# Best Long Range Fighter of WWII



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 30, 2007)

I'll try to really stick with the 1,000 mile radius and more. It's a multiple choice poll, so if somebody really can't decide with 1 you can always vote for 2! 

A thanks to the Moderators for adding the Spitfire Mk VIII to the poll at my request. 

*Do any of the moderators on here want to add the P-47D to the list? Even though it had trouble getting to Berlin, later on when they added drop tanks it improved it's range to 1,800 miles. Even though I have the P-47N on the list, some may want to vote for the P-47D instead with it's larger combat use in the European Theater in WWII.* 

Sorry, but this poll increased my knowledge of how far aircraft could go. When I started the poll, I was thinking the P-51D and P-47N, with the P-38 lagging behind in popular opinion. (Actually the P-38 is lagging behind. )

The Ta-152 has caused an upset in the voting. 

Oh, and by the way. If somebody knows of a Bf 109 or FW 190 variant that could go over a 1,000 miles then you can add it in too. But I don't think there ever was.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2007)

In that case I have to go with the P-51D. I am not a fan of the P-51D but she had the best range for the job.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In that case I have to go with the P-51D. I am not a fan of the P-51D but she had the best range for the job.



agree...


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In that case I have to go with the P-51D. I am not a fan of the P-51D but she had the best range for the job.



Hands down the best when taking in the "big picture".

I am not a big fan of the P-51 either b/c of all the P-51 nuthuggers around but I have to give the devil his due......long range fighter.....best ever was the P-51.


Don't all you P-51 nuthuggers think that this means I like the P-51.....  

(runner up would be the P-38)


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 30, 2007)

Yep, P-51D for me too...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 30, 2007)

Silly me, but while deciding this poll I have a problem.

What would you say was the better long range fighter, P-51D or P-51H?

Should I have both together or seperatly or not at all?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2007)

P-51H was built for high alltitude purposes and was not used in WW2.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 30, 2007)

Well, I know but it still had the range. And I actually am including aircraft that were being built and designed during WWII too.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 30, 2007)

Add every variant and plane u can think of, cause others will want to vote on it....


----------



## Jank (Apr 30, 2007)

*P-47N*
.
.
.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 30, 2007)

RATS! 

Too late I saw the XP-P-47J had a range of 1,070 miles! I should have added it! 

Oh well, it was only a prototype. At least for the Spitfire XXII over 200 of it were built. 

I did realize that a *few later* versions of the Spitfire IX could go over 1,000 miles but it was said it hurt it's manuverability, a vital thing for a Spitfire. Meanwhile the Spitfire XIV couldn't go a 1,000 miles with guns on it's wings, only if it flew as a photo reconnaissance version. So thats why I added the last variant of Spitfire to compensate this difficulty, since it had a huge range.

Just wondering, since there may be mad experts about this, was there ever a Bf 109 that could go over 1,000 miles?

I couldn't find a thing.

Did I miss anything else?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 30, 2007)

Spitfire fans kill me.

I went over the variants of the Spitfire and found out this: That the Spitfire Mk VIII could travel over a 1,000 miles! The Spitfire VIII was better than the Spitfire V!


I'm wondering if I should start a new poll. Or.

*CAN ONE OF YOU MODS PLEASE ADD SPITFIRE Mk VIII TO THE POLL??????????? PLEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASE.*

Nobody has voted much anyway except Jank, who loves the P-47 anyway.


LOL! I'm so ranting.

And by the way, I have gained a new respect for the Ta-152. It's almost the only fighter the Germans had with such range, and good performance to boot. The 110 was a poor performer compared to what the Allies had.


----------



## Thorlifter (May 1, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In that case I have to go with the P-51D. I am not a fan of the P-51D but she had the best range for the job.



Agreed. I voted for it, but I still like the P-47 better.


----------



## Maharg (May 1, 2007)

Hmm.

Best long range escort fighter. I vote P-51D.
Best Long range don't mess with me fighter. I vote P-47D.

But if my life depended on it. I'd fly the Spitfire Mk.VIII.


----------



## Heinz (May 1, 2007)

as unoriginal as it is to answer, the P-51D is the best there was end of story.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 1, 2007)

Added it Welchy...


----------



## Lucky13 (May 1, 2007)

I'm afraid that I'm stuck between the P-47N the P-51D. They did use them for those VLR missions over the Pacific escorting the B-29's.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2007)

You cant vote 3 times Hussars.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 1, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You cant vote 3 times Hussars.



He has voted 4 times!


----------



## Lucky13 (May 1, 2007)

P-47N for me folks. it had longer range, about 2,000 miles (3,200 km) compared to the P-51D Mustang 1,650 mi (2,655 km) with external tanks.
It was faster too....


----------



## BMARTINS (May 1, 2007)

P-51D No arguments against facts it did the job escorting the bombers.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 1, 2007)

Then I think that the P-47N like all P-47's can absorb battle dammage better and still bring the pilot compared to the P-51...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 1, 2007)

I think the P-47N WOULD OF been the best machine had she been introduced earlier.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 1, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think the P-47N WOULD OF been the best machine had she been introduced earlier.



Agreed.....but as it stood she did very little in WW2. Introduced too late to be considered a contender is this poll IMO.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 1, 2007)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> He has voted 4 times!



Nope I fixed that. Unfortunatly it keeps his name in there, but he only voted once now.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 1, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Nope I fixed that. Unfortunatly it keeps his name in there, but he only voted once now.



He can't make his mind up.........just like a typical women.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Agreed.....but as it stood she did very little in WW2. Introduced too late to be considered a contender is this poll IMO.



I agree, which is why I dont think the P-51H should be in the poll either.

And whoever voted for the Bf 110 (caugh caugh Uber Alles caugh ) has got to be kidding!


----------



## Jank (May 1, 2007)

Are we to register our preferences according to which had a greater impact or which could perform better in that role?

IMHO, the P-51 had a greater impact but the P-47N could perform that role better.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 1, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And whoever voted for the Bf 110 (caugh caugh Uber Alles caugh ) has got to be kidding!



Maybe he voted with his heart.......instead of his common sense.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 1, 2007)

Jank said:


> IMHO, the P-51 had a greater impact but the P-47N could perform that role better.



100% agree


----------



## Lucky13 (May 1, 2007)

When did the P-47N first enter service in the pacific? Which squadrons flew them??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2007)

I believe the 464th FS, 333rd FS, 318th FG, 7th Air Force flew the P-47N.


----------



## Jank (May 1, 2007)

Interesting piece about P-47N's stationed on Le Shima.

~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html

Piece about Oscar Pedromo, the last "ace in a day" of the war.

Oscar F. Perdomo
.

In addition to having a *2,350* mile range, the P-47N excelled at ground attack too. This one ("Glory Gal") has 2,500lbs of bombs and 1,400lbs of rockets for a total ordinance load of 3,900lbs. 





.
.
.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 1, 2007)

Adler said:


> You cant vote 3 times Hussars.





Hunter said:


> He has voted 4 times!


Hussars, are u fu*kin retarded or just trying to play the meatball Canadian part???

4 times???

U voted for The Best Long Range *Fighter* of the 40's four times.... That has to be some sort of moronic record here at ww2aircraft.net....

I think we need to alter ur siggy to include the words "Pollster Meatball Extroidinaire"...


----------



## Hunter368 (May 1, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Hussars, are u fu*kin retarded or just trying to play the meatball Canadian part???
> 
> 4 times???
> 
> ...



LMFAO that would be funny as hell to alter his sig.


But please never lump Hussars in with all us other Canadians.

Hussars is Canadian yes......but he does not represent us all. Don't hold him against us.  

Hilliary Clinton is American but I don't hold that against you.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 1, 2007)

Thanks Moderators! I'll try to not forget something like that next time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 1, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> LMFAO that would be funny as hell to alter his sig.
> 
> 
> But please never lump Hussars in with all us other Canadians.
> ...


----------



## des (May 1, 2007)

I think that the p-51 is the best 'cous it escorted the big bombers deep into enmy terortory.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 1, 2007)

des said:


> I think that the p-51 is the best 'cous it escorted the big bombers deep into enmy terortory.



*Brilliant!*


----------



## Hunter368 (May 1, 2007)

des said:


> I think that the p-51 is the best 'cous it escorted the big bombers deep into enmy terortory.



Yeh! What the new guy said sounds goooooood.


----------



## mkloby (May 1, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> LMFAO that would be funny as hell to alter his sig.
> 
> 
> But please never lump Hussars in with all us other Canadians.
> ...



you should... especially if, God forbid, she gets elected president.


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 2, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Hussars, are u fu*kin retarded or just trying to play the meatball Canadian part???
> 
> 4 times???
> 
> ...



Well im sorry, but the option to vote for more than one aircraft was on the poll, I didnt realise what an complete outrage it would be so im sorry i besmirched your site

But im sure as time goes on you will be abble to put this in a drawer


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 2, 2007)

Don't feel bad. I think I will vote for both the P-38 and the P-51. I like the P-38 because of it's twin engines. If you are a thousand of miles from home, having that extra engine as surety is a big help. The P-51 did not have that advantage, but it was more compact in the sky.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 2, 2007)

I'll vote for all of them.....


----------



## Wildcat (May 2, 2007)

I voted for the P-51D for the same reasons stated by Des
BTW someone has voted 5 times on this poll.


----------



## Parmigiano (May 2, 2007)

??? voted before reading the thread and went for multiple choices as allowed by the pool.. hope nobody will send me a B17 (... with the current price of gas for me it's bankrupcy to fuel up my 262...)

Anyway my choices are: P51D, Zero and Mosquito, for different reasons and in that order.


----------



## davparlr (May 2, 2007)

I voted for the P-51D. Both the P-47N and P-51H have impressive performance figures, but the D just has too much experience.


----------



## Soren (May 3, 2007)

I'm leaning towards the Ta-152H-1, it had a range of over a 1,000 miles with the extra internal tanks, and unlike all the other it would've been immune to intercepting fighters while flying around at 50,000 ft.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 3, 2007)

I would lean in ur direction Soren if it werent for the proven combat effectiveness of the P-51D.... Too over powering...

The Tank??? Would coulda shoulda...


----------



## Soren (May 3, 2007)

But the P-51D isn't 'the best' long range fighter. The P-51D was effective because there were huge numbers of it, take away that advantage and things would've looked very different. But what would 100 P-51's have done against 40 Ta-152's flying at 50,000 ft ?? The P-51's could do nothing..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2007)

Soren I cannot dispute the performance of the 152, but a range of 1000 miles? Hardly long range when compared to the P-51 or later model P-47s. Sure she could fly at 50,000 feet but what good will that do when it had the same range as later model Spitfires? 1000 miles is a fair range, hardly long range when compared to the P-51 or even the P-38.


----------



## mkloby (May 4, 2007)

Soren said:


> But the P-51D isn't 'the best' long range fighter. The P-51D was effective because there were huge numbers of it, take away that advantage and things would've looked very different. But what would 100 P-51's have done against 40 Ta-152's flying at 50,000 ft ?? The P-51's could do nothing..



Why would P-51D's tangle with them at 50,000'???? They wouldn't! Fighters/interceptors are defensive weapons and they wouldn't be setting the terms of the engagement.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Why would P-51D's tangle with them at 50,000'???? They wouldn't! Fighters/interceptors are defensive weapons and they wouldn't be setting the terms of the engagement.




mkloby, 

If say 50 German bombers are coming in on the British coast at say 30 -35 kft, British radar detects this and the RAF scrambles its fighters - in this case 100 P-51's - The P-51's makes eye contact with the bombers, but wait something is covering the bombers up high, 40 or so enemy fighters - what to do ? The P-51's decide to attack the bombers before they reach further inland and reach their intended targets. 50 or so P-51's start a head on attack, while 50 or so others are ready incase the covering LW fighters decied to decide to attack. And sure enough 20 or so of the LW fighters start to dive at the engaging -51's, FAST !! So fast that without a chance the covering -51's can only watch as several of the engaged -51's are shot down. The covering -51's decide to concentrate on the LW fighters now and take pursuit, however the climb of the LW fighters after their attack is astonishing and the -51 can't keep up. And as if this isn't enough the remaining LW fighters dive at the now slowly moving -51's in the climb - Break! - more -51's are shot down and the LW fighters climb again at an amazing rate. What to do ? Stay and fight and risk nearly all -51's being shot down ? Or hit the deck and get the heck out of there ?!

See the problem ??


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren I cannot dispute the performance of the 152, but a range of 1000 miles? Hardly long range when compared to the P-51 or later model P-47s. Sure she could fly at 50,000 feet but what good will that do when it had the same range as later model Spitfires? 1000 miles is a fair range, hardly long range when compared to the P-51 or even the P-38.



On full tanks the Ta-152H-1 could probably fly as far as the P-51..


----------



## mkloby (May 4, 2007)

Soren said:


> mkloby,
> 
> If say 50 German bombers are coming in on the British coast at say 30 -35 kft, British radar detects this and the RAF scrambles its fighters - in this case 100 P-51's - The P-51's makes eye contact with the bombers, but wait something is covering the bombers up high, 40 or so enemy fighters - what to do ? The P-51's decide to attack the bombers before they reach further inland and reach their intended targets. 50 or so P-51's start a head on attack, while 50 or so others are ready incase the covering LW fighters decied to decide to attack. And sure enough 20 or so of the LW fighters start to dive at the engaging -51's, FAST !! So fast that without a chance the covering -51's can only watch as several of the engaged -51's are shot down. The covering -51's decide to concentrate on the LW fighters now and take pursuit, however the climb of the LW fighters after their attack is astonishing and the -51 can't keep up. And as if this isn't enough the remaining LW fighters dive at the now slowly moving -51's in the climb - Break! - more -51's are shot down and the LW fighters climb again at an amazing rate. What to do ? Stay and fight and risk nearly all -51's being shot down ? Or hit the deck and get the heck out of there ?!
> 
> See the problem ??



I get your point - although I was thinking in a historical context - your scenario at that point in the war is not reality. 2nd, I think you are relying too much upon A/C performance data and ignoring the role of ACM and tactics relating to engagements. Just because a 152 is superior doesn't mean the 152 dives and instantly plucks a 51 out of the sky, climbing back up to relative safety with impunity.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2007)

I'm not ignoring tactics mkloby, I'm just being realistic here. How on earth are you going to catch a speedier and much faster climbing a/c which has been diving at someone at 750 -800 km/h and starts climbing back up again with alot more energy than you ??


----------



## Lucky13 (May 5, 2007)

Frustration for the P-51 pilots..... The Ta pilots could probably pick the target, dive in, make the kill or damage and speed back up again, turn around and look for the next victim....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2007)

Soren said:


> On full tanks the Ta-152H-1 could probably fly as far as the P-51..


"probably" Sorry Soren - would of should of could of....


----------



## Lucky13 (May 5, 2007)

755 miles to 1,250 miles depending on speed and external tankage....

The Japanese Army acquired the license,schemes and papers for manufacturing the Ta 152 in Japan during last stages of the conflict, what was the plans for them, fight of the B-29's? Would they have had licensed the engine as well, or put their own in? Did they have a suitable engine?


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2007)

Yes, 1,250 Miles is on internal tanks and that aint bad.


----------



## mkloby (May 5, 2007)

Soren said:


> I'm not ignoring tactics mkloby, I'm just being realistic here. How on earth are you going to catch a speedier and much faster climbing a/c which has been diving at someone at 750 -800 km/h and starts climbing back up again with alot more energy than you ??



My point is that diving at high speed doesn't equate to an instantaneous quick kill.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2007)

Neither was 2,000 for the mustang...


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2007)

mkloby said:


> My point is that diving at high speed doesn't equate to an instantaneous quick kill.



No ofcourse not, never said so either. You'll note I didn't put a number on how many -51's would likely get shot down on the first pass - but chances are several would.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Neither was 2,000 for the mustang...



The Mustang has a range of around 1,300 Miles with 269 gallons of fuel - thats full internal fuel load


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2007)

Soren said:


> The Mustang has a range of around 1,300 Miles with 269 gallons of fuel - thats full internal fuel load


and 2300 miles with drop tanks...You stated the Ta 152 had a range of 1250 miles WITH tanks. Hardly a long range fighter when compered to the mustang...


----------



## Lucky13 (May 5, 2007)

Fuel capacity was 595 liters for the H-0 model with the option of a 300 liter drop tank on the centerline. The H-1 model carried an additional Total tankage of fuel was 595 liters for the H-0 model which could also carry a 300 liter, underbelly droptank. The H-1 model carried an additional 470 liters of fuel in six unprotected bag tanks in the wings, but typically one of these tanks was used to hold the MW 50 methanol-water mixture. The H-1 could also carry a 300 or 600 liter centerline droptank.

Another thing that I read....
"The Ta 152 was not afforded the time to work out all the little quirks and errors plaguing all new designs. These problems proved impossible to rectify given the situation in Germany towards the end of the war, and only two Ta 152 C remained operational when Germany surrendered. All the H-models had been grounded due to engine problems. Reportedly, of those Ta 152H that flew, most were used in a close-support role and as escorts protecting the Me 262 airfields while the vulnerable jets took off and landed. If true, this was not the role for which they had been intended. Again, there is no evidence that Ta-152H aircraft were ever encountered by Allied aircraft attacking German airfields."


----------



## Soren (May 6, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> and 2300 miles with drop tanks...You stated the Ta 152 had a range of 1250 miles WITH tanks. Hardly a long range fighter when compered to the mustang...



FLYBOYJ, I never stated anything about drop tanks, what I said was; " 1,250 Miles is on internal tanks"

The H-1 has an internal fuel capacity of ca. 1,000 Liters (264 Gallons). 

The range of 1,250 miles is with full 'internal' fuel load - no drop tanks. So yes, the Ta-152H is infact a long range fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2007)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ, I never stated anything about drop tanks, what I said was; " 1,250 Miles is on internal tanks"
> 
> The range of 1,250 miles is with full 'internal' fuel load - no drop tanks. So yes, the Ta-152H is infact a long range fighter.


I stand corrected but with that said the Ta 152 did not have the ability to fly the missions the P-51 or later P-47s did which amounted to over 2000 miles. Was one ever used with drop tanks? A Spitfire V had a range of 1,100 miles, it wasn't close to being considered a long range fighter.

I would also gather that the Ta 152s range was a ferry range, flying at altitude leaned for cruise flight. In actuality it probably had a combat radius of about 500 miles...


----------



## Soren (May 6, 2007)

Fact is the Ta-152H flew just as long as the P-51 on the same amount of fuel. And yes the Ta-152 could be fiited with a drop tank, a small or large one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2007)

Soren said:


> Fact is the Ta-152H flew just as long as the P-51 on the same amount of fuel. And yes the Ta-152 could be fiited with a drop tank, a small or large one.


Could of, would of, should of. Soren, I agree the Ta 152 was a wonderful machine, but in the snapshot of history we are discussing, it was far from being deployed or being a long range fighter that could of matched in range. The Spitfire could be fitted with a tank as well and again it was far from being considered a long range fighter...


----------



## Soren (May 6, 2007)

I don't get what it is you're saying, the drop tanks were there to be used FLYBOYJ, just like the P-51's drop tanks. The Ta-152H had available a 600 Liter drop tank if the mission demanded it.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 6, 2007)

P-51D Mustang

General characteristics
Crew: 1 
Length: 32 ft 3 in (9.83 m) 
Wingspan: 37 ft 0 in (11.28 m) 
Height: 13 ft 8 in (4.17 m) 
Wing area: 235 ft² (21.83 m²) 
Empty weight: 7,635 lb (3,465 kg) 
Loaded weight: 9,200 lb (4,175 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 12,100 lb (5,490 kg) 
Powerplant: 1× Packard Merlin V-1650-7 liquid-cooled supercharged V-12, 1,695 hp (1,265 kW) 
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0163 
Drag area: 3.80 ft² (0.35 m²) 
Aspect ratio: 5.83 

Performance
Maximum speed: 437 mph (703 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,620 m) 
Cruise speed: 362 mph (580 km/h) 
Stall speed: 100 mph (160 km/h) 
Range: 1,650 mi (2,655 km) with external tanks 
Service ceiling: 41,900 ft (12,770 m) 
Rate of climb: 3,200 ft/min (16.3 m/s) 
Wing loading: 39 lb/ft² (192 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (300 W/kg) 
Lift-to-drag ratio: 14.6 

Armament
6 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns; 400 rounds per gun for the two inboard guns; 270 per outboard gun 
2 hardpoints for up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) 
10 × 5 in (127 mm) rockets


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2007)

Soren said:


> I don't get what it is you're saying, the drop tanks were there to be used FLYBOYJ, just like the P-51's drop tanks. The Ta-152H had available a 600 Liter drop tank if the mission demanded it.


Tell me how many missions Ta 152s flew escorting bombers over the UK or USSR?????


----------



## renrich (May 6, 2007)

My data on TA152H-1 says the internal tankage carried 364 imp. gal. On internal fuel, clean, at 376 mph at 32,810 ft it could go 755 miles. That would be a yardstick range, not a realistic practical number. Max range with 66.2 imp. gal drop tank-1250 mi at 293 mph at 22965 ft. Once again a yardstick range. A realistic combat radius with drop tank might be around 420 miles. This data is from "The Great Book of WW2 Aircraft."


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 6, 2007)

Well if the Ta-152 did start their attack at 50,000 feet would a P-51H be any help? They were designed for higher altitudes than the P-51D.

Anyway, just because the attacking fighters have a high top cover doesn't mean they will win, even though there is a disadvantage to the rising from the ground defending fighters. In the BOB, the Spifires and the Hurricanes had to rise to attack the higher german bombers, and the 109's had high top cover of them, and the british planes still shot down the bombers and fighters will little loss to themselves.

And anyway, it wasn't impossible for a P-51D Mustang to fly at 50,000 feet either. Seems that many websites and WWII boards suggest that the comfortable ceiling for the Ta-152 was 40,000 feet or even as low as 14,000 feet. There were some that said 49,000 feet, but did the Ta-152 ever fly that high in the evaluation tests of the Germans, or was it just paper statistics? Did the German test pilots roll it, turn it, dive it, climb it at 50,000 feet, and did it even do well? I mean, was it ever proven that it was the only fighter of it's day to have a range of 50,000 superiority?

My guess is, If both the Ta-152H and the P-51H were fighting at 50,000 feet, they would probably both be puffing for air.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 6, 2007)

Same source for the above on Mustang....


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2007)

The P-51D was the best because it just was, admit it ... no real argument ... proved itself, loved by thousands ... won the war, all that jazz-fantastic ... I can't be arsed , but it's the best. The H wasn't used ... so slash on that.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 6, 2007)

The Ta 152H-1 was designed to take on the B-29's that the they thought would show up over Germany in late 1944 first hand, and not to dogfight with other fighters right?
Doesn't that make it more or less an interceptor rather than a fighter?
Or do I remember wrong.....


----------



## Soren (May 6, 2007)

Soundbreaker,

You can't compare BoB with this, the 109's in the BoB hardly had time to fight. 

Renrich,

Read Dietmar Hermann's book on the Ta-152.

Lucky,

The Ta-152 was not designed to combat the B-29, that is a myth. The Ta-152 was designed as a high altitude fighter vs fighter a/c.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2007)

Soren said:


> The Ta-152 was designed as a high altitude fighter vs fighter a/c.


And in it's short life it was superb. A real long range fighter, no way.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 7, 2007)

Ok Soren, cheers....


----------



## Lucky13 (May 7, 2007)

The Mustangs internal fuel capacity was 224 Imp Gallons or 1018 litres with provision for external drop tanks of 75 US Gals (284 litres) 110 US Gals (416 litres) respectively.

Fuel capacity for the Ta 152H-1 was 595 liters with additional 470 liters of fuel in six unprotected bag tanks in the wings, but typically one of these tanks was used to hold the MW 50 methanol-water mixture. So if we say that of these 1065 liters 70 liters was the MW50 mixture, that gives the -D Mustang only 23 more liters of internal fuel. Can't be that much more in range above the 152H-1 can it?
This damn interesting fellas, I learn alot on this forum. Thanks!


----------



## renrich (May 7, 2007)

One useful item to remember as far as external fuel is concerned. The Corsair most economical cruise burned 42 gph. So a 150 gal belly tank added about 3.5 hrs cruise time, right, no wrong. The rule of thumb was 50% of the fuel in the external tank would be used by additional drag and the other 50% added to range so that 150 gal extended the range a little over 1.5 hours. A yardstick range for an F4U4 would be with 230 gal internal and two 150 gal drop tanks would be roughly 6 hrs on internal and 3 hrs on external at 200 mph gives 1800 miles. For a combat radius you would take about 70% of 1800 or 1260 mil and divide by 2 giving a CR of 630 miles. The 70% figure allows for, on an escort mission, warmup, takeoff, climb out to say 25000 feet, cruise to target, 10 minutes of combat, return with a little reserve. Climbout to a higher altitude would take more fuel. Another factor is that (I think) US gallons are larger then Imp. gallons. I don't know the ratio.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 7, 2007)

I'm making a guess: The P-38 wins the prize for the longest range of all? It's only at 3.51% at the moment, overlooked indeed. 

And a question: If the P-47D had been added to the poll, which had a ferrying range of 1,800 miles and a combat range of 800 miles, would anybody have voted for it's experience? The P-47N didn't have that chance.


----------



## pbfoot (May 7, 2007)

3.83 litres in an american gallon and 4.55 litres in an imperial gallon


----------



## renrich (May 7, 2007)

Thank you, I stand corrected.


----------



## bigZ (May 7, 2007)

If its night I will go for the P-61 and beats everything on the list. Suprisingly good turning plane for such a large size. How would it have fared during dayloght hours?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 7, 2007)

I suppose it was still too big to fight in daylight but the P-38 did manage it.








> This damn interesting fellas, I learn alot on this forum.



Me too.


----------



## bigZ (May 8, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I suppose it was still too big to fight in daylight but the P-38 did manage it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did a bit of reading. the P-61 shot down at least 3 FW190's during daylight in 44. Designed to be faster than the P-38 and more manoverable than any single engin fighter. One engine performance was breathtaking.

I think the reason it wasnt used more often in daylight was because of its specific nature and their was only 485 night fighter crews.


----------



## renrich (May 8, 2007)

The P61 had a Vmax of about 365 mph at it's critical altitude and a not very good rate of climb. Hardly in the same league with the P38.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2007)

Well - I voted 51D because it DID the heavy lifting along with the 51B/C in the ETO - the highest threat environment. The 47C/D was a great daylight escort but got shut out until the late Ds got more internal fuel.

I didn't vote for the 51H because it didn't do heavy lifting - but it was in production about the same time as the 47N - USAAF began to look forward on procurements and decided to keep the 51H out. But while the 47M and N were great straight line (level or down) fighters at high altitude and would run with a 51H that's all it could do - even the roll of the 47N compared to the roll rate of the legendary 47D simply sucked. So one on one the 51D pretty much out performed the 47N in just nearly every category except top speed at 30K and the 51H was faster than the 47N. 

neither 51 could out dive the 47 but if a 51 was on his tail he couldn't accelerate in the dive fast enough...he can't turn or climb with the 51 (in fact can't climb at all until one hell of a lot of fuel is burned off-just joking but not much).. he can't accelerate with a 51 at any altitude so his 'out' with a 51 on his tail is a rolling dive (maybe).

I didn't vote for the Ta 152 - it didn't do long range escort. Period. Coulda done a great job - but didn't and doesn't deserve consideration anymore than the 51H in this poll in my opinion. But stick the Ta 152 in and consider this.


As to ability of Ta152 to fight at 40-46K+ (would it do 50 with a combat load?? would it do 40 with a combat load for escort??), the LW didn't have long range bombers that I am aware of that were carrying loads above 30,000 feet - so it would have been doing battle at that level or whatever level the LW Bomber of Choice that Erich/Dan/Adler want to propose as the Escorteee.. 

Ar234 with a load wouldn't exactly been the definition for a long range bomber... He 177 would be logical choice for consideration, so where it it fly and fight best? if 30K and below, then

It (Ta152) needs to "escort" down to peak performance territory for P-47N, P-51H, F8F and P-80 territory as interceptors (and the P-80 was delivered operationally before WWII ended). I like the P-80 against the Ta 152 ok.. not quite the difference advantage that a 262 had over the 51 but still significant.

Too much info for why I like 51 but there 'tis.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 3, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Well - I voted 51D because it DID the heavy lifting along with the 51B/C in the ETO - the highest threat environment. The 47C/D was a great daylight escort but got shut out until the late Ds got more internal fuel.
> 
> I didn't vote for the 51H because it didn't do heavy lifting - but it was in production about the same time as the 47N - USAAF began to look forward on procurements and decided to keep the 51H out. But while the 47M and N were great straight line (level or down) fighters at high altitude and would run with a 51H that's all it could do - even the roll of the 47N compared to the roll rate of the legendary 47D simply sucked. So one on one the 51D pretty much out performed the 47N in just nearly every category except top speed at 30K and the 51H was faster than the 47N.
> 
> ...



No comments about the P38's?

After all, they flew the longest fighter missions of the war.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 4, 2007)

I went P-38L Lightning. I consider it a fact that a lot of the fighting in the European Theatre of Operations was done where there was the ability to land, whereas the Pacific Theatre Of Operations was another kettle of fish. There was a lot of water and islands to be taken. It was into this environment that the P-38 Lightning came, with two engines to increase chances of getting back to base, canons to blast away at the opposition and a large amount of fuel. All good attributes for a long-range fighter.


----------



## Jank (Jun 4, 2007)

Could the P-51D outclimb the P-47N?




.
.
.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 4, 2007)

Jank - yes the 51 could out climb, out turn, out accelerate and usually out run the 47N at any altitude which is why the USAAF elected to go next gen with 51's. 51 decidely less survivable than ANY 47 (or F4U)on the deck in Fighter Bomber role.

The 38J thru L was on heckuva fighter - but each variant came too late to do what needed to be done as high altitude escort in Europe - too many Allison blew up at 25000 feet and the absence of dive brakes meant the Squareheads could escape by diving until the 38J arrived in Theatre - which is why the 20FG and 55FG and 364 FG were close to 1:1 when 51 groups were 8:1 to 12;1 in air to air combat with Luftwaffe.

Having said that the 56 FG had the best pure air to air ration in ETO with about 12:1.

Regards,
Bill


----------



## Jank (Jun 5, 2007)

What was the P-51D's climb at:

S/L - 
10,000ft - 
20,000ft - 
30,000ft -


----------



## Jank (Jun 6, 2007)

Is this data correct for P-51D climb at WEP? If so, I do not see it's advantage over the P-47N.

P 51D Performance Test

WEP climb chart for P-51D

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342-climb.jpg


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2007)

Jank said:


> Is this data correct for P-51D climb at WEP? If so, I do not see it's advantage over the P-47N.
> 
> P 51D Performance Test
> 
> ...



Jank - I believe the data you posted is correct for the 51D. However if you want an apple to apple comparison you ought to compare the 51H as it was delivered to operational units (US) in March 1945 about the same time the N went to Pacific?

Anyway for full ammo, full wing tanks and partial fuse tank the 51D
Vmax= 442mph at 26K (where most escort took place in Europe)
V0 = 375mph at SL

Climb rate (from graphs)
SL 3550
5K 3600
10 2950
20 3200
30 1750

FYI - the 47N was absolutely faster at 30,000 feet and would still out roll the 51 even with the increased fuel storage in wings and would out dive the 51. And it would fly farther with full fuel load than a 51... if you had enough runway to take off. 

You probably have read all the test reports on the D, M and N on the same site. It was an impressive airplane above 25,000 feet. From a WWII standpoint 30,000 feet wasn't as useful to judge performance as the Jug rarely went into escort above 26-28K (escorting B-17s) and 4,000 feet lower with B-24s. 

When the N came into Pacific the B-29s switched operational strategy from 30K and daylight to 6-9K at night rendering the N's usefullness a little less than planned for when it was on drawing board.

It was probably a better airplane than the 51D at 30,000 feet and above but what did it fight at that altitude over Japan? I suspect that the Mission and personal preference would have a lot of influence on which one a pilot would want - but the Air Force decided on the 51 for post war (and maybe regretted decision mid way into Korean War)

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Erich (Jun 10, 2007)

P-51D, the track record proves it, the TA 152H ws to be a short range defense of the homeland fighter, none of them were fitted with drop tanks, even when they did escorts for their own JG 301 collegues


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 10, 2007)

They could be fitted with drop tanks though, right? Also, didn't the Ta 152H-1 carry almost the same amount of fuel as the Mustang?

Found the answer to my own question here by myself....     
"Fuel capacity was 595 liters for the H-0 model with the option of a 300 liter drop tank on the centerline. The H-1 model carried an additional 470 liters of fuel in six unprotected bag tanks in the wings, but typically one of these tanks was used to hold the MW 50 methanol-water mixture. The H-1 could also carry a 300 or 600 liter centerline droptank."


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> No comments about the P38's?
> 
> After all, they flew the longest fighter missions of the war.



If the P-38L had been available in 1943 instead of mid 1944 we might have seen a different perspective. The supercharger issues blowing up Allisons at high altitude/low temp conditions made it pretty easy for Doolittle to give the 38's to 9th AF so it just didn't meet expectations.

Right or wrong ETO Daylight Operations 1943-1945 is THE standard for high threat environment. Had the late model 47D's been in operations in Jan 1944, we might not be talking about the Mustang - but it didn't arrive until most of the other 47 Groups in 8th AF were slotted to transition to 51s.

In the interim the Mustangs were incredibly effective with small numbers and got more effective as more groups converted and reliability improved in April/May.

Yep the 38's flew some long escort in ETO but the 51s did about the same. The May 13, 1944 mission flown by 355th FG was 1490 miles to Schloppe Poland and back. I thinkthe 38's flew one just over 1500 miles.

I'm thinking the P-47N flew a longer escort to Japan (or Okinawa before Iwo Jima) but I'm memory challenged right now.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 10, 2007)

drgondog said:


> The May 13, 1944 mission flown by 355th FG was 1490 miles to Schloppe Poland and back. I thinkthe 38's flew one just over 1500 miles.



1500 miles was the RT figure for the Poznan (schloppe) mission.

In the PTO, P38's were flying 2000 mile RT missions regularly, with on occasion 3000 miles missions.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 10, 2007)

DAMN!! Sore arse after those missions, eh?


----------



## Erich (Jun 10, 2007)

don't forget that the Pioneer Mustang group the 354th fg had the P-51B and was nailing Luftw a/c right and left, so impressed was the US 8th AF of this small 9th AF fighter unit the powers to be bagged the Mustangs from the unit for up and evolving 8th fighter groups and the 9th AF had the P-47 till January/February of 45 until the unit gleefully gave their Jugs mounts to other 9th AF units. the 354th fg hated the Jug.

so what we have here is a personal preference from the hot shot highest scoring ETO fg in the war............they wanted the P-51 not the P-47. Sorry guys but it is true. have had the plesure of researching this unit as it is from my little home state and chatting with ace K. Gross several times and C.Salter. K. Dahlberg is next an ace with 10 kills


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 10, 2007)

For the ETO: P51

For the PTO: P38


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> DAMN!! Sore arse after those missions, eh?


Actually my father's longest (seat time) missions were in order D-Day 7:50 Area Patrol, 8:00 on Area Patrol in Evereaux area on June 8 and 7:50 to Piryatin, Russia on 18 september.

Syscom - I was only referring to ETO missions for both the 38s and 51s.

What were the long range profiles for the P-38 escorts on the 2,000 and 3,000 mile escort missions? (from where to where, and where did the 38s R/V the bombers ie "200 miles from target" ??)

The 51's could do a 2,000 miler w/ferry tanks but not 3,000

Erich - as you probably know Doolittle went to the mat to get the 354FG from 9th AF but was 'only' able to get 357FG in exchange for 358FG which was operational 47 group before 357 cranked up. Not a bad trade. And yes the 354FG HATED the Jug even though it was more survivable to flak.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Erich (Jun 10, 2007)

yes I know about the incident Bill, the 354th guys did not really care one way or the other but the 8th did get a hot shot group without a doubt - the 357th

several of the 354th guys to this day are pretty pissed off that they in the 9th AF were termed as dive-bomber boys a trait the 354th fg never liked nor felt were suited for, they wanted 1 to 1 with the Luftw.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 10, 2007)

The P38's were flying from Middleburg Island (Sansapor) to Balikpapin in Borneo and Morotai to Balikpapin.

I believe there were some missions from Biak to Balikpapin but not sure.

Some were for bomber escort, others for fighter sweeps.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The P38's were flying from Middleburg Island (Sansapor) to Balikpapin in Borneo and Morotai to Balikpapin.
> 
> I believe there were some missions from Biak to Balikpapin but not sure.
> 
> Some were for bomber escort, others for fighter sweeps.



The Max range would probably have been a Fighter Sweep to enable strict cruise pretty much to target with ferry tanks - would be my guess. Having to "S" over B-24's would have absorbed a lot of range potential.

Thanks,

Bill


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 10, 2007)

How much did they improve the range of the P-38's after Lindberghs visit?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 10, 2007)

drgondog said:


> The Max range would probably have been a Fighter Sweep to enable strict cruise pretty much to target with ferry tanks - would be my guess. Having to "S" over B-24's would have absorbed a lot of range potential.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill



At this years Chino Airshow, I talked to a 5th BG pilot, and he said that on a several of his long range missions (over 1000 miles) they had fighter escort over the target which was Balipapin or Tarakan.

And it still doesn't matter what plane you're using to have direct overhead escort.

Both used pretty much the same amount of fuel per hour.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 10, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> How much did they improve the range of the P-38's after Lindberghs visit?



They nearly doubled the endurance.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> At this years Chino Airshow, I talked to a 5th BG pilot, and he said that on a several of his long range missions (over 1000 miles) they had fighter escort over the target which was Balipapin or Tarakan.
> 
> And it still doesn't matter what plane you're using to have direct overhead escort.
> 
> Both used pretty much the same amount of fuel per hour.



I have a tendency to agree with you but I believe the consumption per hour for a 51 was less than the 38 with two allisons at cruise vs 1 PMerlin at cruise, I could be wrong. In any case for the 'overhead' escort they weren't making progress any faster than the B-24 they were covering while they were covering it.

Per pound of fuel carried the 51 went further than the 47 or the 38 - aeordynamics being the big factor.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Erich (Jun 10, 2007)

Bill are we talking with the use of external aluminum or paper tanks on the Mustang ? or furthering the range even more ........ ?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 10, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I have a tendency to agree with you but I believe the consumption per hour for a 51 was less than the 38 with two allisons at cruise vs 1 PMerlin at cruise, I could be wrong. In any case for the 'overhead' escort they weren't making progress any faster than the B-24 they were covering while they were covering it.
> 
> Per pound of fuel carried the 51 went further than the 47 or the 38 - aeordynamics being the big factor.
> 
> ...



The P38 had a higher payload than the P51, thus could fly further.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 11, 2007)

Cheers Syscom....


----------



## xelanhua (Jun 11, 2007)

uugggleee little bubble plane, but if it good enough for the Tuskegees it good enough for me to vote in.
x


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 11, 2007)

The Tuskegees lived under the shadow of a lie for decades.... Voting for that aircraft on that basis alone is incomprehensible...


----------



## timshatz (Jun 11, 2007)

2000 miles in a P51 or a P38. Figure you are averaging your cruise speed of 200mph ( no basis beyond occasional conversations with people). So that is 10 hours in cockpit about the same size as the seat in an NFL stadium. And at the halfway point (5 hours in) you put your body through a boxing match (complete with sweat and beatings).

Cripes man, you gotta be 20 years old to do that. I've done 2 hours in a radial engined trainer and my butt was numb.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 11, 2007)

At Chino 2005, there was a 475th FG pilot I talked too, and he mentioned he had gone on a couple of those long range missions.

He said they were miserable!

But he also said that Japanese plane were getting scarce over NG in the summer of 1944, so the true fighter pilots were motivated to go after them where ever they were.


----------



## xelanhua (Jun 12, 2007)

sorree to make you mad lesofprimus. didn't mean it. jus like to bring up the tuskegees. my poppa's side ex-slaves my momma's side ex-soviet. like to bring litvak up a lot too. didn't mean to make you angry. my bad.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 13, 2007)

I was always of the impression that the P-47D lacked the range of the early P-51 models. Which is important for a long-range interceptor. Therefore I wasn't sure that they would really have quite the same reach and thus the 
P-51 was necessary at least initially.


----------



## renrich (Aug 26, 2007)

Tim you make a good point about the physical beating those pilots took on those long range missions. Add to all that the noise and vibration particularely in a SE aircraft and the fact that in the Pacific their living conditions were probably not that good. The only mission that might have been more trying would be a long range mission off a carrier in blue water conditions where you were over water the whole way and then you had to find that carrier and make a safe landing.


----------



## Glider (Aug 27, 2007)

Maybe we should try a second best poll?


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 27, 2007)

I want to know who voted for the Mosquito and ta-152.

The Mossie was a fighter bomber, not a fighter in the sense of the word.

And how many long range missions did the -152 go on so we can judge its performace?


----------



## drgondog (Aug 27, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> P-51H was built for high alltitude purposes and was not used in WW2.



Chris - (I'm pretty sure you know this) Strictly speaking the 51H was a re-design to remove as much weight possible without sacrificing structural integrity, firepower or range - and with the new -9 Packard Merlin it was faster, climbed better and accelerated better... but as you pointed out while 600+ were delivered by VJ Day it was held back from overseas deployment..

Very few parts common with earlier B/C/D

I know the Ta 152 had better performance over all but it just didn't do long range bomber escort so the 51D gets my vote for the a/c that did that role.


----------



## Erich (Aug 27, 2007)

Gents the Ta 152H was a high altitude craft or at least that was what the a/c was designed for. it never was suppose to be an escort for any airplane fighter or bomber, so it cannot be considered, short range only


----------



## Glider (Aug 27, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> I want to know who voted for the Mosquito and ta-152.
> 
> The Mossie was a fighter bomber, not a fighter in the sense of the word.
> 
> And how many long range missions did the -152 go on so we can judge its performace?



It wasn't I but at a guess they were thinking of the best long range night fighter.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 27, 2007)

Glider said:


> It wasn't I but at a guess they were thinking of the best long range night fighter.



Agree to that.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 27, 2007)

I voted for the P-38, partly becuase I really like the P-38, and partly because I get tired of evrybody saying how great the P-51 is. Okay, yeah, it was a pretty good plane, probably the best single-engine fighter in the world in 1945, but it was not the be-all, end-all plane some people say it is. Judging by the way they talk about the -51, you'd think we would have lost the War if somebody hadn't invented it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 27, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Chris - (I'm pretty sure you know this) Strictly speaking the 51H was a re-design to remove as much weight possible without sacrificing structural integrity, firepower or range - and with the new -9 Packard Merlin it was faster, climbed better and accelerated better... but as you pointed out while 600+ were delivered by VJ Day it was held back from overseas deployment..
> 
> Very few parts common with earlier B/C/D



I knew it was a redesign and slightly smaller but I was not aware that it had very little in common when it came to overall parts.



drgondog said:


> I know the Ta 152 had better performance over all but it just didn't do long range bomber escort so the 51D gets my vote for the a/c that did that role.



I agree. As I said before I think the P-51D is a bit overated but all in all when it comes to long range fighter (escort duties) it was the best of the best. I voted for it as well.


----------



## ccheese (Aug 27, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In that case I have to go with the P-51D. I am not a fan of the P-51D but she had the best range for the job.




I'm with you on this one.... even tho I like the P-38 better as a
fighter (in the PTO).

Charles


----------



## Erich (Aug 27, 2007)

nah it's gotta be a Stang !! this case ace Dick H. from the 78th fg, he scored 2 Me 262's on one mission close to Prague in spring of 45, one of them was ace Hans Grünburg who bailed out safely the other jet pilot did not........


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 27, 2007)

A bit off topic, but if the Germans had a choice, would a long range Bf 109 be better for escort duties than a long range Ta-152? If the Ta-152 was the better fighter, then it should be able to handle the situation better.


----------



## Erich (Aug 27, 2007)

but the TA 152H was used for the defense of Berlin nothing else. It was not used as it should of been so we will never know. the Dora 9 was the equipment of the day even better than the Bf 109 for high alt for the time being until total replacement by the TANK but that did not happen

well my two thoughts


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 27, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> A bit off topic, but if the Germans had a choice, would a long range Bf 109 be better for escort duties than a long range Ta-152? If the Ta-152 was the better fighter, then it should be able to handle the situation better.



The -109 was not a choice for a long range fighter. Its internal fuel stowage was limited.

The -190 was.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 28, 2007)

> The -109 was not a choice for a long range fighter. Its internal fuel stowage was limited.



Yeah, but there has been topics about how they could have used drop tanks in BOB.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 28, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Yeah, but there has been topics about how they could have used drop tanks in BOB.



The P38 set the standard for long range flights, followed by the P51.

If it couldn't fly 1200 miles minimum radius, then it isn't a long range fighter.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 30, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Oh, and by the way. If somebody knows of a Bf 109 or FW 190 variant that could go over a 1,000 miles then you can add it in too. But I don't think there ever was.



Well, basically all Bf 109F, G, Ks could... they had 1000-1200 miles range with a droptank. FW 190As ditto, with a single, jettisonable droptank. Some 109/190s had two droptanks with a bit longer legs I presume. That's not radius of course, but range then again, then again, it's the same in the case of some planes on your lists (Spits - none of them could actually return after flying 1000 miles distance).


----------



## Glider (Aug 30, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Well, basically all Bf 109F, G, Ks could... they had 1000-1200 miles range with a droptank. FW 190As ditto, with a single, jettisonable droptank. Some 109/190s had two droptanks with a bit longer legs I presume. That's not radius of course, but range then again, then again, it's the same in the case of some planes on your lists (Spits - none of them could actually return after flying 1000 miles distance).



Spit VIII with drop tanks, could easily cover 1000 statute miles with a max range of 1265 statute miles. 
I am not sure about late production Spit IX's. They had a significant increase in internal fuel (extra 77 gallons), but I don't know what the range increase was.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 30, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Well, basically all Bf 109F, G, Ks could... they had 1000-1200 miles range with a droptank. FW 190As ditto, with a single, jettisonable droptank. Some 109/190s had two droptanks with a bit longer legs I presume. That's not radius of course, but range then again, then again, it's the same in the case of some planes on your lists (Spits - none of them could actually return after flying 1000 miles distance).



Kurfurst - that is a suprise. Could you point me to sources for 500+ mile radius escort (or even fighter bomber) missions for either of those?


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 30, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Kurfurst - that is a suprise. Could you point me to sources for 500+ mile radius escort (or even fighter bomber) missions for either of those?



I can't, but doesn't mean too much since I was never too much into operational details, being rather more interested in the cold, heartless technical details. Perhaps someone who's more buried into Tagjagd operations can answer the question, I can't. I presume the resupply missions in the Med would probaly a good place to look...

On the other hand, I own a lot of Bf 109 tech manuals, including very detailed range tables for the 109F-4 and FW 190A, so I can be very sure of this. I don't have much for the later G models from Germans, however there are multiple British documents on this matter in good agreement.

This one is the German datasheet (not the range table - Reichweitentabelle - which gives the same figures) for the 109F-4, FW 190A with an early BMW 801 engine, and preliminary figures for the Bf 109G-1 (calculated from performance measured on a Bf 109F-4 in Rechlin, however the G-1 is in unknown conditions).

Noteworthy is that they except the 109G to be of somewhat higher ranged than the 109F. This is presumably due to the better fuel effiency, and higher rated altitude of the high compression ratio DB 605A engine.







This is a British intel table from early 1945, comparing British types to basic Luftwaffe equivalents (or close. They seem to me more like 1943 versions of the 109G/190A)






And this from the British Middle-East report on the Bf 109G-2/trop they captured there, nowadays it's better known as the 'Black Six'.






This latter 109G range table was later reduced by British AI. by 20% for the most economical settings, without touching the high-speed cruise ranges, however they don't give much of a reasoning why and how the correction was made (other British docs however show a 20% deduction made for safety, navigational errors etc.), and the later doc posted below again gives a touch bit higher figures. Unfortunately, I don't have the original BF 109G range tables to check against.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 30, 2007)

Glider said:


> Spit VIII with drop tanks, could easily cover 1000 statute miles with a max range of 1265 statute miles.



Of course it could. Point I was making, after covering that 1000 statute miles, _it couldn't return on another 1000 mile journey_, since the original poster's question was 1000 miles *radius* - rather different than range.



> I am not sure about late production Spit IX's. They had a significant increase in internal fuel (extra 77 gallons), but I don't know what the range increase was.



Please see below.  However, the Spitfire manuals are rather clear about the serious stability issues arising from the use of the rear tank, and specifiy that only if special orders are issued from the proper place may those tank be used. Encountering enemy aircraft with those rear tanks filled would be simply not viable.






Simply to put, those rear tanks were ferry tanks at best for one-way sorties, not enchancing _operational_ range much, ie. for escort jobs. See the problem is that the aircraft has to be able to return on internal fuel only from the mission, otherwise it's a pig burdened with a droppable fuel tank. 

The range of the Spitfire IX on it's 85 gallon internal was rather limited at around 450 miles, at that's flying at speed at which even an over-ambitious Stuka could intercept it. Even fully using up 90 gallon tank is rather impractical, since it's a bit of a fix to return from a place on 85 gallons when it took 90 gallons to get there in the first place..  Of course the 90 gallon tank is fully viable for the VIII with it's 120 gallon internal capacity.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 30, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Yeah, but there has been topics about how they could have used drop tanks in BOB.



Actually, they seem to have used droptanks in the BoB. 

The early Bf 109Es could not use a droptank, and even on the most ecomical settings they were restricted to 660 km or so range. 

The Bf 109E-7 was the first variant capable of using an external droptank, and it entered combat in the end August 1940, in the midst of the heaviest fighting. 
With the 300 liter droptank, which become standard (I presume it was originally made for the Ju 87 R) it's range increased to a maximum 1325 km, and the endurance to 3 hours 50 min, however it took some time for it to arrive in numbers and make it's presence felt on the battlefield.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 30, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> I can't, but doesn't mean too much since I was never too much into operational details, being rather more interested in the cold, heartless technical details. Perhaps someone who's more buried into Tagjagd operations can answer the question, I can't. I presume the resupply missions in the Med would probaly a good place to look...
> 
> On the other hand, I own a lot of Bf 109 tech manuals, including very detailed range tables for the 109F-4 and FW 190A, so I can be very sure of this. I don't have much for the later G models from Germans, however there are multiple British documents on this matter in good agreement.
> 
> ...



Still - pretty interesting - thx


----------



## Glider (Aug 30, 2007)

Thanks for the info on the Spit IX with the long range tanks. 
I like the bit about if you have a rear view fuselage then they shouldn't be used in any situations. Not much point fitting them in the first place?


----------



## drgondog (Aug 30, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Please see below.  However, the Spitfire manuals are rather clear about the serious stability issues arising from the use of the rear tank, and specifiy that only if special orders are issued from the proper place may those tank be used. Encountering enemy aircraft with those rear tanks filled would be simply not viable.
> 
> *I wouldn't think the issues would be any more serious than the aft cg problems the P-51 had with the 85 gallon tank behind cockpit - SOP was burn it first - at least down to 20 gallons. Most pilots (my father included) burned it down all the way perferring not to have a flammable reserve in combat/strafing*
> 
> ...



I don't actually know what the cruise speed of a Spit would be - but it would be much faster going to an R/V point than 'essing' across bombers during escort... 51's were generally doing about 200-220 IAS during escort to bombers doing 150 mph IAS and a Spit using the same basic engine should be doing somewhere aout the same depending on blower and rpm config 

The best cruise settings for low blower in a 51D with a -7 Packard Merlin (merlin 66?) was 26-27 inches of Mercury, 2000 rpm at 16,500 feet ------250 mph TAS, 220 kts TAS, 200 mph IAS

LOL could a Stuka climb that far to dive on a Spit (Joking)


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 30, 2007)

> I wouldn't think the issues would be any more serious than the aft cg problems the P-51 had with the 85 gallon tank behind cockpit - SOP was burn it first - at least down to 20 gallons. Most pilots (my father included) burned it down all the way perferring not to have a flammable reserve in combat/strafing
> ...
> True to a point but the external tanks were second to be burned off, then internal wing tanks in order.



The trouble with the Spit is not as much the CoG if you think it over. Ie. following the SOP on the Spit :

Burn off *85 gallons in the rear aux tank* in towards the target, then switch to droptank.
Burn off *90 gallons in the droptank* to get further towards the target, then 
Drop dropanks, switch to internal fuel tank

Optionally fight at combat rating - 150 gallons being consumed per our on max output, or about 12.5 gall/5 min.

Do the math and scratch the back of your head Return on what's left from the remaining *85 gallons internal..*

The Mustang didn't have it's problem, since it's internal capacity even without the rear tank 2 times or greater than the normal 85 gallon internal on the Spit. Basically it's the permanent internal capacity that defines radius and the point of no return.

Hence why I said the rear tank was more of a ferry (ie. one way) tank for Spits.

Oh, the Spits eco-cruise on which it achieved 450-odd miles on 85 gallon internal was something like 220 mph TAS, so yes indeed a Stuka could catch up with that, being somewhat faster on all out. Seriously, it just meant to illustrate that eco-speeds (and ranges) are not always viable over enemy airspace.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 30, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> The trouble with the Spit is not as much the CoG if you think it over. Ie. following the SOP on the Spit :
> 
> Burn off *85 gallons in the rear aux tank* in towards the target, then switch to droptank.
> Burn off *90 gallons in the droptank* to get further towards the target, then
> ...



I agree your point and many a Mustang mission plan went awry when confronted with an early fight - or any fight on a long range mission. The serious contingency planning was all about internal wing fuel being the determinant on point of no return... that was a planning point at every briefing in the 355th

On September 18, 1944 my father gave strict orders that no 355th pilot do more than drive interceptors away during the Shuttle Mission over Warsaw -possibly preventing the 355th from really hurting JG51 by chasing them after initial engagement... and he sent one flight at a time to intercept.

He had maybe 20 minutes left after reaching Piryatin after 7:50 in the cockpit - then flew up to Poltava to refuel and meet with bomber commander.

The difference there was which was point of no return - distance to Piryatin or Steeple Morden..

Regards,

Bill


----------



## renrich (Aug 30, 2007)

The combat radius of the P51D at 11,100 TOGW was 700 miles at an altitude of 25000 ft and that with 269 gallons of internal and 150 gallons of external fuel. That assumed warm up, takeoff and climb out, 20 min of mid point combat and 30 min of reserves. I don't believe any 109, 190 or Spitfire ever carried that distribution of fuel load or achieved that combat radius during WW2.


----------



## renrich (Aug 30, 2007)

I believe the P51 could get by on less than 48 gph at cruise. The Corsair could use as little as 42 gallons per hour at cruise and it was not nearly as economical as the Mustang.


----------



## Hop (Aug 30, 2007)

> Thanks for the info on the Spit IX with the long range tanks.
> I like the bit about if you have a rear view fuselage then they shouldn't be used in any situations. Not much point fitting them in the first place?



The manual extract Kurfurst posted is from 1946. Post war safety standards were higher, and the RAF went so far as to remove the rear fuselage tanks from most of their Mustangs for safety reasons.

In general, the Spitfire suffered the same stability problems with rear tanks as the Mustang, indeed the RAF manuals for the Spitfire IX and Mustang III (P-51B/C) give slightly greater restrictions for the Mustang:

Spitfire:
"Acrobatics are not permitted when carrying any external stores (except the 30-gallon " blister " drop tank) nor when the rear fuselage tanks contain more than 30 gallons of fuel, and are not recommended when the rear fuselage tanks contain any fuel."

Mustang:
"Flick manoeuvres arc not permitted. When carrying bombs or drop tanks, or with fuel in fuselage tank, aerobatics are prohibited."

I'd expect restrictions to be a bit worse on the P-51D, which wasn't as stable as the B, and a bit better on a Spitfire with wing tanks (more weight forward of the CG)


----------



## drgondog (Aug 30, 2007)

renrich said:


> I believe the P51 could get by on less than 48 gph at cruise. The Corsair could use as little as 42 gallons per hour at cruise and it was not nearly as economical as the Mustang.



Rich I know you are right but the 48 gph was Packard Merlin spec for 1650-7 so that's what I used for calulations... and that applied to low blower at 16,500 feet - cruise in 8th AF would have been 26-30K at high blower

Dad could easily get 42+ but had to watch temperatures pretty close. Would be easy today with EGT/CHT sensor pkg.


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Jan 28, 2016)

I went with the '38L but a good argument can be made for the 47N as well. The '51D was a great plane, but that's a long dam way to go with a single liquid cooled engine where one bullet anywhere in the cooling system means you're not driving home. Over Europe, captured pilots weren't treated too terribly as a rule by their captors. Over the Pacific, with 1000 miles of shark infested water or a Japanese prison camp as choices...I'd take either 2 liquid cooled engines, or a R2800.


----------



## gumbyk (Jan 28, 2016)

Holy thread resurrection, Batman!!!!


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Jan 28, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> Holy thread resurrection, Batman!!!!


Oops, Yes, sorry. I was typing in the heading for a new topic and this one came up-didn't realize it was a necro thread.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2016)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Oops, Yes, sorry. I was typing in the heading for a new topic and this one came up-didn't realize it was a necro thread.


Some new guys like to re start the conversation, can be interesting.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2016)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Oops, Yes, sorry. I was typing in the heading for a new topic and this one came up-didn't realize it was a necro thread.



No worries. Sometimes it brings up new interesting discussion. 

The guys will just mess with you though...


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No worries. Sometimes it brings up new interesting discussion.
> 
> The guys will just mess with you though...


The last eleven years has seen a great improvement in the Merlins now we have fixed the oil leaks, also the P47 climb performance has vastly improved. Now if only we could sort out the dreadful take off and landing accidents on the Bf109 we would be making some real progress.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 28, 2016)

New members, new perspectives.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 29, 2016)

What syscom said.

BTW, the Ta-152 is said to have great range/radius. That is indeed true, with 2 caveats. 
One, it already has a low G limit, 5 G for 4500 kg, while normal take off weight was 5220 kg for the Ta-152H-1 (the one with wing tanks). I'm not sure that anyone in Allied side would ever consider such low G limit on a fighter. 
Second is that wing tanks were not self sealing, nor were protected in some other way. Again, nobody in Allied side will consider a fighter with unprotected/non self sealing tanks after 1940.

The G limit for the P-47N was 8, 'light' design weight, for the P-51H was 7.33 for same weight category, 5 was for max take off weight. Basically, the P-51H have had same G limit with drop tanks as the Ta-152H with fuel tanks half empty.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 31, 2016)

> The last eleven years has seen a great improvement in the Merlins now we have fixed the oil leaks, also the P47 climb performance has vastly improved. Now if only we could sort out the dreadful take off and landing accidents on the Bf109 we would be making some real progress.



And with Kurfurst banned, we will no longer regard the Spitfire in a negative light...


----------



## pbehn (Jan 31, 2016)

nuuumannn said:


> And with Kurfurst banned, we will no longer regard the Spitfire in a negative light...


I read recently that the spitfire would have been transformed by ditching the airframe and replacing it with one from a Bf109, it was a world beater the world overlooked. I didnt know Kurfurst, before my time.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 31, 2016)

pbehn said:


> The last eleven years has seen a great improvement in the Merlins now we have fixed the oil leaks, also the P47 climb performance has vastly improved. *Now if only we could sort out the dreadful take off and landing accidents on the Bf109 we would be making some real progress.*



The Finns were working on that issue!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 31, 2016)

nuuumannn said:


> And with Kurfurst banned, we will no longer regard the Spitfire in a negative light...



No, just the 109 now...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 31, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No, just the 109 now...


If the 109 had a merlin engine it would have 6-1 kill rate against the P51 a lieutenant colonel told me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 31, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The Finns were working on that issue!
> 
> View attachment 335588



I fear that Adler may have seen this.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 29, 2016)

I didn't engage in this thread earlier but offer the following:

The P-51B was the most IMPORTANT long range fighter in the war. It was there in December 1943, received the 85 Gallon Fuselage tank modification, launching P-51s to Berlin in March 1944. Between December 1, 1943 and May 31, 1944 they were the sole "deep escort fighter" going to Berlin, Munich, Leipzig, Posnan, Brux, etc. at least 100 miles past the P-38J - and responsible for 60% of the LW losses in the ETO during that time, and virtually all of the P-51 victory credits for the 8th and 9th AF..

Combat radius is a derivative of Gallons of fuel/per engine stored internally, as drop tanks must be punched off when combat ensued. The P-38 has about 15% less and the P-47 (slightly more) but a 50% higher burn rate for the R-2800.

The entry of the P-51B into ETO was first started without pressurized 75 gallon wing tanks, (same as P-47 and P-38 150 gallon ferry tanks). All three were modified with the necessary mods to introduce combat tanks Vs ferry tanks in March 1944.

The P-47N had slightly more combat radius - but more importantly it could not do anything in PTO that P-51D could not, and it was introduced into combat nearly 10 months after VE Day.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 3, 2016)

Short, crisp and to the point 
BTW - the P-47N was introduced a bit earler than that? It could probably cover all of Japan from Ivo Jima, bar Hokkaido?


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 3, 2016)

"The day I saw Mustangs over Berlin, I knew the jig was up." Hermann Goering

I think this quote sums it up pretty well. You have to remember the impact that these aircraft had on morale, and this coming from a high-ranking Luftwaffe officer as Goering shows it.


----------



## ww2restorer (Mar 3, 2016)

*Goering was an idiot, had nothing to do with the p51. He was warned by all his senior Luftwaffe personal from the days of the Condor Legion, but he thought because he had the Pour le Mérite he was above everyone and no one knew more about aviation tactics.*


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 3, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> *Goering was an idiot, had nothing to do with the p51. He was warned by all his senior Luftwaffe personal from the days of the Condor Legion, but he thought because he had the Pour le Mérite he was above everyone and no one knew more about aviation tactics.*


That quote shows the effect it had on the morale, seeing them over Berlin.

It doesn't say anything about his personal attributes.
He was a leader from what was, by then a bygone era. Someone who could (or would) not adapt to the times.


----------



## ww2restorer (Mar 3, 2016)

Góring should have made a similar quote on the 25 August 1940, when the RAF bombed Berlin, without the aid of any fighter escort.


----------



## CarlAce (Mar 3, 2016)

P-47N,


----------



## parsifal (Mar 4, 2016)

care to expand on that.......why where how


----------



## CarlAce (Mar 4, 2016)

parsifal said:


> care to expand on that.......why where how


I bought a book on the P-47 combat missions. Seems like the N was better than the P51 at least on paper.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 4, 2016)

The P-47N had a significant advantage above 30000 feet in both speed and climb over the P-51A/B/D/K but not the P-51H which was being readied for PTO in March, 1945 when the P-47N arrived in PTO.

On the other hand, for a small performance advantage - including very small range advantage, the P-47N was 50% more expensive to buy and 50-60% more expensive to operate.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CarlAce (Mar 4, 2016)

drgondog said:


> The P-47N had a significant advantage above 30000 feet in both speed and climb over the P-51A/B/D/K but not the P-51H which was being readied for PTO in March, 1945 when the P-47N arrived in PTO.
> 
> On the other hand, for a small performance advantage - including very small range advantage, the P-47N was 50% more expensive to buy and 50-60% more expensive to operate.[/QUOTE
> 
> Aha, thanks for the info.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 4, 2016)

drgondog said:


> The P-47N had a significant advantage above 30000 feet in both speed and climb over the P-51A/B/D/K but not the P-51H which was being readied for PTO in March, 1945 when the P-47N arrived in PTO.
> 
> On the other hand, for a small performance advantage - including very small range advantage, the P-47N was 50% more expensive to buy and 50-60% more expensive to operate.



The advantage in range, P-47N vs. Merlin Mustang was 300 miles, ie. 1000 vs. 700 miles (for 210 mpg IAS, at 25000 ft).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 4, 2016)

CarlAce said:


> I bought a book on the P-47 combat missions. Seems like the N was better than the P51 at least on paper.



I bought a book once as well!


----------



## pbehn (Mar 4, 2016)

In a very strange poll I vote for the Mosquito because it was a long range fighter by both day and night and in its bomber variant it would be best at avoiding itself.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 7, 2016)

Tomo - you are correct when a.) the P-47N comparison include the two 165 plus one CL 110 gallon external (not normal in PTO but was in fact used that way), and b.) the P-51D is carrying 'standard ETO' external 110's.

In the PTO, the P-51D SOP was to carry the 165's vs the 110's and the range parity was far less than 300 miles per the Combat Radius Charts as the 50% bonus external fuel enabled the P-51D to maximize range radius of clean airplane operation on near full internal load at 25000 feet.

Look, for example at the P-47N Combat radius with 2000 pound bomb load and full internal fuel = 300 miles versus the P-51D (or H) with 2000 pound bomb load and full internal fuel = 375 miles.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 7, 2016)

The 165 gal drop tanks does not help out with internal fuel situation for the P-51, whether it has fuselage tank or not. The remaining internal fuel takes precedence, it does not help much if any that we have 330 gals of external fuel (plenty of what is lost once DTs are dropped), while after combat there is 150-175-200 gals.
You can note that AHT lists 700 miles of combat radius both for the the P-51H with 110 gal drop tanks and P-51D with 75 gal DTs. The 110 gal tanks already give diminishing return, let alone 165 gal ones?
The P-47N can use 2 x 300 gal tanks, with similar poor return, extra 25 miles under prevoiusly stated conditions.

Radius of bombed-up P-51 is indeed fine. The radius of a bombed-up P-47 (from 1944, so it includes -N) can be significantly boosted by using belly drop tank, the aircraft being safely under overload weight. Or, use a drop tank under one wing adn under belly, bomb under another wing. Similar with P-38, as we know from Ploesti raid (300 gal DT, 1000 lb bomb), that is before it acquires extra 4 racks under inner wing.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 7, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> The 165 gal drop tanks does not help out with internal fuel situation for the P-51, whether it has fuselage tank or not. The remaining internal fuel takes precedence, it does not help much if any that we have 330 gals of external fuel (plenty of what is lost once DTs are dropped), while after combat there is 150-175-200 gals.
> 
> *Tomo - I am well aware of the fact that operational combat radius is determined by internal fuel remaining, which is why I caveated the comment. PTO doctrine for VLR missions did not drain the 85 gallon tank which by that time, per Operation manual cited filling with 65 gallons and burning down to 25. The VLR missions carried the risk of engaging in combat with perhaps 65 gallons remaining after climbing to cruise altitude, then going to external tanks. The effect of retaining approximately 65 gallons instead of 25, and using the wing tank for warm up, take off and forming up was the same process with same amount burned off. The net is that with this process, operating under the assumptions for determining combat radius (combat, reserve, etc), leaves the P-51D with a 'bonus' 40 gallons at cruise (now at 210 IAS @65g/hr) or another 160-190 miles+ (radius miles) at the extreme.
> 
> ...



All agreed, but AHS data is per the P-51 Operations Manual - and a Guide pointing to 85 gallon cg issues, not a 'do not violate' Rule.


----------



## airminded88 (Mar 13, 2016)

Since the main subject of discussion is missions that lasted 7+ hours at a time I wonder how valuable driver comfort was rated among pilots. The P47 D and beyond might be an important contender.
Mission survivability must have been highly appreciated as well and the P38 with its two engines was well suited to offer extra reassurance of coming back if at least on a feathered one.
Anyways my vote for what it's worth goes to the P51. It proved its worth and effectiveness with factual results and in one of the most contested aerial battlefields of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hickam Field (May 30, 2016)

As a non-member (until recently) reading this sight's forums for many years, this is the first thread I've felt comfortable with answering P-51 or P-47 without someone profusely chanting why a Griffon Spit (Or if you're Soren, a 190D-9) is exponentially superior. Anyway, my answer based upon performance data on paper would be the P-47N. But in my opinion, those margins aren't large enough to offset the quantity, ease of production, and operational timeline of the P-51D. Dogfighter? Good enough. Ground support? I like the Mk.1A more. Escort fighter? Perfect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## My109 (Jul 14, 2016)

Obviously p51D


----------

