# P-51 vs P-47 post war



## Piper106 (Feb 10, 2013)

I wonder why the US keep so many P-51s for post war operations, rather than P-47s. It should have been obvious that post-August 1945 that air superiority would be handled by jets, and that any propeller 'fighters' would be used mostly as fighter bombers / close air support roll. Having said that, it would seem logical to keep mostly P-47s for post war use based on the good service as 'attack' aircraft at the end of WW2. One would assume that there wasn't any shortage of nearly new low hour P-47Ns and late production P47Ds available for post war duties in late 1945. Yet it seems that the US kept more P-51s in inventory, and deployed only P-51s in Korea, taking heavier than needed loses when coolant radiators and the like were damaged by ground fire. 

Any thoughts on this??? Or links to an earlier thread where this has already been hashed out???.


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 10, 2013)

Could it be as simple as economics a P47 has be worth more as scrap than a P51.


----------



## VinceReeves (Feb 10, 2013)

I read it was simply a cost issue - P-47's were bigger, had more parts, used more fuel, needed more maintenance, and replacements were more expensive.

Although why any of this was an issue for an air force that was operating B-36's, I don't know.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2013)

The Piston planes were shuffled off to the "reserves" fairly soon. They could be maintained by "reserve" mechanics without much in the way of new training. They allowed pilots and units flying time and training at much lower cost than using jets. And any likely opposition ( Soviet Union) didn't have _large_ quantities of jets themselves for a number of years. 

Early jets sucked fuel, used up engines at a good clip, and were not produced in really large numbers for the first few years after the war ended.

P-47s tended to Equip reserve units on the east coast and P-51s on the west coast. Closer to home factories and parts supply???


----------



## drgondog (Feb 10, 2013)

Primarily because the P-51 and P-82 were regarded as better long range bomber escort while still being able to perform CAS and battlefield air superiority.

Also there were a lot more P-51D/H than P-47N


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 10, 2013)

After WW2 was over the military spending most of it's money on the big toys, atomic weapons and the aircraft to deliver them. What money was left had to be stretched far.
But you needed some way to keep a large pool of pilots current, but not break the bank doing it. The P-51 was cheaper to fly and maintain than the P-47.

They thought the way any future wars would be fought had been changed by the A-bomb. They didn't put much effort into preparing for the possibility of small limited wars where prop CAS aircraft would be needed.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 10, 2013)

The P-47 was the most complex WW piston engine fighter ... very expensive to buy and to operate, but most definitely ... IMPRESSIVE. Big plane. 

Lot's of P-47's went to America's friends and allies in Central America and The Caribbean. And the Mexicans and Brazilians flew them [in combat] during WW2. They were a great "learning" tool for emerging Air Forces in the Free World to fly and work on. More systems to learn and maintain than the P-51. Who wouldn't want to fly this powerful, turbo-charged, air conditioned beast .... 

MM


----------



## davebender (Feb 10, 2013)

Neither aircraft was well suited for CAS role. Mustang was probably the lesser of two bad choices until the USAF acquired a proper ground support aircraft.


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 10, 2013)

davebender said:


> Neither aircraft was well suited for CAS role.



If the USAAF wanted a ground pounder (which they didnt) then as said neither aircraft is ideal. Always thought a useful plane for Korean CAS would have been one of my favourite nearly planes of WWII the Grumman Tigercat. Masses of power, good carrying capacity plus lots of fuel to stooge around waiting for business. Give the pilot an armour plate tub to sit in and you have a great Sturmovik.


----------



## Piper106 (Feb 10, 2013)

As far as availablity there were 1800 P-47N built. Likely plenty for post WW2 needs, but if needed throw in a few squadrons worth of high block number P-47Ds and you would have more than enough for post war needs. 

About the only real out of pockets cost in favor of the P-51 in the post war period would have been fuel. There was likely acres of spares for both the P-47 and the P-51 already warehouses, already paid for. 

As far as operating as a fighter bomber, had the highers ups already filed away the pictures of terribly shot up P-47s that made it back to base in WW2???. I can sort of agree that neither airplane is idea as a CAS ground pounder, but of the two I would rather have the resistance to battle damage of an air cooled radial verses the whole liquid cooled engine thing. 

As far as the USAAF and the USAF not being interested in a ground pounder in the early post WW2 era, well they never have been interested in the last 70 years. One only has to look their handling of the A10 Wart Hog to see their feelings on that subject. That fighter jock mentality has handicaped (and likely will continue to handicap) our ground forces.


----------



## silence (Feb 10, 2013)

Piper106 said:


> As far as the USAAF and the USAF not being interested in a ground pounder in the early post WW2 era, well they never have been interested in the last 70 years. One only has to look their handling of the A10 Wart Hog to see their feelings on that subject. That fighter jock mentality has handicaped (and likely will continue to handicap) our ground forces.



Which may just beg the unaskable can-of-worms question: whether the Army should provide its own fixed-wing ground-pounders.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 10, 2013)

If you want CAS, use the Skyraider.

The P51 and P47 were just a few years removed from complete obsolescence.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2013)

Joe Baugher's web site page on the use of the P-47 after WW II. 

P-47 With Air National Guard


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 10, 2013)

could it have just been a question of which radial engine ac to keep...the t-bolt or the corsair? which of the 2 had more room to build upon? in one of the threads it was suggested putting corsairs in the eto to replace the 47. isnt this essentually the same move?


----------



## davebender (Feb 10, 2013)

Unfortunately the U.S. Army Air Corps didn't build any during WWII or the immediate post-war period. 1950 USAF went to war with what they had on hand.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 10, 2013)

For the most - if not the entire - part, the USAF went to Korea with what they INHERITED from the USAAF. Including the Lockheed P-50 and Republic P-84 Thunderjet, which both did yeoman service as a fighter-bombers. 

How much armor does the Skyraider carry, davebender ...?

MM


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 10, 2013)

a lot of 51s and F4U were used in korea.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 11, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> For the most - if not the entire - part, the USAF went to Korea with what they INHERITED from the USAAF. Including the Lockheed P-50 and Republic P-84 Thunderjet, which both did yeoman service as a fighter-bombers.
> 
> How much armor does the Skyraider carry, davebender ...?
> 
> MM



MM- the USAF started with what they had in Japan, then reinforced from the Phillipines as far as conventional and some F-80's and F-84's. I don't recall B-29s, B-50's, A/B 26's, F-94's, and certainly not F-86's. The P-51D's were certainly a legacy from the 18th and 35th FBW as part of the occupation. Curiously enough I was in Japan 1948-1950 when my father had first the 35th FBW then assigned to 5th AF HQ.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 13, 2013)

Does the F-82 qualify for this thread? It was basically a Mustang with two engines.


----------



## snowmobileman (Feb 14, 2013)

I like the F-82, but I don't think it would really qualify. Maybe in a comparison with the F7F and Hornet. Besides, it's real-life reliability doesn't stack up well to it's performance numbers. I think Allison should have been held accountable for it's lack of support for an active-duty military aircraft. I wonder how many pilots died due to their lack of support?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 14, 2013)

Hi, snowmobileman,



> I like the F-82, but I don't think it would really qualify. Maybe in a comparison with the F7F and Hornet. Besides, it's real-life reliability doesn't stack up well to it's performance numbers.



You mean that reliability was reducing performance numbers?



> I think Allison should have been held accountable for it's lack of support for an active-duty military aircraft.



Was the AAF always flawless in it's relationship towards engine manufacturers? Was their doctrine, about what powerplant systems to purchase, alway realistic?



> I wonder how many pilots died due to their lack of support?



I bet that much more pilots died because of incapability of their commanding officers.


----------



## snowmobileman (Feb 14, 2013)

Tomo,

The engines would not produce the rated power and would foul plugs quickly, from what I recall. From what I remember reading, many times an aircraft would return on one engine due to fouled plugs. If the engines can't be made to run optimally, then they can't meet their performance goals. And Allison was on to new projects (jet engines), so couldn't support the engines they had produced with spare parts. I think this information came from the book, "Mustang Designer". I have a special interest in the F-82, due to it's service in Alaska post-war. The P-82B would have been a much better option than the F-82F G, had the U.S. been able/willing to buy the needed Merlins.


----------



## vinnye (Feb 14, 2013)

If cost were a consideration, would the Twin Mustang not be more expensive that a Jug?
As posted earlier, the Corsair seems to be the ideal choice?
Not sure about running costs etc.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 14, 2013)

Yep, I agree that Allison was focusing it's money, along with best engineers (after post-war cut backs what was left) to the jest engines. The new V-1710s would/should provide far more power, being aftercooled, with ADI etc, new fuel metering system, yet they were to be built in humble numbers, while unlikely to be exported. Not a good prospect for Allison bottom line, a reminder of the days of pre-ww2, when USAAF was either unable (= no funds) or unwilling to commit more resources on engine design production? Allison was never paid those 900000 USD AAF owned it pre-war, the AAF bargained that debt to be canceled if Allison wants to export the engines.The spare parts would need to be almost all new, too.
One wonder how good/bad would've performed the P-82 with F-28.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 14, 2013)

This is a good question and I am sure a lot of the answers stated here played a part. Immediately after the war the military was in disorder and the future was questionable. What direction was defense going? The US was the sole owner of the a-bomb and the Soviet Union was not an enemy. Jet aircraft seemed to be the way. As such decision rationale was probably all over the map including political and financial issues.
Here’s a performance chart of US aircraft available to support ground troop immediately after the war.

Per the thread, I’ve chosen to compare the P-47N, P-51D, and have thrown in the following, P-82E, B-26C (A-26), F4U-4, F7F-3, and the A-1. I did not include the P-51H since it is stressed to lighter levels and thus would not be the best selection for air-to-ground work.

Empty Weight (k lbs)
B-26 22.6k
F7F-3 16.k
P-82E 14
P-47N 11
A-1 10.5
F4U 9.2
P-51D 7.1
Max TO weight
B-26 37.7
F7F 25.8
P-82 24
P-47 20
A-1 18
F4U 14.6
P-51 11.6
Load Carrying Capacity (max TO weight – empty weight)
B-26 15.1*
P-82E 10*
F7F 9.8*
P-47 9
A-1 7.5
F4U 5.4
P-51 4.5
*- Two engine aircraft will require more fuel and thus impact actual weapon carrying capacity. Also, V engines in the P-51 and P-82 would be more efficient than the radial jobs.
Sea level speed (mph)
P-51 383
F4U 374
F7F 367
P-47 364
B-26 361
A-1 348
P-82 unk
Max speed
P-47 467
P-82 465
F4U 453
P-51 442
F7F 435
B-26 372
A-1 366
Max range (miles)
B-26 3270 1800 w/4k bomb
P-82 2500 normal, 2700 ferry
P-51 2300
P-47 2200
A-1 1900 w/2k bombs
F7F 1573
F4U 1560

Looking at the stats it is easy to see why the B-26 with its load carrying capacity and range played the air-to-ground game up into the Vietnam war. The P-47N looks pretty good in the single engine category being the best lifter of the lot, and having the rugged reputation that it has. It could drop nearly twice the ordnance per sortie the P-51 which could significantly reduce sortie rates. It even lifts more and flies further than the F4U. And, it will out lift the A-1 and fly similar range. I think the P-47N would have made an excellent ground attack plane, much better than the P-51.


----------



## GregP (Feb 14, 2013)

Funny, we don't seem to have any reliability problems with the G-series engines we build. We build them to stock specs and they run just fine for years with normal maintenance. Makes me wonder since I see these things all the time (usually E's and F's) and they run quite nicely in service in P-38's, P-39's, P-40's. the odd P-63, a few Yaks, many tractors and boats, plus a few cars. We did the engine for John Rolley's Green Monster that was restored and it runs just fine, too.

Makes me wonder about the maintenance and operation of the engiens at the time. Operate them by the book and they run just fine. Stay at idle until the temps come up and change rpm gradually. It is much harder on an Allison to run it up to 57" of MAP for a few minutes and then rapidly throttle back than it is to run it at 57" for 20 minutes and gradually throttle back while allowing it to cool down easily. 

Maybe they needed some instruction in how to run a piston engine in a fighter aircraft. I wonder how Merlins would have fared if operated as they were operated. The Merlin has about the same temperament as an Allison and also needs to be operated correctly for best engine life. The two engines both need proper care and feeding and I wonder what they got in service once jets were out and supplanted pistons as the new front-line engine.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 14, 2013)

"... Radar-equipped F-82s were used extensively by the Air Defense Command as replacements for the Northrop P-61 Black Widow night fighter. During the Korean War, Japan-based F-82s were among the first USAF aircraft to operate over Korea. "

I presume that the F-82's were flown by former P-61 Black Widow pilots .... any difference between radial and inline operations account for the poor Alison performance ....? We know they're tough engines because the Soviets used them hard ...

MM


----------



## Milosh (Feb 14, 2013)

Custom built engines are not the same as mass production engines Greg.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 14, 2013)

davparlr said:


> This is a good question and I am sure a lot of the answers stated here played a part. Immediately after the war the military was in disorder and the future was questionable. What direction was defense going? The US was the sole owner of the a-bomb and the Soviet Union was not an enemy. Jet aircraft seemed to be the way. As such decision rationale was probably all over the map including political and financial issues.
> Here’s a performance chart of US aircraft available to support ground troop immediately after the war.
> 
> Per the thread, I’ve chosen to compare the P-47N, P-51D, and have thrown in the following, P-82E, B-26C (A-26), F4U-4, F7F-3, and the A-1. I did not include the P-51H since it is stressed to lighter levels and thus would not be the best selection for air-to-ground work.
> ...


 I don't know what model A-1 your figures are for, but the max t.o. weight of the A1E was very close to 25,000 lbs., not the 18,000 you have. That would have been it's normal, peacetime training mission weight. I've seen A1E's with 8000lbs just of ordance under wings with my own eyes, because I was one of the guys that hauled it to the line and installed it many times.


----------



## gjs238 (Feb 14, 2013)

davparlr said:


> Per the thread, I’ve chosen to compare the P-47N, P-51D, and have thrown in the following, P-82E, B-26C (A-26), F4U-4, F7F-3, and the A-1. I did not include the P-51H since it is stressed to lighter levels and thus would not be the best selection for air-to-ground work.



Where there enough P-47N's and F4U-4's manufacturered to support this?


----------



## Milosh (Feb 14, 2013)

gjs238 said:


> Where there enough P-47N's and F4U-4's manufacturered to support this?



A total of 1667 P-47Ns was produced by the Farmingdale plant between December 1944 and December 1945, when the Thunderbolt line finally closed down. 149 more P-47Ns were built by the Evansville factory.

Baugher


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 14, 2013)

F4U-4: 2050 pcs, F4U-4B: 297 pcs. Plus, almost 900 of post war versions (F4U-5, AU-1, F5U-7, night fighters...), many for export, though. 
From 'US Hundred thousands' book.


----------



## GregP (Feb 14, 2013)

Our engines aren't custom engines; they are stock Allisons overhauled and assembled to factory specs. 

The only modern aftermarket items we use are things like O-rings, a few modern bearings for ones no longer available, and plastigage for fitting the cranks.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 15, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> I don't know what model A-1 your figures are for, but the max t.o. weight of the A1E was very close to 25,000 lbs., not the 18,000 you have. That would have been it's normal, peacetime training mission weight. I've seen A1E's with 8000lbs just of ordance under wings with my own eyes, because I was one of the guys that hauled it to the line and installed it many times.


 
I made an designation error, my comparison was not the A-1 but the AD-1 the first and only "A-1" available "immediately after the war", which is what I was comparing. The AD-5 (later A1E) did not fly until late 1951, benefiting from a lot of development that the 1945 P-47N never had (XP-72 with "N" wings?). I picked this point because that was when a lot of decision making was occurring as to where national defense was going. I got my data from Wagner's "American Combat Planes".


----------



## davparlr (Feb 15, 2013)

gjs238 said:


> Where there enough P-47N's and F4U-4's manufacturered to support this?



A previous post said 1800 were built. That seems like a goodly amount.


----------



## dobbie (Feb 15, 2013)

So far as "air to mud" aircraft that the USAF had in their inventory, I think the P-47 would have been a more survivable aircraft than the mustang. Radials might need more maintenence than a liquid cooled engine, but radials can take more abuse and gunfire than any liquid cooled engine. Suggesting the Skyraider or the Corsair, while I think good suggestions indeed, would have meant ramping up for training, maintenence and flight operations. There wasnt much time for that. It is my belief that if the 47 had been fielded as a CAS fighter, there would have been a few more pilots coming back from operations


----------



## MikeGazdik (Feb 15, 2013)

Actually I think it was brought up here once before that the P-51 Mustang had a better (less) loss rate in Air-to-mud missions than the P-47 Thunderbolt in Europe. Very surprising. 

A question I have. What was the radius of the combat missions that were flown in Korea by the CAS units? I am going to surmise that they are not near the length of the missions over Germany late in the war.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 16, 2013)

Longest radius was from Tokyo/Johnson AFB when 35th FBW was there, closest was Seoul. So, it depends


----------



## Piper106 (Feb 16, 2013)

MikeGazdik said:


> Actually I think it was brought up here once before that the P-51 Mustang had a better (less) loss rate in Air-to-mud missions than the P-47 Thunderbolt in Europe. Very surprising.



I would take those numbers with a 'grain of salt'. I would think that the P-51 was working 'air-to-mud' later in the war than the P-47, and not facing the same caliber of German air defenses. My guess is that German flak units were not immune to the loss of effectiveness occuring among all the other German forces in the last months before VE day.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 16, 2013)

Piper106 said:


> I would take those numbers with a 'grain of salt'. I would think that the P-51 was working 'air-to-mud' later in the war than the P-47, and not facing the same caliber of German air defenses. My guess is that German flak units were not immune to the loss of effectiveness occuring among all the other German forces in the last months before VE day.



The P-47, specifically the 78th FG, scored the first German aircraft aircraft credited as destroyed on the ground by the 8th (or 9th AF) in February 1944. Thereafter the P-51 Mustang destroyed 3200 to 740 (P-47) for 8th AF in ETO while losing 569 to 200 (P-47). The Mustang faced every type airfield and rail flak defenses in the ETO - and far more frequently - particularly in Germany.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Feb 16, 2013)

Too lazy to look up the comparison. Are these ranges significantly different that the typical missions in WWII?


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 17, 2013)

During the most critical part of the Korean War, the first 3-4 months when S Korean forces were squeezed into the Puzan area, most of the missions were flown or staged from Itazuka AFB , Japan, on Kyushu island. Only about 250-300 miles from most of the action.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 17, 2013)

P-47's in action, ground targets, WW2:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shsxuauQA3w_

MM


----------



## Timppa (Feb 17, 2013)

Loss comparison:


----------



## drgondog (Feb 17, 2013)

Timppa said:


> Loss comparison:



Timppa - that is a good chart. It is misleading for the 8th AF because the P-47 was not strafing nearly as much as the P-51 due to range limitations. So far my statistics regarding loss to flak vs aircraft destroyed on the ground give almost a 2:1 ratio in favor of the Mustang - given a.) that precision regarding loss to flak or flak damage isimprecise looking at all the MACR's, and b.) the imprecision of actual ground destruction.

Several statements about 8th AF which are opinions based on facts are:

1.) P-47 sorties declined from 100% in August 1943 through January 1944, to 50% in May to 7% in April 1945 (if you add 354FG/9th AF this statement becomes true for December 6, 1943 forward). So the statistics have a very large percentage of 8th AF (dominant P-47) sorties between August 1943 to February 1944 in which no strafing was performed by the P-47 (or P-51 or P-38). 

Ergo the P-47 'built up' a large pool of sorties in which flak was not a factor to provide loss statistics for the tables. The Mustang on the other hand attacked German airfields, and engaged in air combat, with far higher per sortie ratios than the P-47 from March through May 31st. 

A similar table with victory credits per sortie would favor the Mustang by perhaps 2:1 for air to air and 5:1 for ground credits - leading to the correct conclusion that the Mustang was a superior choice considering effectiveness versus survivability.

2.) P-47 range covered far fewer airfields as targets, which were the dominant loss factor for both Mustangs and P-47s in the ETO. Therefore both exposure and sorties involving German airfields were far lower for P-47s after March 1944 as the P-51 assumed the long range primary role with strafing on return leg.
3.) The most nebulous, but true, statement is that the average duration of Mustang missions raised the probability of a mechanical failure or loss due to moderate damage because of longer missions.

So, when considering loss rates per sortie, one may not intuitively leap to fact based conclusion that the P-47 was tougher. Having said that I agree that is was able to take more punishment than the P-51 - just can't prove it for 8th AF operations. 

Anecdotally more P-51 losses to ground fire (all targets including rail) occurred flying high percentage of CAS between June 7 and August 30 when all 8th AF ops reverted 100% to strategic support.


----------



## Timppa (Feb 17, 2013)

drgondog said:


> It is misleading for the 8th AF because the P-47 was not strafing nearly as much as the P-51 due to range limitations.



You are ignoring the last column of this stat, planes hit vs. planes lost (per mission).
Note also the timeframe- August 1943- May 1944, not yet the time for easy strafing victories of abandoned German planes sitting in the airfields with no fuel. So I would ignore these victory ratios.

From another forum:

A study was conducted by the Rand Corporation in the early 1950’s ,RM 402: Aircraft Vulnerability in WWII

If the aircraft was attacked and hit by enemy aircraft, of the aircraft hit: 

49% of P-38’s that were hit were lost
46% of P-51’s that were hit were lost
46% of F4U’s that were hit were lost
37% of P-47’s were hit were lost
36% of F6F’s that were hit were lost
25% of F4F/FM-2’s that were hit were lost

When it came to being hit by AAA: 

29% of P-51’s that were hit were lost
26% of F4U’s hit were lost
25% of P-38’s hit were lost
25% of F6F’s that were hit were lost
22% of F4F/FM-2’s were lost
10% of P-47’s that were hit were lost


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 17, 2013)

That a good illustration of how useless some statistics can be.
A hit can be anything from a single 7.93mm bullet thru the rudder, to a hundred or more hits anywhere, or a single 30mm thru the cockpit.
Each would have radically different results in the aircraft returning, but each is only treated as a hit.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 18, 2013)

Timppa said:


> You are ignoring the last column of this stat, planes hit vs. planes lost (per mission).
> Note also the timeframe- August 1943- May 1944, not yet the time for easy strafing victories of abandoned German planes sitting in the airfields with no fuel. So I would ignore these victory ratios.
> 
> *Actually Timppa - the highest number of strafing losses occurred when those aircraft were sitting on Straubing, Eger, Landsberg, Oberphaffenhofen, etc in the March - April 1945 period when the flak concentrations were at their highest and pilots made repeated passes to attempt to get airplanes to burn for a credit. That analogy does work on a simple level - a lot more German) aircraft were destroyed in April than any two other months during the war. The victory to loss ratios were inflated over April-May 1944 - but your tables only extend through May 1944. When I have time I will look at those ratios for pre D-Day.*
> ...



I wasn't ignoring the 'hit' ratio - I just didn't have an objective perspective to associate shrapnel vs 8mm vs 20mm damage. Further I have zero idea how the associative 'hit-lost' data was exacted in the many cases when for example glycol coolant boiled over for a Mustang (was it a hit or a leak) or a 'mechanical' failure of the engine due to unknown causes, or simply disappeared. 

The info may have more meaning if for example, they cited the sample size and referenced detail reports regarding sources. MACR's and eyewitness reports are notoriously suspect when the dreaded phrase 'last seen' works its way into the report along with 'unknown' cause. I looked at, and examined carefully nearly 2000 MACRs for 8th FC and 354/363FG 9th FC...at least 20% presented issues regarding true cause of loss. I resolved the issue partially by lumping 'hit by flak over airfied, 'crashed near the airfield, 'seen to hit the trees on low level pass, 'crashed into german fighter on the ground, 'hit power line, 'etc into 'Lost while strafing because it was impossible to determine if hit by enemy fire or pilot error. So, I would submit to you that any report that gives a definitive statement of '29%' or '36' is simply nonsense.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 18, 2013)

Another thing for you to question regarding the statistics as presented. The P-47 and P-38 were much larger aircraft - and were slower on the deck - and yet the Mustang was cited as nearly 2x number of combined Damaged/lost (46) to P-47 (24). Isn't that a little curious regarding the number damaged per sortie vs 'threat environment'. It is pretty clear that the P-47 was in a less severe threat environment given that they were a far fatter target and easier to hit - and yet were only 'hit' 2/3 of the times per sortie.


----------



## CobberKane (Feb 18, 2013)

…and another thing; the P-47 ad P 51 were used primarily in the ETO, whereas the F4F, F3F and F4U were mainly in the Pacific. German fighters were generally more heavily armed than Japanese fighters,(think Bf109G v Ki-43, which I believe would have been the most common fighters in the respective air forces at the time) so a Mustang or Thunderbolt would likely sustain more damage when hit than a Corsair, Wildcat or Hellcat.
Interesting stats though, and the P-47 does seem to be the ship to be in when the bogeyman has you in his sights.


----------



## riacrato (Feb 19, 2013)

No statistic is perfect, but no need to keep bashing on it  I think everyone including the op knew he would want a grain of salt with that. Still I think it's very interesing, especially concerning the often quoted survivability bonus of a twin-engined aircraft.


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2013)

The survivability in a twin is based on getting an engine hit ... not in having a critical system taken out.

If the P-38 has the elevator cables shot out and the pilot is not quite quick enough to recover with just the trim tab, then the second engine doesn't matter much. Likewise if the pilot burns most of the fuel out in a tank and then the full tank gets hit ... he may have two engines and still not make it home due to fuel exhaustion on the way. So I suppose the twin CAN be more survivable in combat, but not necessarily so.

In Naval aircraft, the most often-encountered issue was with with an engine or engine system on operational missions around the carrier, not combat mission issuess unless you are operating in actual wartime. In those operational cases, the second engine is a real bonus. In wartime it CAN be a real plus, but not necessarily. It depends on the damage caused by combat.


----------



## Timppa (Feb 19, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> That a good illustration of how useless some statistics can be.
> A hit can be anything from a single 7.93mm bullet thru the rudder, to a hundred or more hits anywhere, or a single 30mm thru the cockpit.
> Each would have radically different results in the aircraft returning, but each is only treated as a hit.



Do you have any reason to believe that planes "A" were usually damaged by different caliber hits than planes "B" ?



> Another thing for you to question regarding the statistics as presented. The P-47 and P-38 were much larger aircraft - and were slower on the deck - and yet the Mustang was cited as nearly 2x number of combined Damaged/lost (46) to P-47 (24). Isn't that a little curious regarding the number damaged per sortie vs 'threat environment'. It is pretty clear that the P-47 was in a less severe threat environment given that they were a far fatter target and easier to hit - and yet were only 'hit' 2/3 of the times per sortie.



Well, you can also conclude that the P-47 was the more rugged airplane. In mid '44 most P-47's were in ground attack duties. 13 fighter groups in the 9th AF alone.

And for "less severe environment":


> 366th Fighter Group Casualties - July 24, 1944 through August 2, 1944:
> July 24: Captain Vernon Taylor shot down by flak.
> July 26: 1st Lt. Robert Ackerly. Hit by flak. Bailed out -- plane was on fire.
> July 26: 1st Lt. John Englehart. Hit by flak. Bailed out.
> ...



Title: A Fighter Pilot's Story


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 19, 2013)

Great link, Timppa thanks.  *A Must Read*. Patton could NEVER have broken loose on the endrun throughout France without the P-47's serving as his Jabo's.

MM


----------



## drgondog (Feb 19, 2013)

Timppa said:


> Well, you can also conclude that the P-47 was the more rugged airplane. In mid '44 most P-47's were in ground attack duties. 13 fighter groups in the 9th AF alone.
> 
> *On May 1, which is within the bandwidth of the statistics there were six 9th AF P-47 groups operational, two P-51 groups and one P-38 Group - three more P-47 Groups by D-Day. There were six 8th AF P-47 Groups, four P-51 Groups and three P-38 Groups operational. The number of strafing credits for 8th were P-47 (217); for the P-51 (473) despite having ~ 65% fewer sorties from February 1944 when strafing credits were awarded, through May 31, 1944*
> 
> ...



In the same timeframe as the first strafing credits, February 1944 through May 31, 1944 the air victory credits looked like this:
P-47 (619); P-51 (1099). As an example, the February air victory credits for the 354 and 357FG's were 91 in contrast to 239 for all twelve of the combined 8th and 9th AF P-47 Groups. In March, the air victory credits for the 4th, 354, 355, 357 FG's were P-51 (254) to P-47 (176), in April P-51 (323) to P-47 (85), in May P-51 (431) to P-47 (119). The Mustang 'crossed over' in the number of air victory credits compared to ALL of the 8th and 9th AF P-47 FG's combined at the end of May, 1944 - despite the P-47 operational status of March 1943 through November 1943 when no Mustang groups were operational in the 8th AF and the 9th AF was rapidly building up its strength and flew many escort missions with the 8th AF until May, 1944.

Note - the 56th FG were credited with 55 of the May, 1944 119 air victory credits and zero ground scores - nearly half of all 14 combined 8th and 9th AF P-47 air victory credits in May.


----------



## p47thunderboltking (Feb 19, 2013)

True - they also werent as good as the P-51 for they were slower and less maneuverable with 4 50 cals.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2013)

p47thunderboltking said:


> True - they also werent as good as the P-51 for they were slower and less maneuverable with 4 50 cals.


4 50 caliber machine guns *IN EACH WING!!!!!!*


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 20, 2013)

p47thunderboltking said:


> True - they also werent as good as the P-51 for they were slower and less maneuverable with 4 50 cals.



How come P-47 was slower and less maneuverable?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 20, 2013)

BTW Timppa - I believe the P-47 was more rugged than the P-51. Simply, I agree with you even as I look at the Stats and question the sampling by the authors responsible for them.

My assertions earlier were that the P-51 was more Effective in destruction of German aircraft in the air and on the ground in the ETO in the context of victory credits per loss for each category "air to air" and "air to ground".


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 20, 2013)

there is a thread on here ( still looking for the link ) of photos of beat up 47s that made it back to base. some were shot to $#!T, others had leading edges and props bent up after hitting trees...wing tips and tails tore off...the plane could take a hell of a lot of damage. so as far as survivabilty..if i had to strafe an airfield i would feel safer in a 47 than a 51. even though its slower and a larger target it will take more of a licking and keep on ticking. i would "suspect" ( maybe erroneously) that the corsair cold take simular punishment. where the 51 had the advantage was it could attack LW bases deep in germany and catch fighters being rearmed and fueled between sorties...or catching them returning to base.

copuld have sworn there was a thread about damaged 47 only but guess my mind is playing tricks on me again. this must be ther thread i was thinking about. there are a lot of 47s in here....

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/battle-damaged-aircraft-ww2-15431.html


----------



## GregP (Feb 20, 2013)

The P-47, especially in the later paddle-bladed propeller models, was a bit slower at low altitudes and just a few mph slower at 25,000 feet, but was faster above 30,000 feet and was probably one of the best Allied fighters in WWII above 30,000 feet. 

It was a bit less maneuverable due to sheer mass and wing loading, with a wing loading of 48.3 pounds per square foot at normal gross weight for the P-47D-25 versus 39.5 pounds per square foot for the P-51D. So the Mustang was a better turner (in pitch). The Tempest II and V, Fw 190A, Thunderbolt, and Me 109 all had simlar turning circles. See WWIIaircraftperformance.org . The next best was the Meteor II followed by the Spitfire 21, followed by the Mustang II, and led by the Spitfire X, XIV and XVI. Naturally, these are all the aircraft in the comparison. None would want to turn with a Zero at 180 - 280 mph!

A P-47 would out-roll a Mustang from 200 - 300 mph; about 120° for the P-47 to about 80° for the Mustang in the same time. From 300 -400 mph the Mustang could get about 10° closer but still would not out-roll the Thunderbolt. The best roller from 200 - 400 mph was the Fw 190A follwed by the Spitfire 21. From 400 - 500 mph it was the Tempest II and V followed by the Spitfire 21. Again, WWIIaircraftperformance.org.

The Thunderbolt was better in a dive than a Mustang, and the Thunderbolt is shown with a slightly better radius of action than the Mustang (goes against accumulated data in my mind), though both are much more far-ranged than any of the British fighters. A quote from the performance page follows: 

"In all cases the range is given at the individual aircraft’s rated altitude, with full complement of drop tanks where applicable. Throttle settings are standardized in that five minutes are allowed for take-off at full power, climb at maximum throttle settings to rated altitude, five minutes combat at full throttle, 15 minutes at maximum cruising and the balance at economical cruising. This method is purely arbitrary, and should not be taken as representative of an operational sortie."

I like their comparison at WWIIaircraftperformance.org, but the speeds for the turning circles are not given, so it's somewhat partial data. The comparison gives an idea of the V-G diagram's cornering speeds in relation to one another but precise values are somewhat of an estimate.

At the Planes of Fame Museum, we find that almost everyone who flew a fighter in WWII usually flew only THAT fighter and has very little basis for comparison to other fighters. Maybe a mock dogfight with an Ally ... maybe just heresay of one. Of the people who flew multiple fighters, most had only one transition from one fighter to another one and, again, they KNOW about those two and are guessing about the others, particularly if they never encounterd a particular fighter in combat. A guy who flew in the ETO knows nothing about combat with a Zero at any speed other than what he has heard or read, and vice versa.

One quick story ... we have a volunteer who has been in the U.S.A. for 25 + years, but who flew for the Dutch Air Force in F-86K's, Hunters, and the F-104. He said they used to LOVE getting into dogfights with the guys in English Electric Lightnings and had great fun until the Lightnings ran out of fiuel and dead sticked (they would usually dogfight over the air base). He asked one Lightning pilot if it really WAS a Mach 2.5 fighter. The guy stroked his chin and said, "Toward the fuel you could get to mach 2.5. If you ever got to Mach 2.5 going away from the fuel, you'd never get back to the fuel!"

Typically, most of the guys who flew only the P-51 think it was easily the best fighter of the war, but have not flown any others for a real comparison .. but they are sure they are right! Ditto the Spitfire guys, Me 109 guys, etc. .It is much more interesting to hear a test pilot who had time in 10 - 15 different WWII fighters talk about the comparisons. Of course, if he has only tested and has had no combat time, what are his qualifications to make combat evaluations?

It's a crap-shoot, for sure, trying to get meaningful comparisons about the various fighters against one another. If a Blackburn Roc ambushed an Fw 190 and shot it down, is the Roc better? Or did he get an ambush kill and no real combat was joined ... just an ambush from out of the sun? The real comparisons would be from the infrequent fighter versus fighter dogfights from an equal starting position. Most WWII pilots avoided these for survival's sake, so finding these comparisons is very interesting. In most, the more experienced pilots came out on top regardless of the fighters involved ... at least according to the victor's comments. Natrually, he'd feel that way since he won, and his are usually the only comments available about a particular combat. History, in this case (as in others), is the point of view of the victor.

It's tough to sort out fact from opinion in combat reports.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 20, 2013)

If you're thinking about this, where the Thunderbolt II barely beats 400 MPH mark, then you know better than me that comparison is worth nothing, as long as we talk about P-47.
Of course, we do not know what 'Me-109' is in the comparison, nor we don't know what Fw-190 is in it.

edit: okay, maybe I'm just too harsh, but inconsistencies can and will make the comparison far less worthy than it might've been, shades of 'Spitfire vs. Bf-109' comparison kindly posted by krieghund here


----------



## GregP (Feb 20, 2013)

Hi Tomo,

I believe I conveyed that the comparisons were somewhat qualitative rather than quantitative.

The question was about P-51 versus P-47 and I believe the P-47 is out-turned by the P-51 and the P-47 out-rolls the P-51 ... almost regardless of sub-type.

The rest are for the consideration of the reader and, no, I'm not a 100% believer in the comparisons ... not to mention all the types and sub-types left out.

It's a place to start and the individual can explore from there. He might well find the basic comparison at fault, but I won't go there for this thread.

If we talked face-to-face, we'd probably agree on most points. I like all the planes, but none are the best at everything and data points depend on everything from weather to engine operation, skin finish, engine condition, prop condition, fuel used, familiarity of the pilot with the mount, altitude, temperature, etc. so I supposed there never will be an absolute data point for each type aircraft ... just averages for the type in observed conditions.

It is very likely that the planes we see today flying at the Museum are in both better and worse condition than actual WWII field planes. They are taken care of with tender loving carre, not with disdain, but the engines, though cared for, are certainly not run as often as they should be and rarely if ever see war emergency boost or full power. We also don't feel around for the g-limitations at the edge of the flight envelope. Most Mustangs rerely see more than 5 g's, and rarley really more than 3.5 g's unless they are mock-dogfighting at reduced power ... it happens once in awhile.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 21, 2013)

Hi, Greg,
I'm not trying to bash on you, the comparison is what I don't think is valid when it comes down to non-British types. Eg. we don't know whether the Mustang carries fuselage drop tank, we don't know what kind of drop tanks are to be attached - all of that makes combat radius results questionable. We do not know what subtype of German fighters is tested, nor we don't know whether the P-47 has 2000, 2300 or 2600 HP available. The comparison states that Spitfire is the best roller in some circumstances, yet we need to look at the graph to find out the Spitfire 21 is that one. The best roller under 400 mph (Fw-190A) is not mentioned as such in the report?


----------



## wuzak (Feb 21, 2013)

Question about the Spitfire 21: is the wing that different to the older standard wing that the turn is degraded? As far as I am aware the aerofoil was the same section, but the wing shape was reprofiled, particularly towards the tips, with the ailerons extended outwards - which explains the improved roll. Or is it just a case of extra weight?


----------



## GregP (Feb 23, 2013)

Good points, Tomo, and I agree wholeheartedly. We DON'T know ... so the comparion is neat to read but unsatisfying in the details ... but how many real comparisons from the people who FLEW them can you actually FIND to read? I can't find very many from people who flew multiple fighter aircraft from various nations except for Eric Brown (his favorite was the Mitsubishi Zero), at least by what I would call reputable sources ... and this particular one is completely unknown to me as to source. The P-47 could go 600 mph as far a I'm concerned since the types, subtypes, and data are not given, who can say?

... but it gives me a sense of what the unknown author was trying to say ... he COULD be biased and completely wrong. Maybe the Wildcat was better ... but it IS a place to start looking at the relative performance. It will be tough to come with a validated opinion of the relative performance of types from several nations no matter what you do.

On the other hand, if you HAVE a relative performance compariison, orther than Eric Brown's ... please POST it. I don't have one and have been looking for YEARS.

As I said, all the guys that flew one type are sure it's the best ... and that opinion is worth nothing unless you have a basis for comparison by virtue of having flown competitive types yourself.

Steve Hinton loves them all ... they all have their strengths and weaknesses, but all fly quite well according to Steve ( if they didn't, they would never have made production). He owns a P-51D Mustang but flies any airworthy warbird anywhere when the opportunity arises. If it isn't airworthy, he declines ... and HE decides whether or not it is airworthy.


----------



## Neil Stirling (Feb 23, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Hi, Greg,
> I'm not trying to bash on you, the comparison is what I don't think is valid when it comes down to non-British types. Eg. we don't know whether the Mustang carries fuselage drop tank, we don't know what kind of drop tanks are to be attached - all of that makes combat radius results questionable. We do not know what subtype of German fighters is tested, nor we don't know whether the P-47 has 2000, 2300 or 2600 HP available. The comparison states that Spitfire is the best roller in some circumstances, yet we need to look at the graph to find out the Spitfire 21 is that one. The best roller under 400 mph (Fw-190A) is not mentioned as such in the report?



Well we sort of do http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-data.jpg and http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-roll.jpg

Neil.


----------



## Aozora (Feb 23, 2013)

A couple of days ago I came across an article which should help answer why the F-47 wasn't used in Korea. 










There were two primary reasons:

1: A Post-war USAF Change in role:


> With the Air Force's post-war fighter aircraft serving almost exclusively as bomber escorts and air defenders the Mustang was the fighter of choice during the transition to an all-jet force








USAF planners were focused primarily on a Strategic war against Russia and had not envisaged having to use aircraft in a Tactical role in a country like Korea only five years after the biggest war in history had ended. 

2: Budgetary: not enough F-47s and spares available because of the change in post-war priorities:


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 23, 2013)

Thanks for pointing me into right direction, Neil.
The P-47, in Wade comparison, operates at 58in. The 56in of manifold pressure represents 2300+ HP, such P47s were capable to do 372 mph at 10kft, 406 mph at 20 kft and 433 mph at 30 kft. Looking a Wade's graph, the P-47 does 360 at 10 kft, 370 at 20 kft and 410 mph at 30 kft. 
OTOH, the RAF's Tunderbolt II aircraft data chart gives 64 in of manifold pressure for the Thunderbolt II, ie ~2600 HP, so the speeds, at altitudes under 25000 ft, grow again some 10 mph (vs. 2300 HP engines) if Thunderbolt II is operated by the book. The RAF's ADS gives 354 mph at SL and 427 mph at 26000 ft.

The fuel of the P-47 (584 IG) corresponds well with 370 USG internal + 2 x 165 USG external, the fuel of P-51 (471 IG = 565 USG) is puzzling me. Once the full internal fuel of 269 USG is deduced, we have 296 USG left, ie 2 x 148 USG left for drop tanks. The range with so much fuel would be more than 700 miles, vs. 600 miles for P-47 carrying 670 USG, yet in the comparison we have it vice-versa? Another thing - the RAF's Mustangs were without fuselage tanks, max fuel total was 400 IG (= 150 IG in wings, 2 x 125 IG drop tanks) - ie. less than it's stated in comparison. 
The Mustang without fuselage tank might lag behind the late P-47, as it's stated in comparison. So the 471 IG of fuel for Mustang III is a typo?

The Fw-190 is really stated in the graph, but not in the report, re. roll rate. The author of the comparison states that Tempest II and V are to be assumed as the best rollers above 400 mph?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 23, 2013)

Great post, Aozora. Thanks.

MM


----------



## Piper106 (Feb 23, 2013)

+2 on the article Aozora. Many thanks. It is clear now to me why the Air Force chose the P-51 for post war operations. 

Problem was that events did not happen as planned (seems like they never do). As a result, the Air Force in Korea was stuck with the wrong airplane for ground attack / close air support. Some pilots likely paid the supreme price for this mismatch. 

The reluctance to use post WW2 the P-47s that were available due to lack of spare parts was sort of a circular argument. "Without spare parts we won't use the P-47s, so there is no need for spare parts for the P-47s". As I stated in my earlier post, I'm sure there were 'acres' of spare parts available for P-47s in September 1945. However once "the P-51 will be our plane" decision was made, it is likely vast quantities of P-47 spare parts were destroyed, or sold as surplus and then melted down to avoid storage costs. 

Oh well 20-20 hindsight.


----------



## gjs238 (Feb 23, 2013)

What I find ironic is that the US Army seemed reluctant about the P-51 initially, then ended up going in the opposite direction.


----------



## Aozora (Feb 23, 2013)

While I would like to download the entire article, I accessed it via ProQuest through my university so there are copyright issues with reproducing it in its entirety; the details are 

Rowland, Michael D, _Air Power History_ Fall 2003 Vol 50, Iss 3. Air Force Historical Foundation - - Air Power History 

It can also be accessed here Air Power History, Vol. 50, No. 3, Fall, 2003 | Questia, Your Online Research Library, as can other issues. 

I can sneak through a couple more pages which tie in well with what has been discussed in this thread:









quote from Col. Jesse Thompson 55th FG already posted, see page 9.


----------



## Timppa (Feb 24, 2013)

Vulnerability study from Korean war and vulnerable systems of the F4U:


----------



## drgondog (Feb 24, 2013)

Aozora said:


> While I would like to download the entire article, I accessed it via ProQuest through my university so there are copyright issues with reproducing it in its entirety; the details are
> 
> Rowland, Michael D, _Air Power History_ Fall 2003 Vol 50, Iss 3. Air Force Historical Foundation - - Air Power History
> 
> ...



Amazing that poor research falls into an otherwise interesting article. The 78th FG converted from Mustangs in December 1944. The record set in April 1945 by John Landers led 78th were all P-51s. The only 8th AF FG with P-47s after December 44 were 56th FG.


----------



## GregP (Feb 24, 2013)

Hi Neil,

That roll chart you posted a link for is the same one I used to come up with my roll comparison. It shows the P-47 rolling about 120° in the time the Mustang rolls about 80° ... but it still leaves out a lot of types that we'd all like to see compared.

Thanks for posting the link ... I posted a general web URL.


----------



## Aozora (Feb 24, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Amazing that poor research falls into an otherwise interesting article. The 78th FG converted from Mustangs in December 1944. The record set in April 1945 by John Landers led 78th were all P-51s. The only 8th AF FG with P-47s after December 44 were 56th FG.



 I just assumed the 78th was in the 9th AF for some reason but of course ...kinda destroys the point about the firepower of a massed group of P-47s. (The source quoted for that statement was Warren M Bodie, "Thunderbolt," _Wings_ Special Edition Number 1, 1971 p. 41)


----------

