# Thunderbolt vs Mustang



## Colin1 (Mar 13, 2009)

Resolving size issues - be right back


----------



## Njaco (Mar 13, 2009)

Men do that all their life.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 13, 2009)




----------



## Amsel (Mar 13, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Resolving size issues - be right back



What? Are you at the gym?


----------



## evangilder (Mar 13, 2009)

Or perhaps taking one of those little blue pills?


----------



## davebender (Mar 14, 2009)

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t082.pdf
$85,578. P-47 fighter.
$51,572. P-51 fighter.

In addition to costing considerably less, the P-51 consumed about half as much fuel per flight hour. That adds up when you consider the USA produced over 24,000 fighter aircraft during 1944.


----------



## Sweb (Mar 14, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Resolving size issues - be right back



Hello, hello... Had a Twinky breakfast and couldn't fit back through the door?

These aircraft were built by folks divided up into two groups. P-47 folks were on a Twinky diet. They needed to incorporate a turbo in their bowels. Hence the larger, heavier _airframes_. P-51 folks were on a Granola bar diet. Two stage superchargers were enough for them. Not a lot of people know that.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 14, 2009)

Sweb said:


> Hello, hello... Had a Twinky breakfast and couldn't fit back through the door?
> 
> These aircraft were built by folks divided up into two groups. P-47 folks were on a Twinky diet. They needed to incorporate a turbo in their bowels. Hence the larger, heavier _airframes_. P-51 folks were on a Granola bar diet. Two stage superchargers were enough for them. Not a lot of people know that.



But the F6F and F4U which did not have a turbo in bowels, but did have the same engine, were nearly equal in twinky diet comparison. Big engine, big frontal area, lot of metal.

The 51 was a simple airplane, relatively speaking, to build and they had reduced the unit labor cost from 12,000 to 2000 hours by the time the 51D line shut down.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 14, 2009)

You guys...
I can't leave you alone with a thread for a minute...


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 14, 2009)

Does anyone know how to join two pics together in a scanning application? It shouldn't be this hard...

I'm using arcsoft if that's any help


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 14, 2009)

A quick test


----------



## Njaco (Mar 14, 2009)

Colin, if you scan the pics you can email me them and I can put them together if needed.



> I can't leave you alone with a thread for a minute...



You don't know that by now?


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 14, 2009)

Njaco said:


> Colin, if you scan the pics you can email me them and I can put them together if needed


Thanks nj
could well end up doing that, I'll let you know


----------



## davebender (Mar 14, 2009)

Simpler is better provided you don't compromise performance. The American P-51 and German Me-109 are proof that you can build aircraft that are inexpensive and yet highly effective.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Mar 15, 2009)

The price tag when considering a fighter is important indeed, but in the scenario of a total war and when the fighter itself has proved to be an excellent design and very effective in the battlefield; the price in my opinion is not justification enough to leave it out production in the case of the US economy which was committed to the war and gearing up to full scale production.


----------



## davebender (Mar 15, 2009)

> Price in my opinion is not justification enough to leave it out production


It is if a less expensive aircraft is just as good or better.


----------



## Sweb (Mar 15, 2009)

The two USAAF premier fighter planes were the P-51 and the P-47. They complemented each other in their roles. The Jug could carry on in the ground attack role when its bomber escort role was handed to the Mustang. The Mustang could also perform in the ground attack role but the Jug was defensively the better machine with its ability to absorb more punishment, and its air cooled engine had a better chance of surviving small arms fire by contrast to the Mustang's vulnerable water cooling system. (The Mustang was used exclusively in low level attack and reconnaissance in Korea 6 years later and suffered heavily. The average life expectancy for a "recce" pilot was 6 weeks and his tour was a 100 mission requirement.) And, the Jug was a harder hitting machine with a heavier ordinance load-out. 

Precision ground attack was a key factor in cutting supply lines and hindering troop movements in WWII. No medium or heavy bomber could do that from altitude as well as the Jug could at treetop level. The P-38 was even more vulnerable than the Mustang with its twin engine platform sporting two liquid cooling systems. That left the USAAF with the Jug and it performed admirably. In the high altitude escort and air superiority role the Mustang was unequalled. So, cost evaluations per type vs returns on investment [damage inflicted both real and imagined (enemy demoralization)] on two aircraft performing different yet complementary roles (air and ground) isn't a set of numbers that should be quantified for production justification. Their roles and performance in them were immeasurable substantiations of their respective costs.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 16, 2009)

davebender said:


> It is if a less expensive aircraft is just as good or better.



Yeah, good point Dave. Bang for the buck is huge when it comes to mechanized warfare. Not only does it have to work well, it has to be cost effective to make. Both the 109 and Mustang were great, bang for the buck airplanes.

However, if I had to fly one over Europe in 1944, I'd go with the P47. Better chance of coming home.


----------



## davebender (Mar 16, 2009)

Do we have casualty rates for the P-47 and P-51 during 1944?

Personally I think the F4U Corsair to be superior to the P-47 as a fighter-bomber. And it entered production just as early. Of course the U.S. Army Air Corps would need to admit that the USN produced a superior aircraft before adopting a version of their own.


----------



## fly boy (Mar 16, 2009)

only thing that i know is price and how many aircraft shot down


----------



## timshatz (Mar 16, 2009)

davebender said:


> Do we have casualty rates for the P-47 and P-51 during 1944?
> 
> Personally I think the F4U Corsair to be superior to the P-47 as a fighter-bomber. And it entered production just as early. Of course the U.S. Army Air Corps would need to admit that the USN produced a superior aircraft before adopting a version of their own.



I think the numbers on the P47 were actually close to, if not higher than, the P51 as they got a lot of the low and dirty work. Kind of skewed the numbers. 

I remember somebody posting the numbers on this board, not long ago either.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 16, 2009)

davebender said:


> Do we have casualty rates for the P-47 and P-51 during 1944?



I think the numbers on the P47 were actually close to, if not higher than, the P51 as they got a lot of the low and dirty work. Kind of skewed the numbers. 

I remember somebody posting the numbers on this board, not long ago either.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 16, 2009)

I posted the air to air and air to ground 'awards to Losses ratio for only the 8th AF and the 51 was clearly superior to the 47 and way out in front of the 38 in both categories.

Only the 56th FG held its own against the Mustang average.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 16, 2009)

drgondog said:


> ...the 51 was clearly superior to the 47 and way out in front of the 38 in both categories.


Out of interest dr
does the casualty rate for P-47s break down into losses prior to hydromatic propeller blades and methanol-water injection, and after?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 16, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Out of interest dr
> does the casualty rate for P-47s break down into losses prior to hydromatic propeller blades and methanol-water injection, and after?



No Colin - and there is a certain subjective weighting to my statistics.

If an a/c went MIA and there were fighters present (and no surviving pilot) I assigned a value of MIA-Probably Air... and added those to MIA-Air to try for conservative losses in air to air combat.

If an a/c went MIA during strafing, or hit trees while strafing or bellied in when strafing - I assigned all of those to MIA-Strafing. 

If a pilot bailed out or crash landed in Channel or England due to battle damage I assigned that to the appropriate enemy action (flak/fighters)

Mechanical Losses - unless accompanied by a MACR/POW returnee questionnaire are very difficult.. "engine lost power" could have a variety of causes that the pilot may not be able to pin down by the time he had to get out.

For my own research I have sub categories in Mechanical of Engine Failure (which could be due to coolant loss, mags, too long in water injection/max boost), System Failure (oxygen loss, Runaway throttle, fuel tank feed issue, landing gear failure, etc).

I separated Fuel and Accidents and Weather as separate categories from the rest as they result from pilot skill more than enemy action and mechanical causes beyond their control.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 16, 2009)

I think I may finally have it
the following is not a scientific breakdown to nuts'n'bolts level of the merits of each aircraft vs each other; it is the opinion of a couple of pilots who flew them both in combat; given the choice, give me the latter any day.
I found this whilst I was actually foraging for something else but I had an idea one or two of you would find it interesting. It's a short piece, it reveals nothing new; enjoy and of course, fill out the subsequent posts with your thoughts, views and comments


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 16, 2009)

Plate 2


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 16, 2009)

Plate 3


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 16, 2009)

Plate 4


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 16, 2009)

Plate 5


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 16, 2009)

Plate 6


----------



## billswagger (Mar 18, 2009)

having flown both. Which was a faster diver??

Also:

P-47 THUNDERBOLT

The second half of this article gives 12 reasons why the jug was superior to the mustang.....also coming from a vet who had the honor of flying both.


Bill


----------



## Waynos (Mar 18, 2009)

According to RAE diving tests for all allied and German fighters the P-51D dived faster than anything except the Spitfire


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 18, 2009)

billswagger said:


> having flown both. Which was a faster diver??


The post wasn't designed to definitively prove anything, it is too short and generalised. It's an article I found whilst foraging and felt it might be of interest.

My non-scientific response would certainly favour the Mustang, eventually. In the initial part of the dive it's difficult to not see the Thunderbolt pulling away through sheer weight.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 18, 2009)

I have to break my own heart here and say overall the P-51 was better. 

But the P-51 was not the ground attack workhorse that the Jug was. Its cooling system was vulnerable to ground fire and it didn't have nearly the survival rate per sortie that the P-47 had.

Taken as a fighter-bomber, the P-47 was probably the best dual purpose (fighter and ground attack) AC in the war. There may have been better ground attack planes, though I'm not convinced of that. There certainly was not another ground attack plane of that caliber that was as dangerous an opponent air-to-air.


----------



## davebender (Mar 18, 2009)

> There certainly was not another ground attack plane of that caliber that was as dangerous an opponent air-to-air.


I would prefer the F4U and Fw-190 over the P-47 in the fighter-bomber role. They were superior to the P-47 below 15,000 feet (i.e. where fighter-bombers operate).


----------



## drgondog (Mar 18, 2009)

davebender said:


> I would prefer the F4U and Fw-190 over the P-47 in the fighter-bomber role. They were superior to the P-47 below 15,000 feet (i.e. where fighter-bombers operate).



i would also prefer the Tempest over the P-47. One is also remined that the 354th FG (pioneer Mustang group) was delighted to regain the Mustang and replace the P-47 in the TAC role in February 45... so better resiliency was either not perceived or the other attributes of the Mustang were more desirable than damage survivability?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 18, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I have to break my own heart here and say overall the P-51 was better.
> 
> But the P-51 was not the ground attack workhorse that the Jug was. Its cooling system was vulnerable to ground fire and it didn't have nearly the survival rate per sortie that the P-47 had.
> 
> *Clay - that is a slippery statistic to deal with. The 47 had an overall loss rate per sortie that was lower than the 51 but there are no hard facts regarding meaningful mission profiles from which the statistics are derived.*



My own research comparing P-47 vs P-38 vs P-51 in ETO, while useful is not conclusive. For the 8th AF there were fewer losses for the 51 per German aircraft destroyed than either the 47 or 38 - in fact the 38 had the highest loss to award ratio of the 3 for both air to air and strafing scores - but sortie info in mission profile is extremely hard to nail down.


----------



## davebender (Mar 18, 2009)

No argument there. The Tempest was a fine fighter-bomber.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 18, 2009)

drgondog said:


> My own research comparing P-47 vs P-38 vs P-51 in ETO, while useful is not conclusive. For the 8th AF there were fewer losses for the 51 per German aircraft destroyed than either the 47 or 38 - in fact the 38 had the highest loss to award ratio of the 3 for both air to air and strafing scores - but sortie info in mission profile is extremely hard to nail down.


Everyone likes to compare losses per enemy AC destroyed, but the Jug was blowing up bridges, strafing trains, trucks, river barges, etc. 



Dave said:


> I would prefer the F4U and Fw-190 over the P-47 in the fighter-bomber role. They were superior to the P-47 below 15,000 feet (i.e. where fighter-bombers operate).



I don't really count the Fw-190 as a great fighter-bomber except for the dedicated Fw-190 F version. In that case I think it suffered as a fighter because of the extra armor, bomb racks, and rockets hung all over it. 

I don't know what the F4U might have done in the ETO if given the chance. I'll admit that it was indeed better on the deck than the Bolt.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 18, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Everyone likes to compare losses per enemy AC destroyed, but the Jug was blowing up bridges, strafing trains, trucks, river barges, etc.
> 
> *True - but still relevant when comparing the 'mission' by which you judge losses. All 8th AF fighters were tasked similarly in that for a Fighter bomber sweep - bombs and rockets were hung from 51s just like Jugs and 38's.
> 
> ...



Clay - At the end of the day, the 8th AF 51's were probably (Idon't have access to statistics to prove this) doing a lot more strafing than 47's simply because they had fuel to burn on the deck after turning over escort duties... and they gradually had more 51's than 47's following D-Day so there were more opportunities based on sheer numbers after June 44.

9th AF and MTO ops were a different mix of missions. There were far more TacAir sorties by 12th and 15th AF, proportionately, than 8th becuase there was no "9th AF TAC" equivalent.


----------



## Sweb (Mar 18, 2009)

My Pop flew both of these aircraft. He preferred the P-51 as an all-around fighter pilot's airplane and considered it the premier piston engined airplane of his time. He never referred to the P-47 as a fighter plane. He spoke more about it as a fighter bomber. To some of you this might be just so much semantics from one individual. Maybe it is. All I know is he never spoke of the Jug in a favorable manner though he respected it for what it was. One of these days I'll read through his logbooks. I'm sure there's more there than he ever told me.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 18, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Clay - At the end of the day, the 8th AF 51's were probably (Idon't have access to statistics to prove this) doing a lot more strafing than 47's simply because they had fuel to burn on the deck after turning over escort duties... and they gradually had more 51's than 47's following D-Day so there were more opportunities based on sheer numbers after June 44.
> 
> 9th AF and MTO ops were a different mix of missions. There were far more TacAir sorties by 12th and 15th AF, proportionately, than 8th becuase there was no "9th AF TAC" equivalent.


Remember I started by saying that the P-51 was better, I was just giving the Jug some love. In any case it was available and effective when every fighter was needed and the P-38 and P-51 were sometimes in more demand than supply.


----------



## Magister (Mar 18, 2009)

The USN did a study of similar missions flown off of carriers between Hellcats and Corsairs and it was found that while 26% of Hellcats became casualties from AA fire, 41% of Corsairs did.

The reason appears to have been the Corsair's oil cooling layout. The Hellcat's design was the same as the P-47. For this reason, I don't think the Corsair could take the pounding that a Thunderbolt could.

This thread has an interesting discussion regarding this: (see Post #189)
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hardest-plane-take-down-ww2-3114-13.html


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 18, 2009)

Magister said:


> The USN did a study of similar missions flown off of carriers between Hellcats and Corsairs and it was found that while 26% of Hellcats became casualties from AA fire, 41% of Corsairs did.
> 
> The culprit appears to have been the Corsair's oil cooling layout. The Hellcat's design was the same as the P-47. For this reason, I don't think the Corsair could take the pounding that a Thunderbolt could.
> 
> ...


I didn't know this, interesting.


----------



## Magister (Mar 18, 2009)

The discussion gets going at post #189. The Corsair was 57% more likely not to come back after suffering ground fire than the Hellcat in similar missions flown off of carriers. That is more than significant and the sort of statistic that one would expect between a Mustang and Hellcat.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 19, 2009)

Magister said:


> The reason appears to have been the Corsair's oil cooling layout. The Hellcat's design was the same as the P-47. For this reason, I don't think the Corsair could take the pounding that a Thunderbolt could


The F4U was tough in other directions
I read an account of a Japanese ace who taught his mentees not to try and take out the F4U from directly astern, you would simply see your slugs bouncing off the F4U's thick hide. 
I'd still say the F4U was genuinely multi-role, even if the P-47 shaded it in ground attack but it sounds like it was at its best taking on enemy aircraft.


----------



## davebender (Mar 19, 2009)

Not quite. The P-47 had that massive turbocharger and associated duct work running through the fuselage. That's a pretty large target area. Shooting up the turbo may not bring down a P-47 per se but it will degrade performance making the aircraft more vulnerable to additional attacks.


----------



## Magister (Mar 19, 2009)

Dave, I was referring to the oil cooling design. The Hellcat and Thunderbolt had the same oil cooling layout which was different from he Corsair's. The vulnerability of the Corsair in both WWII and Korea to ground fire has been attributed to this design.

Damage to the turbo-supercharger would have no effect on performance in ground attack operations. It is designed to maintain power at higher altitudes where the air is thinner.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 19, 2009)

Magister said:


> Dave, I was referring to the oil cooling design. The Hellcat and Thunderbolt had the same oil cooling layout which was different from he Corsair's. The vulnerability of the Corsair in both WWII and Korea to ground fire has been attributed to this design.
> 
> Damage to the turbo-supercharger would have no effect on performance in ground attack operations. It is designed to maintain power at higher altitudes where the air is thinner.


Exactly, there's no comparison between the two, losing your oil cooler and thus your oil would make the engine overheat almost immediately.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 19, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> ...losing your oil cooler and thus your oil would make the engine overheat almost immediately.


More likely
seize almost immediately


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 19, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> More likely
> seize almost immediately


I usually think of one as a consequence of the other but, yeah.


----------



## davebender (Mar 19, 2009)

> Damage to the turbo-supercharger would have no effect on performance in ground attack operations.


Are you saying that air going to the P-47 engine intake manifold completely bypassed the turbo and associated ductwork at low altitude?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 19, 2009)

davebender said:


> Are you saying that air going to the P-47 engine intake manifold completely bypassed the turbo and associated ductwork at low altitude?


No, but it could breathe even if that duct work had holes in it.


----------



## Sweb (Mar 19, 2009)

Magister said:


> Dave, I was referring to the oil cooling design. The Hellcat and Thunderbolt had the same oil cooling layout which was different from he Corsair's. The vulnerability of the Corsair in both WWII and Korea to ground fire has been attributed to this design.
> 
> Damage to the turbo-supercharger would have no effect on performance in ground attack operations. It is designed to maintain power at higher altitudes where the air is thinner.



Didn't the later model Corsairs (F4U-5, AU-1 and F4U-7) have the oil coolers removed from their original wing stub locations and relocated within the fuselage? The AU-1 (F4U-6) had the original locations sheet-metaled off and I think the last version (F4U-7) actually had the size of the wing stub inlet reduced in size adequate to feed the supercharger.


----------



## Magister (Mar 19, 2009)

I know that the problem was significant enough to warrant a redesign with some sort of shut off valve and switchover system that helped to retain oil and cooling ability when the apparatus on one side was breached. 

I'm sure someone else more knowledgable can elaborate.


----------



## Watanbe (Mar 20, 2009)

davebender said:


> No argument there. The Tempest was a fine fighter-bomber.



An excellent fighter and a devastating ground attack aircraft, rarely gets the credit it deserves as a fighter!


----------



## davebender (Mar 20, 2009)

Because it entered operations during the last year of the war after Germany was already beaten. I imagine a lot of RAF Hurricane pilots flying ground support during 1941 and 1942 would have given a lot to be flying a Tempest instead.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 20, 2009)

davebender said:


> Because it entered operations during the last year of the war after Germany was already beaten. I imagine a lot of RAF Hurricane pilots flying ground support during 1941 and 1942 would have given a lot to be flying a Tempest instead.



I suspect a lot of LW and USAAF pilots would have loved the Tempest V.


----------



## davebender (Mar 20, 2009)

*Fw-190F3*
Bomb load up to 2,205 lbs
394 mph
2,106 climb

*Tempest V*
Bomb load up to 2,000 lbs (2 x 1,000 lb)
432 mph
4,700 climb

The Tempest has great air combat performance. What do we know about durability vs ground fire and ability to put bombs on a ground target?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 20, 2009)

davebender said:


> *Fw-190F3*
> Bomb load up to 2,205 lbs
> 394 mph
> 2,106 climb
> ...



Durability is nearly impossible to quantify based on the ops statistics on record. Similarly how does one measure and quantify avearge CEP for iron bombs?


----------



## Watanbe (Mar 21, 2009)

All I know is that they destroyed a huge amount of tanks, trains and other vehicles!


----------



## davebender (Mar 21, 2009)

WWII Germany did not have all that many tanks and most of what they had were on the Russian front. However German infantry were very good at digging in. Hence the need for putting bombs on infantry bunkers, artillery positions, etc. The sort of mission the vulnerable Stuka dive bomber excelled at.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Mar 21, 2009)

But still the jug did a remarkable job in the ETO by giving the Germans a knockout punch destroying 3,700 enemy aircraft, 9,000 locomotives and 6,000 armor fighting vehicles during the war and given the fact that the jug was more rugged than the Stuka, I would feel more confident sitting in it than a Stuka.


----------



## Watanbe (Mar 21, 2009)

davebender said:


> WWII Germany did not have all that many tanks and most of what they had were on the Russian front. However German infantry were very good at digging in. Hence the need for putting bombs on infantry bunkers, artillery positions, etc. The sort of mission the vulnerable Stuka dive bomber excelled at.



What I mean is, in terms of the amount of tanks the Germans had! They were a lot more afraid of attack from typhoon, tempest and P47 than they were from Shermans!


----------



## drgondog (Mar 21, 2009)

Watanbe said:


> What I mean is, in terms of the amount of tanks the Germans had! They were a lot more afraid of attack from typhoon, tempest and P47 than they were from Shermans!



and you know this how?


----------



## Watanbe (Mar 22, 2009)

drgondog said:


> and you know this how?



It is an assumption I am making! I should rephrase to moving German armourr, the airforce was a constant menace and could strike anytime, there was rarely any safety from it! Although I will admit its hard to make an assumption because the numbers claimed by Allied fighter bomber squadrons often doesn't compare to German losses!


----------



## drgondog (Mar 22, 2009)

Watanbe said:


> It is an assumption I am making! I should rephrase to moving German armourr, the airforce was a constant menace and could strike anytime, there was rarely any safety from it! Although I will admit its hard to make an assumption because the numbers claimed by Allied fighter bomber squadrons often doesn't compare to German losses!



I wasn't trying to be critical - and you quickly answered with the fact that it is impossible to match claims of tanks destroyed by airpower to the actual count.

I believe it is a fact that nobody in the German army was delighted with the presence of any allied fighter in their AoA. a 50 cal or 20mm is far more effective than infantry rifles... and usually have a shot at concentrations of soldiers away from cover.


----------



## Watanbe (Mar 22, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I wasn't trying to be critical - and you quickly answered with the fact that it is impossible to match claims of tanks destroyed by airpower to the actual count.
> 
> I believe it is a fact that nobody in the German army was delighted with the presence of any allied fighter in their AoA. a 50 cal or 20mm is far more effective than infantry rifles... and usually have a shot at concentrations of soldiers away from cover.



No problem, I was hasty with my initial reply!


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 23, 2009)

TheMustangRider said:


> But still the jug did a remarkable job in the ETO by giving the Germans a knockout punch destroying 3,700 enemy aircraft, 9,000 locomotives and 6,000 armor fighting vehicles
> ...



Did the Germans really have 9000 locomotives and 6000 AFVs where Jugs roamed? The 900 locomotives and 600 AFVs destroyed by the Jug seem to me as a more realistic number.

disclaimer: I still rate the P-47 as a top bird.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Mar 23, 2009)

On the other hand is hard to believe that with small numbers like 600 armor fighting and maybe that many tanks the Germans were able to hold on against the British, Soviets and Americans that had them surrounded for so long. Sure, the P-47 had restricted access to main European lands at the beginning of the conflict but in the latter part once the allies were advancing throughout the continent, Thunderbolts were pretty much all over central Europe.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 24, 2009)

Please, read my previous post carefully. 
I don´t state that Germans didn´t HAVE 9000 locos and 6000 tanks, but that P-47 didn´t DESTROYED 9000 and 6000 of them respectively.

A small lesson in geography: the Central Europe spans between river Rhine and Ukraine in W-E axis, and Baltic sea and rivers Sava Danube in N-S axis. So, the Jugs were mostly flown above Western Europe and only partially above Central Europe.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 24, 2009)

9000 locomotives it's a huge numbers, also 900 are too.
this are huge overclaimeds, so was standard if i remember right, in 1944 usaaf claims as air kills more luftwaffe planes of actually from lw lost air and ground in all theaters


----------



## TheMustangRider (Mar 25, 2009)

tomo pauk, even though Jugs did not cover the entire continent because half of it was for the Soviets to play with, the Thunderbolt became the USAAF main ground attack fighter bomber after the introduction of the Mustang and they were very successful in the role, getting rid of German infantry for the allies all the way to Germany and even though you may or may not take the statistics I posted; I suppouse we can both agree in the accomplishments of the P-47.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 25, 2009)

No argument about counting the Jug into the top fighter-bomber league


----------



## drgondog (Mar 25, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> 9000 locomotives it's a huge numbers, also 900 are too.
> this are huge overclaimeds, so was standard if i remember right, in 1944 usaaf claims as air kills more luftwaffe planes of actually from lw lost air and ground in all theaters



The 8th and 15th AF Bomber Command had far too high claims and awards as noted in post WWII studies.. The Fighter command claims/awards were much closer to actual losses. 80% might be a useful match for fighter air to air claims.

Air to ground is almost impossible to match up because of lack of record keeping on LW side for battle damage/repair/salvage inventories that are not available to serious researchers..especially for 1945.

Over claiming was endemic to all air forces.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 25, 2009)

Pilots favoring one plane over the other probably had a lot to do with what theater they were flying in. The P-51 was not a favored plane in the Pacific. while most pilots that flew over Europe seem to prefer the P-51. 

BTW
here is a dive chart of the Thunderbolt going past 0.86M, directly from the RAE.

Table 3, column 5, 22 seconds into the dive.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 25, 2009)

billswagger said:


> Pilots favoring one plane over the other probably had a lot to do with what theater they were flying in. The P-51 was not a favored plane in the Pacific. while most pilots that flew over Europe seem to prefer the P-51.
> 
> BTW
> here is a dive chart of the Thunderbolt going past 0.86M, directly from the RAE.
> ...



Note at the bottom of the tables is the caveat that CIAS, while corrected for instrument and calibration error, does not make provision for Compressibility. 

The aircraft in this discussion all started into compressibility effects at .55 Mach. The classic definition for the start of Compressibility is the point in which the total drag rise > .0020 as Velocity/Reynolds Number increases.

At least there is a Table for P-47 results and certainly no more suspect than those for the P-51 and me 262, etc.

Based on the published methods for calculating TAS for the Me 262, I am more inclined to believe the German test results, given the lack of sensor and instrument technology available in WWII


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 25, 2009)

drgondog said:


> ...
> The aircraft in this discussion all started into compressibility effects at .55 Mach. ...


Hi, drgdong,
Is the 0,55 Mach figure a typo, or a true value when compressibilty becames notticed/important for our planes from the thred?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 25, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Hi, drgdong,
> Is the 0,55 Mach figure a typo, or a true value when compressibilty becames notticed/important for our planes from the thred?



Tomo - it really is the lower threshold for the velocities over the top of the conventional (Clark Y, etc) airfoils start to reach temperature/density/pressure ratios approaching compressibility (i.e that point where the Drag rise > 0.0020 greater than the steady Cd below that particular Mach Number. Thereafter the drag rise is non-linear. 

NACA defines Drag Divergence Mach Number as the point where d(CD)/d(M)= .10 
(When the the rate of change of Drag Coefficient) with respect to change of Mach number is equal to or greater than 0.10)

Significant at that point (.55M) - not really - but a reference point for engineering 'alert' to start looking for instrumentation errors.

True 'transonic' is at the point where the velocities are high enough to initiate a shock wave on the surface of the wing (or other airframe part) and is the next stage of compressibility.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 25, 2009)

Instrumentation was probably very limited through most of ww2. I would speculate there is a margin of error that increases the faster the plane gets, but also most WW2 instruments weren't designed for transonic flight. The idea of being able to maintain those kinds of speeds was also a new concept for WW2 aircraft engineers to have to work with. 
Here's where it gets fuzzy for me.
Aren't IAS readings typically lower than TAS???? with the exception of flying into a head wind. 
What are other circumstances that an IAS reading might be significantly greater than a TAS reading, ruling out instrument error???


Funny...when i google: "P-47D" and "critical mach", that 0.83M number pops up, which is an obvious typo. i have to dig for the actual figure.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 25, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Note at the bottom of the tables is the caveat that CIAS, while corrected for instrument and calibration error, does not make provision for Compressibility.
> 
> The aircraft in this discussion all started into compressibility effects at .55 Mach. The classic definition for the start of Compressibility is the point in which the total drag rise > .0020 as Velocity/Reynolds Number increases.
> 
> ...



However, if the calculations are similar across the board, then they would be subject to the same margin of error. You might concede that the P-47D was a faster diver than the 51D. 0.85M for the p-51D which began to come apart at .80M, and 0.861M for the P-47D, which required dive flaps to recover safely.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 25, 2009)

They both liked to gleam like silver, didn't they? 

I agree with most arguments here about the two. The P-51 was more vulnerable to fire, and pity it was that in the Korean War the P-47 wasn't used. Perhaps it was because of it's more traditional looking prop fighter design?

The P-51 was a terrific fighter, but it had less firepower. So it's a tossup.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 25, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> They both liked to gleam like silver, didn't they?
> 
> I agree with most arguments here about the two. The P-51 was more vulnerable to fire, and pity it was that in the Korean War the P-47 wasn't used. Perhaps it was because of it's more traditional looking prop fighter design?
> 
> The P-51 was a terrific fighter, but it had less firepower. So it's a tossup.


Well, I have a new desktop background.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 26, 2009)

That´s a good idea, Clay. Tnx, Soundbreaker.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 26, 2009)

billswagger said:


> Instrumentation was probably very limited through most of ww2. I would speculate there is a margin of error that increases the faster the plane gets, but also most WW2 instruments weren't designed for transonic flight. The idea of being able to maintain those kinds of speeds was also a new concept for WW2 aircraft engineers to have to work with.
> Here's where it gets fuzzy for me.
> Aren't IAS readings typically lower than TAS???? with the exception of flying into a head wind.
> What are other circumstances that an IAS reading might be significantly greater than a TAS reading, ruling out instrument error???
> ...



Bill - first, the RAE chart is an interesting "add" - thanks for posting it.

I would like to see the detail report someday but at least this one gives calculated Cd0 and calculated M. One of the interesting anomalies is that Cd0 decreases from .859M to .861M then proceeds to the trend it should show as Mach number decreases. 

Additionally the TAS in the table, if normailzed to EAS or corrected for Temp/Pressure/density is off at .861 and actually all other values of TAS.

For example the TAS for a .861M at 19,000 feet (for T=451 R) should be 610.5 mph for a M=1 of 708mph (STP) at 19,000. If the TAS of the table is truly 608mph then the true Mach no = 608/709 = .857. 

At 10,000 feet the true M=1 for STP is 734.5mph (for T=483 R). The Table shows .662M for 474TAS. If 474mph TAS is real airspeed, corrected, then M= 474/734.5 which equals .645 M.

If the M=.662 is correct (not sure how this would be derived without TAS, however) the the TAS at 10,000 feet = .662 x 734.5= 486mph, not 474mph.

To your question about IAS versus TAS, there are conditions at (or below) SL in which IAS could exceed TAS - but that is about the only circumstances - when temp and density are appreciably off STP - but not at altitude for any subsonic conditions.

I did noti


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 26, 2009)

> That´s a good idea, Clay. Tnx, Soundbreaker.



You're welcome. 

Shiny Warbirds always look great in the sun.


----------

