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Additionally recips were way better suited for ground support as they had no coolant system, the Achilles heel of the P-51.



That is where he was losing me. I was hoping I was just misunderstanding him.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is where he was losing me. I was hoping I was just misunderstanding him.


Yup!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> It would have same issues that the Corsair and other Recips had with large oil tank, cooler and turbo.



Dan, maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I think you got it backwards. The P-47 was better suited for ground support because it could sustain more damage. Also it was powered by a radial engine which is _air cooled_, whereas the P-51 was powered by a _liquid cooled_ engine, making it more vulnerable to battle damage, but more efficient.


----------



## Tieleader (Jun 29, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yup!
> View attachment 499918


Damn! Lets see a 51 do that!


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 29, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Dan, maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I think you got it backwards. The P-47 was better suited for ground support because it could sustain more damage. Also it was powered by a radial engine which is _air cooled_, whereas the P-51 was powered by a _liquid cooled_ engine, making it more vulnerable to battle damage, but more efficient.



That was the general thought but more Thunderbolts were lost in ground attack than Mustangs. Mustangs had more ground kills than Thunderbolts.
The Thunderbolt was less maneuverable down low, slower climber, larger target and a huge oil tank and cooler and hot turbo.
Just because it had a recip engine means nothing! Could the Thunderbolt absorb bit more hits yes possible..but it was a small difference.
Republic did not armor up the P47 for ground attack. Merlin’s came home with a 20mm hole on the side of the engine. 

Korea made it very clear with the Corsair and Mustang with near identical sortie per loss ratio.
The Thunderbolt was an expensive plane to build and maintain and operate than a Mustang.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> That was the general thought but more Thunderbolts were lost in ground attack than Mustangs.


That's because they entered theater first, flew during a time when the Luftwaffe was at strength and faced more opposition (and that's not taking a thing away from the Mustang)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 29, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> It took 3 days to change a Thunderbolt engine. Less than one day for a Mustang.


At a rear depot, either aircraft could have an engine swapped quickly, although it'll take longer than a day.
As far as complexity goes, that would go to the Mustang, as the engine was set into the nose.
On the P-47, it's engine _was_ the nose.



Dan Fahey said:


> Recips had a huge problem with large oil tanks and coolers.


ANY water-cooled or air-cooled engine will have a vulnerability with coolant, oil and fuel. It's all how the aircraft is designed that provides suitable protection as well as how accurate enemy aircraft/ground fire is.



Dan Fahey said:


> The Thunderbots were not armored and neither were the Corsairs.


Only the Hs129 and the IL-2 had substantial armor - The Fw190A-8 Sturmbocks had additional armor plate to the front part of the cockpit, hung externally.
There seems to be a misconception about "armor", which was only for the pilot's safety and entailed an armor plate to the rear of the cockpit and in some cases, another armor plate at the front of the cockpit. Many types had bullet-proof glass in the cockpit, too. One could also say that self-sealing tanks were also a form of armor, but that's it.
And ALL U.S. fighters were configured like this from roughly 1941 onward.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Korea made it very clear with the Corsair and Mustang with near identical sortie per loss ratio.


Proof?!?!?!?


Dan Fahey said:


> The Thunderbolt was an expensive plane to build and maintain and operate than a Mustang.


I think anyone on here would agree with that


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2018)

Sigh...


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 1, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Proof?!?!?!?
> 
> I think anyone on here would agree with that



Wow Proof...?
Dude go look it up!
The loss per sortie was .5 for each plane.
Marginally better for the P51...All publicly available. 
JoeB wrote up this extensively in a post on this topic.
I did research on this 15 years ago.
Can also look up researchers Cookie Sewell..KORWAR !
His counterpart on the Russian side was Diego Sampini.

It is a myth the P47 would have faired better.
It would have been a maintenance and operational nightmare to keep flying.
First of all it would had to use bases in Japan to get to the fight.
Like the jets did until bases were built in South Korea.

Smartly, No other nation built a huge plane like the P47.
The reason used because it did not suffer the operational issues the Lightning had.

Unlike the P40 which could have had a better Allison engine for overall performance.
The P47 with the Chrysler v16 Hemi Engine or the P72 version with the PW4360 were late developments.

Here is one fact.
Nobody raced a P47 in any of the airraces.
But they raced everything else.....

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 1, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Just because it had a recip engine means nothing!



The P-51 had a "recip" engine too. "Recip" is short for reciprocating engine, which all the main piston engines were (there were some developments by the Germans for swing piston engines to be used as a gas generator to drive a turbine).

As Flyboy mentioned, the P47 had an _air cooled radial reciprocating piston engine_ and the P-51 had a _liquid cooled reciprocating V-12 piston engine_.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Wow Proof...?
> Dude go look it up!



Dude - you're spouting all this opinionated fecal matter with no references, most of it is your personal opinion!


Dan Fahey said:


> The loss per sortie was .5 for each plane.
> Marginally better for the P51...All publicly available.
> JoeB wrote up this extensively in a post on this topic.
> I did research on this 15 years ago.
> ...


 So post it!!! Back up your rants!!!!


Dan Fahey said:


> It is a myth the P47 would have faired better.
> It would have been a maintenance and operational nightmare to keep flying.
> First of all it would had to use bases in Japan to get to the fight.
> Like the jets did until bases were built in South Korea.


No one is saying it would have performed "better." The fact is it would have performed.


Dan Fahey said:


> Here is one fact.
> Nobody raced a P47 in any of the airraces.
> But they raced everything else.....


Actually not true. Bill Odom raced the 1947 Bendix with a P-47M. He did not finish





Having worked and crewed an aircraft at Reno, the P-47 would not have done well in a Pylon Circuit.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Smartly, No other nation built a huge plane like the P47.


Except for the British with their Hawker Tempest, who's wing was actually a foot wider than the P-47's.
Or Japan's Kawasaki KI-100, who's wing was a foot less than the P-47's.


Dan Fahey said:


> Here is one fact.
> Nobody raced a P47 in any of the airraces.
> But they raced everything else.....


No one raced the Tempest or KI-100.

Matter of fact, no one raced the world's fastest aicraft (at the time), the Me163 komet, either.

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


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2018)

I'm not an expert in air racing but I understand that a few Sea Furies were raced and a Sea Fury is basically a naval version of a Tempest II

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2018)

Glider said:


> I'm not an expert in air racing but I understand that a few Sea Furies were raced and a Sea Fury is basically a naval version of a Tempest II


Oh that's right!!

Isn't there still one competing in the unlimited class?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 1, 2018)

Glider said:


> I'm not an expert in air racing but I understand that a few Sea Furies were raced and a Sea Fury is basically a naval version of a Tempest II



Sea Fury is slightly smaller in span and wing area.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 1, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Dude - you're spouting all this opinionated fecal matter with no references, most of it is your personal opinion!
> So post it!!! Back up your rants!!!!
> 
> No one is saying it would have performed "better." The fact is it would have performed.
> ...



Personal opinion...dude you spew Personal opinion with out facts...
Mine are easy to validate...even gave you a few to look up.
Aside from Bill Odom the P47 one time in1947 was not used in Reno!

I get the feeling you are an advocate of the p47 over everything else.
The Mustang was a far better performer than the Thunderbolt.
War statistics validate my comments.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 1, 2018)

I realize this is anecdote, but this gentleman believes the P-47 was better than the P-51, and he flew both in combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2018)

Well, my great Uncle flew a P-38, so that makes me an expert, and therefore the P-38 is FAR superior to a P-51 or P-47.

I'll drop a few obscure references, some skewed facts and you all can go look it up!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Personal opinion...dude you spew Personal opinion with out facts...
> Mine are easy to validate...even gave you a few to look up.
> Aside from Bill Odom the P47 one time in1947 was not used in Reno!
> 
> ...



Considering you don’t know one reciprocating engine from another...

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> I get the feeling you are an advocate of the p47 over everything else.
> The Mustang was a far better performer than the Thunderbolt.
> War statistics validate my comments.


Actually I'm not and I never had a dog in the fight. I've always accepted and supported the P-51 was the better aircraft. This started with your *very simplistic and mis-informed* statement that the P-47* "could not get off the ground to support missions in Korea*." Yes the P-51 was the way better aircraft but the P-47 was not junk and performed its role quite well.

So just for the hell of it, here's the 1946 flight test report for the P-47N since you come up short to support your from the hip responses. This is the only statement made with reaguards to the P-47's performance at high weights;

_*"1. Due to the large quantity of fuel it can carry, the P-47N is a good long range fighter-bomber. Although the performance is not too good at high gross weights, it improves as the external fuel is used and by the time the target area is reached it compares favorably to earlier P-47N’s."*

P-47N Performance Test_
*
No where does it make a statement about the P-47 "not being able to get off the ground." *

And just for reference, here's performace data for the P-51H performed about the same time
_
P-51H Performance Test
_

Bottom line the P-47 "could have" been used during the Korean conflict at a higher operational cost. It would be debatable if it would have out performed the P-51 in the ground attack role, a role it was originally designed for.

So at the end of this, where is your reference for the *"3 day engine change"???*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So at the end of this, where is your reference for the "3 day engine change"???



It’s because its a “Recip” engine, don’t you know!!!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## mad_max (Jul 2, 2018)

drgondog said:


> Back to drag. The 47 compared speed wise above 30,000 feet because the R-2800 blower was more efficient than the Merlin above 25,000 feet (for the -7)



I'm no scientist, but isn't there less drag at higher alt? Less dense air I would surmise to have less friction and more wing area would be good to have at high alts.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 9, 2018)

Depends: If I'm just doing air-to-air stuff, I'd probably be inclined to pick the P-51; if I was doing a lot of air to ground stuff I'd probably take the P-47.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 9, 2018)

mad_max said:


> I'm no scientist, but isn't there less drag at higher alt? Less dense air I would surmise to have less friction and more wing area would be good to have at high alts.


That all depends on the wing's planform and how much lift it will provide in the thinner atmosphere.
Add to that, how well the engine is performing at those altitudes.

You can have the best wing in the world and it won't mean a thing unless the engine is able to move it up there...


----------



## wuzak (Jul 9, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> That all depends on the wing's planform and how much lift it will provide in the thinner atmosphere.
> Add to that, how well the engine is performing at those altitudes.
> 
> You can have the best wing in the world and it won't mean a thing unless the engine is able to move it up there...



Not forgetting the propeller.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 9, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Not forgetting the propeller.


Indeed!


----------



## soulezoo (Jul 9, 2018)

I voted P-47. Not because I believe the -47 a better performer than the pony.

But 'cuz 'Murica... woof.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 9, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Depends: If I'm just doing air-to-air stuff, I'd probably be inclined to pick the P-51; if I was doing a lot of air to ground stuff I'd probably take the P-47.


I think your post captures it in a nutshell. Depends on the mission which is better. Long range high altitude escort straight there and back, I'll take a p51. Medium or short range escort mission where your going down on the deck on the way back to pound an airfield heavily defended by anti aircraft and I think youd have to be insane not to pick the p47.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 9, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> I think your post captures it in a nutshell. Depends on the mission which is better. Long range high altitude escort straight there and back, I'll take a p51. Medium or short range escort mission where your going down on the deck on the way back to pound an airfield heavily defended by anti aircraft and I think youd have to be insane not to pick the p47.



Not going to make a bit of difference!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 9, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Not going to make a bit of difference!



Says the guy who does not know the difference between one reciprocating engine from another...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 9, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Says the guy who does not know the difference between one reciprocating engine from another...


And says it takes 3 days to change a QEC engine

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 10, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And says it takes 3 days to change a QEC engine



Would that make it an SEC engine?


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 10, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually I'm not and I never had a dog in the fight. I've always accepted and supported the P-51 was the better aircraft. This started with your *very simplistic and mis-informed* statement that the P-47* "could not get off the ground to support missions in Korea*." Yes the P-51 was the way better aircraft but the P-47 was not junk and performed its role quite well.
> 
> So just for the hell of it, here's the 1946 flight test report for the P-47N since you come up short to support your from the hip responses. This is the only statement made with reaguards to the P-47's performance at high weights;
> 
> ...



Flyboy the P47 could not fly off the Japanese made airbases in SK..period!
They were too heavy and needed a bomber base to get off the ground especially with a combat load.
The Corsair and Mustang could!
The P47N at IWO struggled to get off the Bomber bases fully loaded!
Couple pilots died trying thinking otherwise...these are documented facts!

In Korea P47 would not have survived any better than the Mustang or Corsair.
In fact less maneuverable a dna huge target would have fallen to the Migs a lot easier.
There is a whole Thunderbolt write up on the Internet.
The Thunderbolt would have been a logistics and maintenance hog.
They were in WW2...

Like the Corsair it would have gone down in Flames because of unprotected oil tank and cooler.
Plus on the P47 oil lines, inter coolers to the hot Turbo.
In fact the Mustang and Corsair had a better loss per sortie loss ratio than the P47 had in Europe.
Check it out!

The only attack fighter that fared slightly better was the AD1 and AU1.
Then only After it got those areas armored but they still were shot down.

What the archives have not detailed. 
I am looking for information was how long the Mustang stayed on Station vs the Corsair vs jets
The Jets had a better loss per sortie on ground attack.
But all the jets took off from Bomber bases in Japan and were not fuel efficient.
So they were limited staying around protecting the combat area. 

This is the untold story where the ground based Corsair and Mustangs were so effective.
Carrier based Corsairs stayed as long as fuel was available to trek back to the Carrier.
They destroyed a lot of NK WAR MATERIAL.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 10, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> I think your post captures it in a nutshell.


Basically, the P-51 was more maneuverable and had better climb performance at most altitudes.

The P-47's air-cooled engine gave it an inherent ruggedness the P-51 did not have, though both were not exactly flimsy aircraft, the P-47 was physically somewhat sturdier in a few ways.



Dan Fahey said:


> Not going to make a bit of difference!


I'm not sure if you're right about the weight of the P-47 in the air-to-ground configuration, but even if that's true: It was more likely to survive the mission...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Flyboy the P47 could not fly off the Japanese made airbases in SK..period!



Flat out BS! You've provided no proof of that. I posted the take off and performance data. The rest is just your opinionated babble.



Dan Fahey said:


> In Korea P47 would not have survived any better than the Mustang or Corsair.
> In fact less maneuverable a dna huge target would have fallen to the Migs a lot easier.
> There is a whole Thunderbolt write up on the Internet.
> The Thunderbolt would have been a logistics and maintenance hog.
> They were in WW2...


No one is saying they would have survived any better or worse, the point is they could have been used.


Dan Fahey said:


> Like the Corsair it would have gone down in Flames because of unprotected oil tank and cooler.
> Plus on the P47 oil lines, inter coolers to the hot Turbo.
> In fact the Mustang and Corsair had a better loss per sortie loss ratio than the P47 had in Europe.
> Check it out!


 You keep droning on about that and still don't realize that liquid cooled engines were just as vulnerable!!! Over 300 F-51s were lost during the Korean War. You could speculate all you want on how the P-47 would have fared. Your one sided speculation at this point does not consider operational scenarios, mission types and ordnance carried. The fact that the F4U had the same amount of losses as the F-51 is probably a statistical tribute to the Corsair as it was flying through out the war, flew more missions, flew more hazardous mission and flew the entire length of the war, but you fail to mention or realize that in your very simplistic and sometimes ignorant views of these aircraft and the way they were actually operated!

I'm still waiting of your 3 day engine change reference

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2018)

This info comes from Bill Marshal (drgondog) and I'll trust his research with my life! 

"a rollup decomposed from USAF85 for all ETO air credits (8th and 9th AF - June 1943 to May 1945) is 452 for P-38, 2658 for P-47 and 4179 for P-51 - does not include RAF totals. My own studies arrive at (8th AF only) *P-47 = 1562:214*; P-38 = 281:101: P-51 = 3313: 322 (air credits in USAF 85 8th AF ETO to air combat losses, known and probable causes)"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2018)

A good bit of information from JoeB with references;

_"AFAIK there really is no specific statistical research behind that statement. It really just means that the USN and USMC were disappointed with F4U AA vulnerability in Korea, and the AF was also disappointed with F-51 vulnerability. The USN/USMC didn't publish anything like our favorite 'Naval Aviation Combat Statisitics' for Korea, unfortunately . No Navy publication or record for Korea AFAIK adds up sorties flown and compares it to losses. My general impression from quotations of loss rates per sortie for sub-periods of the war is that F4U combat loss rates were in the same ballpark as F-51, which were .54% enemy action losses per combat sortie (341 enemy action losses in 62.607 combat sorties), perhaps lower, not a lot lower. Non scientific, and even if we had better stats, unlike the NASC F4U/F6F comparison, the stats wouldn't effectively control for differences in mission profile and tactics, which NASC stats essentially did control for, by quoting rates of a/c *hit* (similar between F4U and F6F) and downed (notably higher for F4U) by AA. In Korea there's no hope of compiling that kind of detail, AFAIK.

The absolute number of F4U's and F-51's lost was similar, 341 enemy action 474 total for F-51's, USN 145 F4U's to enemy action 267 total, Marines lost 164 to enemy action 206 total, not counting 16 AU-1's to enemy action and 21 total. 3 of those F4U's were lost to MiG's along with around 8* F-51's so that was a (n interesting but) statistically negligible aspect of losses. None of either were lost to enemy prop planes against several claims by the US props (it's possible some night disappearances of USMC F4U-5N's might have been to NK night fighters, whose operational details are not known, a couple of Marine F4U/F7F night intruders were jumped by night fighters now known not to have been Soviet or Chinese, in one case an F4U turned the tables and claimed a night kill v Yak-9). Note that the prop loss ballpark .5% per sortie to enemy action, was low by WWII standards; and moreover the focus in both USAF and USN/USMC tended to be high prop fighter losses compared to jet losses, even in ground strike missions. For example, the F-80's enemy action loss rate was only .15%, and Navy jets (and AD's) likewise suffered much less than F4U's." _

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2018)

Thanks for the name Joe. I've been trying to remember so that I can look for his books

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2018)

I have a Bill Marshall and a James William Marshall....same drgondog?


----------



## Meusse (Jul 10, 2018)

P51 was superior at dogfighting and escorting, wich was the most important role with bombing at that time.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> I have a Bill Marshall and a James William Marshall....same drgondog?


Yep! That's what I meant.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2018)

Sorry, I meant is he using different names on different books?


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 10, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Flat out BS! You've provided no proof of that. I posted the take off and performance data. The rest is just your opinionated babble.
> 
> 
> No one is saying they would have survived any better or worse, the point is they could have been used.
> ...


You will find it one day!

Read what Joe B has to say!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> You will find it one day!
> 
> Read what Joe B has to say!


I have and that's why I've called BS on just about everything you've posted. It's evident you're biased against the aircraft and you're entitled to your opinions but please don't try to peddle 2nd hand fecal matter here because you'll be called on it. There's plenty of data that shows the P-47 "could have" adequately performed in Korea. It's obvious you have no aviation maintenance experience to understand the difference between radial engines with dry sump oil systems and in line engines with liquid cooling systems. There's no doubt the P-51 was an over all better aircraft in many respects but what you posted in some cases was just half assed BS! If you want to remain a meaningful participating member of this site I suggest you start backing up your rants.

*So it's evident - you were just talking out of your ass with regards to a 3 day P-47 engine change...*

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


----------



## billrunnels (Jul 11, 2018)

I always felt the P-51 and P-47 had two distinctly different missions. The P-51 for high altitude bomber stream support and one on one combat with the enemy fighter aircraft. The P-47 provided great support for our ground troops. I had a friend who flew both during WWII. He preferred the P-47 because that big radial engine gave him more protection. He moved from the P-47 to the P-51 and said his first take off in the latter scared him to death due to the rotation. Both served our cause very well.

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


----------



## YGBSM (Jul 11, 2018)

billrunnels said:


> I always felt the P-51 and P-47 had two distinctly different missions. The P-51 for high altitude bomber stream support and one on one combat with the enemy fighter aircraft. The P-47 provided great support for our ground troops.



I heard almost the exact same words from a P-47 veteran this past week.

Bomber crews tended to favor the 'little friend' which could hang around the longest, and GIs tended to favor a tough, hard-hitting support aircraft that can brave AA fire to take out imminent threats. P-51s had the 'Berlin and back' range, and P-47s were so important to ground support that P-47 pilots were embedded with ground troops as forward air controllers.

The amazing thing was that each aircraft was versatile enough to cover the other role. While perhaps not optimal, each could do a secondary role admirably when the situation demanded it. I believe this fact is why the aircraft get directly compared so frequently - they were good enough to blur the lines between primary and secondary roles.

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


----------



## billrunnels (Jul 11, 2018)

YGBSM said:


> I heard almost the exact same words from a P-47 veteran this past week.
> 
> Bomber crews tended to favor the 'little friend' which could hang around the longest, and GIs tended to favor a tough, hard-hitting support aircraft that can brave AA fire to take out imminent threats. P-51s had the 'Berlin and back' range, and P-47s were so important to ground support that P-47 pilots were embedded with ground troops as forward air controllers.
> 
> The amazing thing was that each aircraft was versatile enough to cover the other role. While perhaps not optimal, each could do a secondary role admirably when the situation demanded it. I believe this fact is why the aircraft get directly compared so frequently - they were good enough to blur the lines between primary and secondary roles.


I witnessed the roll of the P-51 pilots on the missions I flew so know of their excellent support at altitude. However, I only had one opportunity to see the P-47 pilots in action. We had just crossed the enemy line heading for our target of the day when on the radio I heard machine gun fire and guys talking. I remember one saying " I am out of ammo will return as soon as possible". I finally spotted them. It was a squadron of P-47 aircraft strafing the enemy at cross roads near a small town. They were in a circle making their runs. Their action was very impressive.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 11, 2018)

Bill, thank you for your inputs - basically confirms 99% of what has been written on this subject, from someone who was "actually there".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Bill, thank you for your inputs - basically confirms 99% of what has been written on this subject, from someone who was "actually there".



Let’s take this a step further. They should have put an inline Merlin in the A1 Skyraider to prevent it from going down in flames right?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## YGBSM (Jul 11, 2018)

billrunnels said:


> I witnessed the roll of the P-51 pilots on the missions I flew so know of their excellent support at altitude. However, I only had one opportunity to see the P-47 pilots in action. We had just crossed the enemy line heading for our target of the day when on the radio I heard machine gun fire and guys talking. I remember one saying " I am out of ammo will return as soon as possible". I finally spotted them. It was a squadron of P-47 aircraft strafing the enemy at cross roads near a small town. They were in a circle making their runs. Their action was very impressive.



That's impressive that you were able to spot that from altitude - did you catch the P-47s through the Mk1 eyeball or Norden?


----------



## billrunnels (Jul 11, 2018)

YGBSM said:


> That's impressive that you were able to spot that from altitude - did you catch the P-47s through the Mk1 eyeball or Norden?


Eyeball view from about 20,000 ft. It took me several minutes to locate them.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 12, 2018)

billrunnels said:


> I always felt the P-51 and P-47 had two distinctly different missions. The P-51 for high altitude bomber stream support and one on one combat with the enemy fighter aircraft.


In practice, that's how they turned out but there origins were a bit more complicated

The P-47, as I understand it, started out as a fighter competitor alongside the Curtiss XP-46 (never entered service) known as the XP-47A. The goal seemed to revolve around producing lighter aircraft which incorporated some of the best features seen in European aircraft (more streamlined, lighter weight it would appear) in both aircraft.

The XP-47A was not well received it would appear by the USAAC because it's wing-loading was a bit heavy, and Alexander Kartveli seemed to favor radial engines over the V-1710's that were proposed because of their sturdiness. There were also some combat reports from Europe that came back indicating a need for an aircraft that wasn't just fast, but rugged and heavily armed (I'm not sure if they realized that at this point that the RAF's Hurricane and Spitfires both had 8 x 0.303 as a means of putting more rounds on target, and the Me-109 had 20mm in the wings). With experience on the P-35, the XP-41 (a P-35 with a twin-stage supercharger and streamlining), the P-43 (had a turbocharger), they built around the R-2800 with elliptical wings like the P-35, and a turbocharger like the P-43 had giving good altitude performance, and produced "a dinosaur" but one with good proportions.

This aircraft was called the XP-47B, and while it had a variety of problems early on (the canopy opened sideways, and wouldn't always open right for bailout, problems with the control surfaces causing aileron snatch, and poor tuck-under response), they would be worked out in the P-47C production run.

The P-51, from what it appeared started out as an export fighter for the French and, if any attempts were made to build them here in the US, it seemed unsuccessful. This was around 1939. By 1940, the British wanted to import more fighters and since the P-40 performed fairly well, they went to Curtiss to buy some, and then went to North American to buy more. They didn't want to build it since they had a better design that they could get built and flown faster. They asked them if they could build it to a specified timetable from when he contract was signed, and it was agreed upon.

The early designs used the Allison V-1710 and a single-stage supercharger, and were able to achieve around 378 mph which was better than the P-40 could achieve at the same weight on the same engine. The belly mounted radiator was variable geometry able to vary the inlet area, and was actually a success (The P-40 originally was to have a belly radiator, as was the XP-46, and the Hawker Tornado, neither worked), though the P-51A soon incorporated a fixed radiator that had a large splitter. Speed went up slightly past 400 mph at 15,000 feet, and was still around 378 by the time 20,000 feet was reached, making it about as fast as the Spitfire VC except with twice the range.

Both the P-47 and P-51 were used for escorting at different points in time, the problem with the P-47 was basically that

 It's early range wasn't all that impressive to start out with
The desire to use drop-tanks was either stubbornly opposed or not pursued to the degree it should have
The P-47C on had a ferry tank, but it didn't work above 10,000-14,000 feet as it was not pressurized -- turns out it's altitude limits were basically the same as ours
When drop tanks were procured, they didn't procure them in large enough numbers at first to be useful

The maximum dive speed was 0.72 mach which was less than the Me-109 and Fw-190
The P-51's naturally had good range to begin with, though it's critical altitude was a little bit low. Contrary to the story that the low altitude was a shock to the designers, that's actually not true at all, the performance of the engines at altitude were well known facts already. The high performance of the aircraft made it a good candidate to fit the Merlin 60's.

Some changes had to be made including the exact shape of the nose, the carburetor intake was placed underneath the engine instead of above as before, the greater engine power resulted in a four-bladed propeller, the twin-stage supercharger used an after cooler, which demanded modification to the aircraft's belly-radiator to dispel the heat produced by it, and that made it into a substantial airplane. The P-51B could achieve 447 mph at 29,800 feet with the V-1650-3, the -C used the -7's if I recall which had more overall power but was geared for lower altitudes so it reached peak performance around 24,900 feet, but as a result of having more power, even as it went above the critical altitude there was still enough to achieve a decent rate of speed. The use of drop-tanks of increasing size helped drive up the range, and when the center tank was added on the aircraft, it became truly remarkable (though the aircraft was almost neutrally stable when the tank was full).

It was capable of diving at Mach 0.75 which put it similar to the Fw-190 and Me-109 in theory


> The P-47 provided great support for our ground troops.


Yeah, it was extremely rugged and turned out to work magnificently in that area. It's ironic that it was originally designed for high altitude

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 13, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I have and that's why I've called BS on just about everything you've posted. It's evident you're biased against the aircraft and you're entitled to your opinions but please don't try to peddle 2nd hand fecal matter here because you'll be called on it. There's plenty of data that shows the P-47 "could have" adequately performed in Korea. It's obvious you have no aviation maintenance experience to understand the difference between radial engines with dry sump oil systems and in line engines with liquid cooling systems. There's no doubt the P-51 was an over all better aircraft in many respects but what you posted in some cases was just half assed BS! If you want to remain a meaningful participating member of this site I suggest you start backing up your rants.
> 
> *So it's evident - you were just talking out of your ass with regards to a 3 day P-47 engine change...*


MY RANTS.. Funny that is what I think about your comments.

Here is some information for you why the USAF did not use the Thunderbolt in Korea.
First and foremost it would have never been able to get off the ground

The Thunderbolt would have been a more survivable ground-attack aircraft than the F-51 in Korea, and pilot losses would have been lower in the Jug. However, the plane did have limitations. 
*
The Jug needed a lot of runway to get into the air, which meant the F-47 simply could not have operated from some of Korea’s short, rough runways without reducing weapon or fuel loads. One of the Mustang’s greatest assets in Korea was that it could fly with a heavy weapons load from undersized dirt runways just a short flight from the front. Fully loaded, the F-47D and F-47N weighed in at 19,400 and 20,700 pounds respectively; the relatively lightweight F-51D topped the scales at 11,600 pounds. *

Perhaps most significantly, the Thunderbolt, like all other piston-engine fighters, was outclassed by the straight-wing jet fighters of the late 1940s. The situation became even worse as swept-wing jets entered service. Futrell notes the performance of the Soviet-built MiG-15 jets that appeared over Korea on November 1, 1951 “rendered obsolete every American plane in the Far East.” (37) In air combat with the MiG-15

*the Mustang had to depend on its maneuverability to survive, since trying to speed or dive away was usually fatal. (38) Vandenberg, in his response to Stratemeyer’s request for F-47s, said the Thunderbolt would be much less desirable for aerial combat than the Mustang in the event of a MiG attack. (39) *

The Jug could have made an important contribution to the Air Force effort in Korea, but like the Mustang, it would have been replaced eventually by more survivable jet fighter-bombers.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 13, 2018)

More on the P51 in Korea

The F4U and AD experienced heavy losses in Korea–almost all of the 312 Corsairs and 124 Skyraiders lost to enemy action fed to ground fire. The Corsair, in spite of its rugged construction and radial engine, had a number of weaknesses, including vulnerable, wing-mounted oil coolers. To correct these deficiencies, Vought produced 110 examples of the AU-1, a dedicated ground-attack version of the Corsair. The AU-1 had 25 pieces of armor plating installed and the oil coolers were relocated; 17 of the 25 pieces of added armor protected the underside of the AU-1’s engine and accessory, section. (32) Additional armor was also installed in the Skyraider. The F-51 Mustang, on the other hand–a plane without the inherent survivability of the F4U or AD–never received additional armor plating to increase its protection in the ground attack role. (YET from JoeB the more rugged Corsair experienced the same loss per sortie ratio at the Mustang. Now add the 125 AD1 losses plus 12 - AU 1's lost in 1953 which were suppose to be more rugged than the Mustang)

Yet the Mustang, in spite of its weaknesses as a fighter-bomber, still made a fantastic contribution to the Air Force’s effort in Korea. F-51s flew 62,607 missions and almost all of these were for close support of ground forces or for tactical reconnaissance. They fired 183,221 rockets and dropped 12,909 tons of bombs and 15,221 tons of napalm. Additionally, Mustangs shot down 19 enemy propeller-driven aircraft and destroyed another 28 on the ground. The Mustang filled a crucial gap in Air Force ground attack capabilities in the days before the installation of mid-wing bomb racks on the F-80C and the arrival of the F-84 Thunderjet. Particularly in mid-July 1950, Mustangs operating close to the front from the rough airfields at Taegu and Pohang proved invaluable in helping to blunt the North Korean advance. Brigadier General E. J. Timberlake, Deputy Commander of Fifth Air Force, which was responsible for tactical operations in Korea, stated, “One F-51 adequately supported and fought from Taegu Airfield is equivalent to four F-80s based [in Japan].” (33) Lt. Gen. Walton H. Walker, Commander of the Eighth Army, summed up the Army’s sentiments. During an interview on November 25, 1950, Walker said “I will lay my cards right on the table and state that if it had not been for the air support we received from the Fifth Air Force we would not have been able to stay in Korea.” (34) While many F-51s and their pilots were lost in Korea, these losses were actually light considering the tremendous destruction they inflicted on the Communist forces. (35) In a particularly effective close air support strike on October 25, 1951, Mustangs killed or wounded about 200 enemy troop (36)–more than the total number of F-51 pilots killed in ground-attack operations during the entire Korean War.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 13, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> MY RANTS.. Funny that is what I think about your comments.



My "rant's" provided supporting data, something that you haven't provided, like your *3 DAY ENGINE CHANGE,* but I'll play



Dan Fahey said:


> Here is some information for you why the USAF did not use the Thunderbolt in Korea.
> First and foremost it would have never been able to get off the ground


Proof?!?! Take off data??? Runway lengths? Aircraft weights????



Dan Fahey said:


> *The Thunderbolt would have been a* *more survivable ground-attack aircraft than the F-51 in Korea*, and pilot losses would have been lower in the Jug. However, the plane did have limitations.



OK - what's been said all along....
*


Dan Fahey said:



The Jug needed a lot of runway to get into the air, which meant the F-47 simply could not have operated from some of Korea’s short, rough runways without reducing weapon or fuel loads. One of the Mustang’s greatest assets in Korea was that it could fly with a heavy weapons load from undersized dirt runways just a short flight from the front. Fully loaded, the F-47D and F-47N weighed in at 19,400 and 20,700 pounds respectively; the relatively lightweight F-51D topped the scales at 11,600 pounds.

Click to expand...

*
And that's at max gross weights in which normally neither aircraft would be loaded at.

AND again you left one thing out genius - the runway lengths!

The P-47 needed a 6000' runway when loaded to maximum weights with wing and centerline tanks. When loaded to 20,000K (fuel only) the P-47N had a greater range than the P-51. That is CLEARLY shown in the POH

There would never be a reason to operate either aircraft at a maximum gross weight at a forward airfield!!!!

Here - educate yourself







This chart is for a P-47D, the P-47N would have offered better performance, but not by much. Hopefully you'll figure out how to read this...

Here's the same chart for the P-51






At the higher gross weights the P-47D would require runways just under 4000', that was about the size of many of the hardened runways in Korea.

At these weights the P-47 carried a heavier bomb load but used more fuel. And had less range



Dan Fahey said:


> Perhaps most significantly, the Thunderbolt, like all other piston-engine fighters, was outclassed by the straight-wing jet fighters of the late 1940s. The situation became even worse as swept-wing jets entered service. Futrell notes the performance of the Soviet-built MiG-15 jets that appeared over Korea on November 1, 1951 “rendered obsolete every American plane in the Far East.” (37) In air combat with the MiG-15
> 
> *the Mustang had to depend on its maneuverability to survive, since trying to speed or dive away was usually fatal. (38) Vandenberg, in his response to Stratemeyer’s request for F-47s, said the Thunderbolt would be much less desirable for aerial combat than the Mustang in the event of a MiG attack. (39)*



And this turned out to be nonsense because MiG attacks against any recip aircraft would have (and did) turn into a turning game, although more maneuverable, one can never quantify the P-47's survival rate with regards to a P-51 comparison against the MiG-15!



Dan Fahey said:


> *The Jug could have made an important contribution to the Air Force effort in Korea, but like the Mustang, it would have been replaced eventually by more survivable jet fighter-bombers.*



WOW!!!!!

And agree - but again, you've provided NO bases for your very naive "would have never been able to get off the ground" comment.

*Shall we discuss Korean bases, locations and runway lengths, something that you have also clearly forgotten to provide data for!!!!!* But then again, we have the now infamous *3 DAY ENGINE CHANGE"*

I'm waiting with bated breath and please provide references other than some cut and paste Wikipedia paragraph!

PS - as always appreciate Mike Williams' charts

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2018)

I would note that by the time of Korea the P-51D may have been rated at up to 13,000lbs max take-off weight.
At least there are take and landing distance charts and a Flight Operations Instruction Chart provided in the Pilot's manual for that weight.
there are several loadings that would get you close to that weight,like full internal fuel, a pair of 1000lb bombs and 6 rockets.
A P-51D that weighed 11,600lbs was not at full gross weight as even with full internal fuel and *no rockets* a pair of 1000lb bombs would push it to 12,200lbs and in fact even a pair of 110gal drop tanks would push it to 11,700lbs.






I have no idea if those are 500lb bombs or 1000lbs but even 500lb bombs are going to push it past 11,600lbs. 


Yes the Mustang could use shorter air fields but lets compare apples to apples and not max gross weight to 90% of gross weight.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I would note that by the time of Korea the P-51D may have been rated at up to 13,000lbs max take-off weight.
> At least there are take and landing distance charts and a Flight Operations Instruction Chart provided in the Pilot's manual for that weight.
> there are several loadings that would get you close to that weight,like full internal fuel, a pair of 1000lb bombs and 6 rockets.
> A P-51D that weighed 11,600lbs was not at full gross weight as even with full internal fuel and *no rockets* a pair of 1000lb bombs would push it to 12,200lbs and in fact even a pair of 110gal drop tanks would push it to 11,700lbs.
> ...


Those look like 250# bombs. The Fully loaded (internal) GW is 10,200 pounds for the P-51D. Two 165 gallon externals plus 2x500#, 6x140# Rockets plus 2x500# or two external tanks partially filled w/90 gallons each, two 1000# bombs represent various external Korea vintage load outs.

IIRC 12, 400# = Max GW at STP but I have seen examples of 6xrockets (@140# each) plus 2x1000# bombs but is suspect internal fuel tanks not 100% filled.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2018)

The Manual (or copy) that I have is from 1954. for 10,200lbs it shows ranges using 240 gallons of fuel but the extra 29 gallons may be accounted for by warm up and take-off?
They do a lot of rounding off in the charts as two 500lb bombs are generally equal to two 75 gallon tanks and two 1000lbs are equal to a pair of 110 gal tanks 
as far as range/speed goes.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The Manual (or copy) that I have is from 1954. for 10,200lbs it shows ranges using 240 gallons of fuel but the extra 29 gallons may be accounted for by warm up and take-off?
> They do a lot of rounding off in the charts as two 500lb bombs are generally equal to two 75 gallon tanks and two 1000lbs are equal to a pair of 110 gal tanks
> as far as range/speed goes.


Steve - 2x165 gallon tanks closer to 2x1000#


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2018)

I know, just reporting what the manual says  

They use ranges of weight like 13,000lb to 11,000bs for one chart and 12,200lbs to 10,300 on another and so on.

The maximum endurance charts have 7 different weight categories/under wing loads going from 10,200lbs with under wing racks up to the 13,000 to 11,000lb chart with the 6 rockets plus different pylon/rack loads.
Strangely non of the charts list the 165 gallon tanks or any tank larger than 110 gallons. 

There are normal power climb charts, military power climb charts, the maximum endurance climb charts and the Flight Operations Instruction Charts
all with these variations weight categories and under wing loads. 

I don't know what they used in Korea, just pointing out that the max gross of the F-51D was not 11,600lbs like another poster said. 

Again this is a 1954 dated manual and/or revised from a 1952 manual so what they were using then could be very different than what they were using in WW II or immediately after.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 16, 2018)

Interesting information folks! I can't find that 1954 manual but it would be interesting to see what the TAKE OFF DISTANCE would be for the F-51 at 13,000 pounds.

In the mean time I did a little homework, Some of the airbases these aircraft operated (and "would have" operated) out of - K-13 9,000 and 7,000' runways. Kunsan 5000'. Osan 9000'. I believe all were under 200' MSL. If you look at these bases on a map and calculate flight distances into NK, you're talking anywhere from 100 to 300 miles. F-86s required a 5000' runway IIRC, so an F-47 "could have" easily operated from most major South Korean Airbases even at higher gross weights with little issues.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (Jul 16, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I have and that's why I've called BS on just about everything you've posted. It's evident you're biased against the aircraft and you're entitled to your opinions but please don't try to peddle 2nd hand fecal matter here because you'll be called on it. There's plenty of data that shows the P-47 "could have" adequately performed in Korea. It's obvious you have no aviation maintenance experience to understand the difference between radial engines with dry sump oil systems and in line engines with liquid cooling systems. There's no doubt the P-51 was an over all better aircraft in many respects but what you posted in some cases was just half assed BS! If you want to remain a meaningful participating member of this site I suggest you start backing up your rants.
> 
> *So it's evident - you were just talking out of your ass with regards to a 3 day P-47 engine change...*


Agreed! If you don't know what you're talking about you WILL be eviscerated by the experts here!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 16, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Interesting information folks! I can't find that 1954 manual but it would be interesting to see what the TAKE OFF DISTANCE would be for the F-51 at 13,000 pounds.
> 
> .


I believe these things went hand in hand, I have no idea in Korea but developments and loads had to go hand in hand with minimum airfield requirements on planes like the Typhoon, it could and did carry very heavy loads, but not from a wet grass runway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2018)

Take-off chart (pages 102-103, this is a reprint ) 
has weights of 13,000lbs, 12,000lbs,11,000lbs, 10,000lbs and 9,000lbs going down the left side of the chart. 
main columns across are for -5 degrees Centigrade, +15 degrees Centigrade, +35 degrees Centigrade, and +55 degrees Centigrade
Subcategories for weights are for Pressure altitude SL to 5,000ft evey 1000ft. 
Subcategories for temperature are zero wind and 30 kt wind and each has a column for ground run and to clear 50 ft. 
ALL are for hard runway. 

13,000lbs on +15 degree Centigrade day at sea level with zero wind calls for a ground run of 2350ft and 3450ft to clear 50ft. 
12,000lbs on +15 degree Centigrade day at sea level with zero wind calls for a ground run of 1950ft and 2950ft to clear 50ft. 
11,000lbs on +15 degree Centigrade day at sea level with zero wind calls for a ground run of 1600ft and 2500ft to clear 50ft. 

A -5 degree Centigrade day shortens things by about 300-400ft (every increment is 50ft).
Every 1000ft of altitude increases distances by about 100-200ft9 (at least in the two colder columns) 
A 30-kt head wind can cut the distances by around 1/2 (this one really varies). 

One could _estimate_ 3400ft to clear 50ft on a +25 degree Centigrade day at 1000ft pressure altitude at 12,000lbs by averaging columns. 

Yes the F-51D can operate out of shorter airstrips than the F-47. 

However a SAC chart for the F-47N 
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-47N_Thunderbolt_SAC_-_17_May_1950.pdf

shows a take-off distance of 2550ft ground run and 3680ft to feet for a _clean_ F-47N with 557 gallons of internal fuel and using normal take-off power (2100hp) not WEP) at a gross weight of 17,876lbs. The higher gross weights (20,837lbs) with three 1000lbs or 440 gal worth of drop tanks calls for 4600ft of runway and 6250ft to clear 50ft on a +15 degree Centigrade standard day.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Take-off chart (pages 102-103, this is a reprint )
> has weights of 13,000lbs, 12,000lbs,11,000lbs, 10,000lbs and 9,000lbs going down the left side of the chart.
> main columns across are for -5 degrees Centigrade, +15 degrees Centigrade, +35 degrees Centigrade, and +55 degrees Centigrade
> Subcategories for weights are for Pressure altitude SL to 5,000ft evey 1000ft.
> ...


Thanks for posting that SR - so for the P-47N at max gross combat weight we're looking at *3,000 pounds of bombs*, 4640 ground run, over 6000' to clear a 50' obstacle, that with a 450 mile+ combat radius. Let's see, first we "couldn't get off the ground," next we couldn't operate at S. Korean bases.

The P-47 "could have" performed in Korea just fine and I think we could interpulate additional performance data that would show it in the ball park with the F4U or even the P-51 when operating at slightly smaller bomb and fuel loads. Logistics, maintenance and probably operating costs would not have played in its favor. Trying to speculate its survivability as compared to the F4U or the Mustang would have been a guess at best. Trying to speculate how it would have handed the MiG-15 threat is a bigger guess!!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 16, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Thanks for posting that SR - so for the P-47N at max gross combat weight we're looking at *3,000 pounds of bombs*, 4640 ground run, over 6000' to clear a 50' obstacle, that with a 450 mile+ combat radius.


Does that include drop-tanks or just internal fuel?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2018)

That is internal fuel for the P/F-47-N with added fuel tanks in the modified wing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Does that include drop-tanks or just internal fuel?


Drop tanks, internal fuel and 3000 pound bomb load if I'm reading the posted chart correctly

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2018)

I believe it is 270 gallons for the main fuselage tank, 100 gallons for the aux fuselage tank and 187 gallons for the internal wing tanks, 587 gallons total internal plus the three 1000lb bombs (ground cleance for teh under fuselage 1000lb is a little suspect but they are operating from pavement)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2018)

Other S Korean airbases where the F-47 "could have" operated from with no issues, to name a few;

K-1 and K-9 Pusan, 9,000 & 10,000' runways
K-18 Gangneung, 9,000'
K-14 Gimpo 6,000' later modified to 9,000'
K-16 Seoul 6,000' later 9,000'


----------



## Glider (Jul 17, 2018)

The only observation I can make is the comments about the length of the runway needed for the P47 and P51. I would have thought that there were enough runways that catered for the prodigious runways demands of the early jets in hot temperatures which makes that discussion point almost irrelevant.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 17, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> That is internal fuel for the P/F-47-N with added fuel tanks in the modified wing.


When they add the additional tankage



FLYBOYJ said:


> Drop tanks, internal fuel and 3000 pound bomb load if I'm reading the posted chart correctly


The flight profile to achieve the specified range, was it low-low-low, hi-lo-hi, etc


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2018)

Glider said:


> The only observation I can make is the comments about the length of the runway needed for the P47 and P51. I would have thought that there were enough runways that catered for the prodigious runways demands of the early jets in hot temperatures which makes that discussion point almost irrelevant.


Great minds think alike! That was going to be my next point. Almost overnight many S Korean airfields were lengthened as UN forces starting moving north once the initial N Korean push was halted. My friend from earlier posts needs to explore early jet T/O data. There were several airfields where P-47Ns "could have" been operated from, even at higher gross weights and still had plenty of range to reach most targets over N Korea


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> When they add the additional tankage


When they made the P-47N, the extended the wing center section to make room for the fuel tanks and the clipped the wing tips giving a somewhat different wing shape.








> The flight profile to achieve the specified range, was it low-low-low, hi-lo-hi, etc



The flight profiles for the different missions in the chart are described on page 6 of the chart/link.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 17, 2018)

Jumpin' Jehosephat!, how far do you suppose a P-51 could go on 587 gallons of internal fuel? And then add some drop tanks. EEK.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 17, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> When they made the P-47N


Never mind, I misinterpreted what you said as meaning drop-tanks, normal internal fuel (P-47N), plus modifications of some sort.


> The flight profiles for the different missions in the chart are described on page 6 of the chart/link.


From what that reads, I get

Inbound Altitude: 10000 feet
Outbound Altitude: S/L
Radius of Action 463 nm/532.45
Cruise Speed: 212 kt/244 mph
Combat provisions: 5 minutes
Reserve: 5%


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 17, 2018)

At last count the Mustang is gaining on the Jug, down by only two votes. I have to be honest though, I never thought it would ever be this close. Ask the same question 25 years ago and it would probably have been Mustang all the way. Times are definitely a changin...

p.s. It was a difficult decision for me but I still picked the 'stang.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 19, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great minds think alike! That was going to be my next point. Almost overnight many S Korean airfields were lengthened as UN forces starting moving north once the initial N Korean push was halted. My friend from earlier posts needs to explore early jet T/O data. There were several airfields where P-47Ns "could have" been operated from, even at higher gross weights and still had plenty of range to reach most targets over N Korea


Wow almost over night!..hmmm! 
Just snap your fingers!....Coulda shoulda woulda!
Took about a year to get the NK Army out of SK.
P47 was not used in Korea because it was not as good an AC as the Corsair or Mustang...period!
Or the USAF would have kept more of them!
They could have staged them out of Japan where they had better facilities.
But they didn’t. 
The P47 would have taken up more resources and fuel to maintain!
Would,have been easy prey to the Migs and La11 Russian fighters.
May want to look up Cookie Sewell who Documented Korean Airwar statistics!


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 19, 2018)

In April 1951, Communist ground fire claimed 40 Air Force fighter-bombers, including 25 Mustangs. As a result, Lt. Gen. George E. Stratemeyer, commander of the U.S. Far East Air Forces, sent a request to Air Force headquarters asking if any F-47s were available for use in Korea. He noted a tremendous increase in small arms fire and flak, but added that “All here know that [the] F-47 can take it.” (28) Stratemeyer explained that the situation was so desperate he would gratefully accept just 25 F-47s then serving with the Hawaii Air National Guard. In response to Stratemeyer’s request, Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Air Force chief of staff, explained that considering the current availability of F-47s, the lack of spare parts, and the problems of introducing another type of fighter aircraft, “we fail to see any appreciable results to be gained by the substitution.” (29) Vandenberg admitted the F-47 would likely confirm its reputation from World War II and prove less vulnerable than the F51, but he believed that “the disparity between the F-47 and your jet types would be almost as great as the disparity between the F-51s and jets.” (30) He concluded that the problem could really only be solved by replacing the Mustangs with jets, adding that exchanging the F-51s for F-47s would require a complete change in the familiarization training pilots received prior to flying combat missions in Korea. (31) Unfortunately for the pilots who continued flying missions in the F-51, the jets came slowly–the last Mustangs were not withdrawn from combat until January 22, 1953



Article:

Why the U.S. Air Force did not use the F-47 Thunderbolt in the Korean War



Article:

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Wow almost over night!..hmmm!
> Just snap your fingers!....Coulda shoulda woulda!
> Took about a year to get the NK Army out of SK.
> P47 was not used in Korea because it was not as good an AC as the Corsair or Mustang...period!
> ...



You forgot one thing - it *WAS* able to get off the ground!!!!!


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 20, 2018)

FlyboyJ and Dan Fahey,

When I first heard Fahey's comment about being unable to takeoff out of fighter bases, I thought he was talking about the strength of the runways, not the length of the airfields. Admittedly, it makes little sense because P-47's took off out of pierced plate strips in WW2 all the time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> FlyboyJ and Dan Fahey,
> 
> When I first heard Fahey's comment about being unable to takeoff out of fighter bases, I thought he was talking about the strength of the runways, not the length of the airfields. Admittedly, it makes little sense because P-47's took off out of pierced plate strips in WW2 all the time.



Not really, concrete and dirt runways were used by P-47s although PPS were probably the norm. Look at the flight manual and the data is there to counter any half-assed from the hip assumptions about P-47 performance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Wow almost over night!..hmmm!
> Just snap your fingers!....Coulda shoulda woulda!
> Took about a year to get the NK Army out of SK.
> P47 was not used in Korea because it was not as good an AC as the Corsair or Mustang...period!
> ...


Dan - I'll repost this and make the print big so it could sink in...

*In April 1951, Communist ground fire claimed 40 Air Force fighter-bombers, including 25 Mustangs. As a result, Lt. Gen. George E. Stratemeyer, commander of the U.S. Far East Air Forces, sent a request to Air Force headquarters asking if any F-47s were available for use in Korea. He noted a tremendous increase in small arms fire and flak, but added that “All here know that [the] F-47 can take it.” (28) Stratemeyer explained that the situation was so desperate he would gratefully accept just 25 F-47s then serving with the Hawaii Air National Guard. In response to Stratemeyer’s request, Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Air Force chief of staff, explained that considering the current availability of F-47s, the lack of spare parts, and the problems of introducing another type of fighter aircraft, “we fail to see any appreciable results to be gained by the substitution.” (29) Vandenberg admitted the F-47 would likely confirm its reputation from World War II and prove less vulnerable than the F51, but he believed that “the disparity between the F-47 and your jet types would be almost as great as the disparity between the F-51s and jets.” (30) He concluded that the problem could really only be solved by replacing the Mustangs with jets, adding that exchanging the F-51s for F-47s would require a complete change in the familiarization training pilots received prior to flying combat missions in Korea. (31) Unfortunately for the pilots who continued flying missions in the F-51, the jets came slowly–the last Mustangs were not withdrawn from combat until January 22, 1953*

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 25, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You forgot one thing - it *WAS* able to get off the ground!!!!!


Not on the Japanese WW2 Fields...maybe new bases built a year later!
But the A26 invader was a more effective solution.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 25, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Not on the Japanese WW2 Fields...maybe new bases built a year later!
> But the A26 invader was a more effective solution.



*B-26

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Not on the Japanese WW2 Fields...maybe new bases built a year later!
> But the A26 invader was a more effective solution.


Again you're 100% WRONG - please stop shooting from the hip. Earlier in this thread I listed some of the Japanese fields that were used at the start of the Korean War, many were well over 6,000'.

Misawa - 10,000'
Itazuke Air Base (formally Mushiroda Airfield) 9,000'

Shall i name a few more?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2018)

Anybody got the field lengths for the A-26?


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 25, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Not on the Japanese WW2 Fields...maybe new bases built a year later!
> But the A26 invader was a more effective solution.



The initial users on the Pacific disliked the A-26, due to poor visibility


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2018)

http://napoleon130.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/b26kflightmanual.pdf

At a "normal" combat weight, the A/B-26 Invader needed over 4,100 feet of runway. In a ferry range 4,820. I saw where they were being run to over 30,000 pounds Take Off Weight, in that configuration the take off distance had to exceed 6,000 feet.

Site Builder

Performance tables
Anything to add Mr. Fahey? Now please, before you shoot your mouth off, a little research and a little thought behind your post please!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 25, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Again you're 100% WRONG - please stop shooting from the hip.


Sadly, some people think more like lawyers than scientists and when confronted, they simply double down on their convictions harder figuring if they do it enough they'll eventually be right.



swampyankee said:


> The initial users on the Pacific disliked the A-26, due to poor visibility


Yes, but the reason had to do with the shape of the canopy, and that was fixed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 31, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Again you're 100% WRONG - please stop shooting from the hip. Earlier in this thread I listed some of the Japanese fields that were used at the start of the Korean War, many were well over 6,000'.
> 
> Misawa - 10,000'
> Itazuke Air Base (formally Mushiroda Airfield) 9,000'
> Shall i name a few more?



They were later built or existing lengthened later !
Early war the Pusan Perimeter had few forward fields like T2 which were only 2700ft.
There were no modern fields and built by the Japanese.

What longer fields available were used for Transport Planes.
Even then the C54s were wrecking the packed gravel fields landing their loads.
Lighter footprint C47s took up the landing of supplies, which did not need a 6000ft field.
P47 needed 5000ft base at a minimum plus would have been a gas hog.
Mustangs were flying 3 and 4 attack missions a day, then stayed for CAS.
The heavy impact and carnage by the Mustangs is well documented.
At Pusan there were few choices for airbases.
Stop with the misinformation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> They were later built or existing lengthened later !
> Early war the Pusan Perimeter had few forward fields like T2 which were only 2700ft.


And a P-47 with a normal internal fuel load or bomb load could operate from - and BTW most if not all tactical operations were NOT operated from "T" airfields.


Dan Fahey said:


> There were no modern fields and built by the Japanese.


WRONG - the two I mentioned were housed JAAF bomber units and were well over 6000' when first built. Even on unpaved runways the P-47 could have easily operated from those bases.


Dan Fahey said:


> What longer fields available were used for Transport Planes.
> Even then the C54s were wrecking the packed gravel fields landing their loads.
> Lighter footprint C47s took up the landing of supplies, which did not need a 6000ft field.
> P47 needed 5000ft base at a minimum plus would have been a gas hog.
> ...


Misinformation? Dan - stop with the bullshit!!! - you're wrong and coming on here with half-assed information and comments just make you look very dumb. First you said the P-47 "couldn't get off the ground." Next you stated it couldn't operate from any bases in Japan. Next you said it couldn't operate from bases on the Korean peninsula. I posted the charts and the P-47, depending on the fuel and bomb load could operate from a 2500 - 3000 foot runway with a 2-300 mile combat radius, perhaps those charts are too advanced for your Osprey aviation education. I posted nearly all the major bases in both Japan and Korea where the P-47 could have easily operated from. Post 307 clearly sources the reasons why the P-47 wasn't used in Korea, wrap your mind around this DOCUMENTED information!!! I'll post this again - read it slowly so you can comprehend who wrote it and when!!!!

_*"Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Air Force chief of staff, explained that considering the current availability of F-47s, the lack of spare parts, and the problems of introducing another type of fighter aircraft, “we fail to see any appreciable results to be gained by the substitution.” (29) Vandenberg admitted the F-47 would likely confirm its reputation from World War II and prove less vulnerable than the F51, but he believed that “the disparity between the F-47 and your jet types would be almost as great as the disparity between the F-51s and jets.” (30) He concluded that the problem could really only be solved by replacing the Mustangs with jets, adding that exchanging the F-51s for F-47s would require a complete change in the familiarization training pilots received prior to flying combat missions in Korea."*_

So you know more than, General Vandenberg????

*Hoyt S. Vandenberg to George E. Stratemeyer, May 10, 1951, Y’Blood, Three Wars, pp. 509-10.*

You also can't grasp the fact that combat aircraft are normally not operated at their maximum gross weights, perhaps its just easier for you to read certain performance factors rather then figuring out how to determine aircraft loading and performance from flight manual charts!!!

And finally you seem to know little difference between in-line and radial engines. You've provided no references for any of comments, so again, if you want to continue to participate here, start providing references for your statements!!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And a P-47 with a normal internal fuel load or bomb load could operate from - and BTW most if not all tactical operations were NOT operated from "T" airfields.
> 
> WRONG - the two I mentioned were housed JAAF bomber units and were well over 6000' when first built. Even on unpaved runways the P-47 could have easily operated from those bases.
> Misinformation? Dan - stop with the bullshit!!! - you're wrong and coming on here with half-assed information and comments. First you said the P-47 "couldn't get off the ground." Next you stated it couldn't operate from any bases in Japan. Next you said it couldn't operate from bases on the Korean peninsula. I posted the charts and the P-47, depending on the fuel and bomb load could operate from a 2500 - 3000 foot runway with a 2-300 mile combat radius, perhaps those charts are too advanced for your Osprey aviation education. I posted nearly all the major bases in both Japan and Korea where the P-47 could have easily operated from. Post 307 clearly sources the reasons why the P-47 wasn't used in Korea, wrap your mind around this DOCUMENTED information!!! I'll post this again - read it slowly so you can comprehend who wrote it and when!!!!
> ...



Don’t forget that he does not know the difference between a Radial and an Inline, you know Recips...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Don’t forget that he does not know the difference between a Radial and an Inline, you know Recips...



And we haven't even brought up jet takeoff performance charts yet!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2018)

The 7th FS, 49 FG operated the F-80C out of Taegu Airbase (K-2) *October, 1950*. A fully loaded P-80C accelerated and initially climbed slower than recip combat aircraft (to include the F-47 and F-51).

Dan - any comments? Care to know what take off distance they needed? Maybe you have the answer to that one. Maybe you'll come up with a reference or source for your information!?!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2018)

A list of Korean War USAF fighter units - what they operated and where they were operated from.

Dan - show us any field where the F-47 *could not* have operated out of and please forget your delusional premise of the aircraft continually being operated at its maximum gross weight!!!!!

BTW - I invite you to review the bases the F-86s operated out of and what the normal take off distance was for an F-86...


4th Fighter-Interceptor Wing (Deployed) (F-86 Sabre)
Attached to Fifth Air Force, 28 November 1950 – 7 March 1955
Further attached to 314th Air Division 22 December 1950 – 7 May 1951
Further attached to 39th Air Division, 1–7 March 1955
*Stationed at:* Johnson AB, Japan, 28 November 1950; Suwon AB, South Korea, 7 May 1951; Kimpo AB, South Korea, 23 August 1951 – 1 October 1954

8th Fighter-Bomber Wing (F-80 Shooting Star, F-82 Twin Mustang, F-86 Sabre)
Fifth Air Force, 1 March 1950 – 1 March 1955
Attached to 6131 Fighter [later, 6131 Tactical Support] Wing, 14 August-1 December 1950
*Stationed at:* Itazuke Air Field, Japan, 1 March 1950; Pyongyang, North Korea, 1 December 1950; Seoul AB, South Korea, 9 December 1950; Itazuke AB, Japan, 10 December 1950; Kimpo AB, South Korea, 25 June 1951; Suwon AB, South Korea, 23 August 1951 – 10 October 1954

18th Fighter-Bomber Wing (F-51 Mustang, F-80 Shooting Star, F-86 Sabre)
Thirteenth Air Force, 1 June 1950
Attached to: Fifth Air Force, 28 July-3 August 1950
Attached to: 6002 Fighter [later, 6002 Tactical Support] Wing, 4 August-30 November 1950
Attached to: Fifth Air Force, 1 December 1950 – 31 October 1954
*Stationed at:* Pusan AB, South Korea, 1 December 1950; Pyongyang East, North Korea, 1 December 1950; Suwon AB, South Korea, 4 December 1950; Chinhae, South Korea, 10 December 1950; Osan-ni, South Korea, 26 December 1952 – 1 November 1954

27th Fighter-Escort Wing (Deployed) (F-84 Thunderjet)
Attached to Far East Air Forces, 19–29 November 1950
Attached to Fifth Air Force, 30 November 1950 – 15 July 1951
42d Air Division, 6 August 1951
Attached to Far East Air Forces, 6–13 October 1952
Attached to 39th Air Division [Defense], 13 October 1952-c. 13 February 1953
*Stationed at:* Taegu AB, South Korea, 5 December 1950; Itazuke AB, Japan, 31 January-2 July 1951; Bergstrom AFB, TX, 6 July 1951 – 16 June 1952. Misawa AB, Japan during 6 October 1952 – 13 February 1953

35th Fighter-Interceptor Wing (F-51 Mustang, F-80 Shooting Star, F-82 Twin Mustang, F-94 Starfire)
Fifth Air Force, 1 March 1950
314th Air Division, 25 May 1951
Japan Air Defense Force, 1 March 1952
Fifth Air Force, 1 September 1954
*Stationed at:* Yokoto AB, Japan, 1 April 1950; Johnson AB, Japan, 14 August 1950; Yongho, North Korea, 1 December 1950; Pusan AB, South Korea, c. 7 December 1950; Johnson AB, Japan, 25 May 1951 – 1 October 1954

49th Fighter-Bomber Wing (F-51 Mustang, F-80 Shooting Star, F-84 Thunderjet)
Fifth Air Force, 1 March 1950
Attached to 58 Fighter-Bomber Wing, 16–31 March 1953
Japan Air Defense Force, 1 April 1953
Attached to Fifth Air Force, 1 April-7 November 1953
*Stationed at:* Misawa AB, Japan, 18 August 1948; Taegu AB, South Korea, 1 December 1950; Tsuki AB, Japan, 26 January 1951; Taegu AB, South Korea, 24 February 1951; Kunsan AB, South Korea, 1 April 1953 – 7 November 1953

51st Fighter-Interceptor Wing (F-80 Shooting Star, F-82 Twin Mustang, F-86 Sabre)
Twentieth Air Force, 16 May 1949
Attached to Fifth Air Force, 25 September 1950 – 1 August 1954
Further attached to 8 Fighter-Bomber Wing, 25 September-12 October 1950
*Stationed at:* Naha Afld (later, AB), Okinawa, 18 August 1948; Itazuke AB, Japan, 22 September 1950; Kimpo AB, South Korea, 10 October 1950; Itazuke AB, Japan, 10 December 1950; Tsuiki AB, Japan, 15 January 1951; Suwon AB, South Korea, 1 October 1951 – 26 July 1954

58th Fighter-Bomber Wing (Deployed) (F-84 Thunderjet)
Tactical Air Command, 10 July 1952
Attached to Fifth Air Force, 10 July 1952 – 28 February 1955
*Stationed at:* Itazuke AB, Japan, 10 July 1952; Taegu AB, South Korea, August 1952– 15 March 1955

116th Fighter-Bomber Wing (Deployed) (F-84 Thunderjet)
Fedearlized Georgia Air National Guard
Assigned to Tactical Air Command, October 1950
Attached to Far East Air Forces, July 1951
Further Attached to Fifth Air Force, July 1951 – 10 July 1952
Released from Active Service 10 July 1952
*Stationed at:* Itazuke AB, Japan

136th Fighter-Bomber Wing (Deployed) (F-84 Thunderjet)
Federalized Texas Air National Guard
Consisted of:
111th Fighter-Bomber Squadron (Ellington Field, Houston)
182nd Fighter-Bomber Squadron (Brooks Air Force Base)
154th Fighter-Bomber Squadron (Little Rock Airport)
Assigned to Tactical Air Command 27 June 1950
Attached to Far East Air Forces, 1951
Further Attached to Fifth Air Force, July 1951 – 10 July 1952
Released from Active Service 1952
*Stationed at:* Itazuke AB, Japan

474th Fighter-Bomber Wing (Deployed) (F-84 Thunderjet)
Activated 10 July 1952, assigned to Tactical Air Command
Attached to Far East Air Forces,
Further Attached to Fifth Air Force, August 1952 – November 1954
*Stationed at:* Misawa, Japan, 10 July 1952; Kunsan, Korea, 10 July 1952; Taegu, Korea, 1 April 1953 – 22 November 1954

319th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron (Deployed) (F-94 Starfire)
Assigned to Strategic Air Command, 90th Bombardment Wing
Attached to Far East Air Forces,
Further Attached to Fifth Air Force, February 1952 – June 1953
*Stationed at:* Suwon AB, South Korea, (March 1952 – June 1953)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

