# ALLIED HIGH ALTITUDE PLAYOFFS - Mustang vs. Thunderbolt



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 28, 2005)

On the"Fighter vs. Interceptor" and "P-51's vs. Me-109's and Fw-190's" threads, there have been a number of comments to the effect that the P-47D hasn't been given a fair historical hearing as a result of the numerical superiority of the P-51D which has given the impression that the Mustang, as a dogfighter, reigned supreme in the skies of the ETO.

So how would the P-51D stack up against a later model P-47D (paddle blade and water injection)?

Specifically, how would the Mustang fare against the Thunderbolt at higher altitudes of say, 25,000 to 37,500 feet?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 28, 2005)

I think the -47 was a better airframe than the -51... All Versions and Variants...


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2005)

They were very similar in maneuverability, while the P-51 might have had a very small advantage in turning, but not at high speed. 

All in all, I would rate the P-47 as the superior machine.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 28, 2005)

Below is the general consensus of data regarding both aircraft per several web sites I have visited. That being said, I will be the first to point out that the sheer weight of consistent data appearing in multiple places constitutes no verification of accuracy. (I determined this when the general consensus of data for the P-47M and "N" models found in most books and web sites turned out to be inconsitent with primary source data published by Republioc Aviation itself.)

If my data below appears to be incorrect, please do not hesitate to let us all know.


*P-51D*

H.P. - 1,720

Wing Area - 233sqft

Top Speed - 437mph

Loaded Weight - 9,449lbs

Rate of Climb - 3,478fpm

Armament - Six .50 cal M2 machine guns


*P-47D*

H.P. - 2,530

Wing Area - 300sqft

Top Speed - 433mph

Loaded Weight - 14,600lbs

Rate of Climb - 3,120fpm

Armament - Eight .50 cal M2 machine guns


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 29, 2005)

Does anyone know how much horsepower the Mustang's engine develops at high altitudes of 32,000ft or more? I assume that the Thunderbolt's is the same 2,530hp all the way up to at least 32,000ft. (The "M" and "N" models retain literally 100% of their 2,800 horsepower all the way up to 32,000ft) After 32,000ft, I don't know what happens.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2005)

This isn't my attempt on correction, more an attempt to get clarification of the P-51s armament. I have read in several places that the Mustang actually had two M2 .50 cal and four "Browning .50 cal" which I assume means M1 .50 cal. 

Has anyone else read that anywhere? I still always say it had six M2s but still, I'm not going to discount the fact that I've read it only had two M2s while the rest were M1s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

Check out this site:

http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.html

If anyone has a POH it might have altitude performance charts.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 29, 2005)

I have never heard of an M1 .50 cal. machine gun. There are cartridges referred to as M1 however.

See: http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html

Could it have been a misprint? I have always understood that the M2 was the standard .50 cal gun on all U.S. fighters throughout the war. The M3 may have been used late in the war in the PTO in P-47N's although I have never seen any direct reference that that was the case.

FLYBOYJ, I have found a Griffon horsepower chart. While not the same engine, I think it would be similar to the extent that it shows a sharp drop off of horsepower as the altitude increases.

From: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14pt.html


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2005)

It didn't actually say M1, it said "four Browning .50 cal and two M2 .50 cal". I assume it was refering to M1 because the U.S marking system is M1 - M2 - M3 etc. etc. The A being subvariants...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

That chart should give you an idea. The critical altitude is were everything drops off real fast.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 29, 2005)

Plad_D said, "_ ...I've read it only had two M2s while the rest were M1s._"

I misunderstood that you meant that you had read that the rest were M1's.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 29, 2005)

FLYBOYJ,

It would appear then that at higher altitudes of 20-25,000ft on up, the Mustang's engine would start getting, shall we say, lightheaded. 

At some altitude (whatever that may be), I suspect that the Thunderbolt was every bit the equal if not superior to the Mustang in terms of dogfighting ability.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> FLYBOYJ,
> 
> It would appear then that at higher altitudes of 20-25,000ft on up, the Mustang's engine would start getting, shall we say, lightheaded.
> 
> At some altitude (whatever that may be), I suspect that the Thunderbolt was every bit the equal if not superior to the Mustang in terms of dogfighting ability.



Very well so - a radial engine performed way better at altitude with supercharging and did not have a great power drop-off at critical altitude.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2005)

I also wrote _"I have read in several places that the Mustang actually had two M2 .50 cal and four "Browning .50 cal" which I assume means M1 .50 cal."_


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 29, 2005)

Yes, Plan_D, you wrote both. You were indeed the one that wrote both and are thus responsible for giving rise to the resulting misunderstanding since the latter had a reasonable inference contrary to the former and upon which my response was anchored.

You said that you had read in several places that the P-51 had two M2's and four Browning .50's. You didn't say that any of those "several places" were the place where " _I've read it only had two M2s while the rest were M1s_." Clearly, it would be possible to read the former in several places in addition to the latter in a different place.

Think about it.

Lastly, in addition to having written both, you are also being a whiney bitch about it. This PMS thing is probably why you still don't have a boyfriend.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2005)

How am I being whiney, DAVID? The former section of my post should still have been fresh in your lousy mind to allow it not to become too confused by the latter. 

I'm not in the mood to stand down on your level to inflate your ego. Go find some small child in the street you can out-wit to get your fill.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2005)

Children Children Children both of you stop. I think he was kidding plan_D see the smiley after what he wrote. Lets be friendly now okay.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 30, 2005)

man i wish we could pull rank on this site


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 30, 2005)

The P-51B had 4 .50cal guns canted at an angle. I belive they were M2s. The D model had 6 .50 m2 machine guns in a verticle configuration eliminating a major source of jams.

I think the P-47 (paddle/water) had it from 30/32k on up. the P-51 was down to about 1,400hp and losing more quickly. However as the planes go lower the P-47 losses ground to the P-51.

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Jun 30, 2005)

Thank you, wmaxt.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 30, 2005)

Wmaxt, if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the Mustang's original 1,720hp is down to just 1,400hp by 30-32,000ft. I think that sounds too optimistic.

I wish we had a hp / altitude chart. You would think that they would be floating around by the dozens.

Robert Goebel flew Mustangs with the 31st Fighter Group, based at San Severo, Italy, in the MTO (Mediterranean Theater of Operations).

_The P-51 had a two-stage blower in the induction system that was controlled automatically with a barometric switch. Around 17,000 feet, when the throttle had been advanced almost all the way forward just to maintain normal cruise, the blower would kick into high, the manifold pressure would jump up, and the climb could be continued to 30,000 feet. The P-51 could be taken a lot higher than that, but above 30,000 feet the power was way down and the controls had to be handled gingerly._

From: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_13.html

The P-51H could develop 2,218hp at WEP at 10,200ft. By 20,000ft, it was already down to 1,900hp.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 30, 2005)

From: http://nasaui.ited.uidaho.edu/nasaspark/safety/history/rollsroyce.htm 

At 26,000 feet, the Merlin powered Mustang could produce better than 1,330hp (The maximum horsepower of the Allison)

I'm guessing (in the absence of reliable data on point) that the above indicates perhaps 1,350 to 1,400hp at 26,000ft for the Merlin.

The turbo-supercharged Pratt Whitney R-2800 was likely generating 2,530hp at 32,000ft.


----------



## Flyboy15 (Jul 1, 2005)

The P-47 was always one of the most reliable fighters flown by the allies. The P-51 is often over-rated as one of the best fighters the allies had, when in reality, it required and engine upgrade from the original version just to perform an escort duty. Also, the P-47 was capable of taking punishment from german fighters that no P-51 pilot would think of allowing. 

Also the subject of horse power. Considering the greater hp, the P-47 also weighed in much heavier than the P-51, thus making lift harder to generate to an efficent level for flight. When it comes down to which was the better aircraft, it really isn't about the numbers.

Toward the end of the war the P-51 was replacing every plane the allies had. From what I understand, quite a few P-47 pilots were not to happy about this exchange of aircraft.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 1, 2005)

> From what I understand, quite a few P-47 pilots were not to happy about this exchange of aircraft.


This is true.... Especially the guys that were doing alot of the USAAF ground pounding.....


----------



## evangilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I know at least one airplane mechanic who was very unhappy about it as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

I would actually think the P-47 would be easier to work on only because it was more reliable and rugged. As a pilot I would rather fly a P-47 over a P-51 anyday just because she coudl take more of a beating than a Mustang.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2005)

Don't forget, the -51 had one more system - cooling, another thing with fliud to leak....

Round engines are heavier and dirtier but way more reliable.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Agreed, for ground attack, radials are the way to go.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 1, 2005)

Some of you have mentioned that many P-47 pilots were not happy about the shift to P-51's. I had never heard that before. I had actually read in one book (I don't remember the title) that when the shift occurred, they were happy as the P-51 was a much better performer.

Do you know specifically what the complaints were concerning their new mounts?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Some of you have mentioned that many P-47 pilots were not happy about the shift to P-51's. I had never heard that before. I had actually read in one book (I don't remember the title) that when the shift occurred, they were happy as the P-51 was a much better performer.
> 
> Do you know specifically what the complaints were concerning their new mounts?



Mike Alba - a pilot I knew and mentioned on other posts told me his squadron didn't want to give up their P-38s!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

If people are satisfied with what they have, generally they don't want to change. Especially if they've had that plane for a long time.


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2005)

remember my comments awhile ago ? the Pioneer Mustang group in the 9th AF, the 354th fg were issued the P-51 first (December 1943) and then the unit was relieved of the Mustangs to be sent to the 8th and the 354th had to fly Jugs which they absolutely hated for escort duties and only in January/February of 45 were they again assigned the P-51 the Jug was hurriedly pushed into other 9th AF units


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 1, 2005)

Erich, no I don't recall but it is common knowledge that there was more or less a wholesale switch from P-47's to P-51's. Your post is consistent with what I had previously read which was that the the P-51 was greatly preferred over the P-47. (You mentioned the P-47 was "absolutely hated" for escort duties.

As my post above indicates, I am hearing on this thread that many P-47 pilots were unhappy with the switch to P-51's. 

My question still stands. Do you know of any specific complaints by P-47 pilots concerning the switch to P-51's?


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2005)

D :

My pilot interviews are with 8th AF primarily but also with 354th fg Pioneer vets and some P-47 vets that never switched their mounts of the 9th AF.

The 8th AF felt the Jug was good for it's intention ealrier in the war and that was to provide limited capabilites for escort but once inward of central Germany the Jugs performance of long range fell off. The Mustang filled the role to Prague and beyond. the 56th fg boyz of course have other opinions but had updated mounts later in the war


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 1, 2005)

The 2 pilots Im referring to were from the 9th AF, and felt that the punishment the -47 could handle, and its high altitude performance, were better suited to their mission profiles than the -51D... One round in the engine compartment and u were done....

I think alot of the opinions favoring the -47 are because of it ground attack and damage absorbtion abilities....


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2005)

lets look at the role the 9th AF played. It's primary mission except for the 9th AF 354th was ground attack duties. only 3 units were flying the P-51 by the wars end and 1 of them the 363rd became an all important air recon unit. proof too is that the top 15 aces in the 9th AF were flying the P-51 and had the majority of kills in the bird. 2 pilots were from the P-51 equipped 10th PRG


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 1, 2005)

David, your right about the hp of the Mustang it was down to about 700hp at 30k.

Erich, you have some valid points there.

I will stick with my 30,000ft split between the P-51/P-47 in a fighter capacity. In ground attack give me the Jug.

The plane prefference issue is big, sometimes a plane just fits and feels right, sometimes not. With the P-38s there was a huge range of acceptance of new aircraft. The 474FG refused to let theirs go and were allowed to keep them through the war. Others were happy at least at first, to go to 51s because of heating etc, many of those regetted it later based on performance. Another group was very happy to get 51s because of bad rep/dislike by commander of the P-38s. I've read less on the P-47/P-51 transitions but the hype was similar, a lot of pilots were told the P-51 was the best thing since sliced bread and wanted/happy to get it.

In the PTO 1 squadron went from P-38s to P-47s and their kill rates went way down. When they switched back they went back up. In the PTO the switch from P-38s was always resisted.

I have read that the diary of George Preddy listed them this way: 
The P-38 is a wonderful flying ship.
The P-47 is an nice flying ship, later Sure getting disappointed in the Jug.
The P-51 is a good flying ship.

In the end you flew what they gave you!

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2005)

I dont know to me I would rather have the P-47 because as I stated up there she was rugged and reliable but she also had good performance. I also love the fact that she could get down and dirty doing the HOE hunting ground pounders. She was built for that shit, and I love her for it!


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 3, 2005)

I remember reading somewhere that the P-47 was better than the P-51 Mustang at altitudes over 25,000ft. It was a WWII fighter pilot who said it but I don't remember who.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2005)

Well the P-47D-22 had a max speed of 435 mph at 30000 ft, the P-47N had a max speed of 467 mph at 32500 ft. The P-51D had a max speed of 437 mph at 25000 ft. So it had a higher speed at higher alttitudes but I do not know how the 2 compared in maneuaverability at high alltitudes. Now having said that I do not know, I would go with the P-47.

Some interesting facts for the P-47:

545.575 operational sorties made by 15.683 produced aircraft.
7.067 aircraft destroyed of which 3.572 in the air
3499 aircraft lost, amongst which...
884 lost in the air for a kill/loss ratio of 4,6/1
9.000+ locomotives destroyed
86.000+ rail wagons destroyed
6.000+ armored vehicles destroyed
68.000+ motor vehicles destroyed
60.000 horse-drawn vehicles destroyed


----------



## epeon (Mar 13, 2008)

I talked to an engineer who worked on the P-47D as well as other models. He was a pilot as well and flew almost all the US inventory. Anyways, he said that the P-47D was vastly under rated because the official specifications were not accurate. They were based upon lower octane fuel. And by 1944 they were using 150 octane fuel in Europe. He said that you could easily overboost the engine and everyone did. Thus, he said that speeds in excess of 440 mph were easy to achieve. He told me that he flew a P-47D at war weights and, in tests, was able to achieve 450 mph at altitude.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 13, 2008)

DAVIDICUS said:


> On the"Fighter vs. Interceptor" and "P-51's vs. Me-109's and Fw-190's" threads, there have been a number of comments to the effect that the P-47D hasn't been given a fair historical hearing as a result of the numerical superiority of the P-51D which has given the impression that the Mustang, as a dogfighter, reigned supreme in the skies of the ETO.
> 
> So how would the P-51D stack up against a later model P-47D (paddle blade and water injection)?
> 
> Specifically, how would the Mustang fare against the Thunderbolt at higher altitudes of say, 25,000 to 37,500 feet?



P-51B-15 - May 1944 with Wing Racks at 9680 (full combat load - no external fuel)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-24771-level-blue.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-24771-climb-blue.jpg

Net 

Max Speed Max Climb
SL 380 4,380
20K 431 3,000
32K 410 1,200

Oct 1944 Test Comaprisons of P-47D, M and N

Summary http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/comp-p47dmn.jpg

Charts
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47m-n-speed.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47m-n-climb.jpg

Up through 32,000 feet the P-51B-15 with racks, full internal combat load, at full boost of 75" (5 minute) The 51B is faster through 29,000 feet than the P47D in this comparison, and still climbs slightly better at 32,000 feet (1,200fpm vs 1,100 fpm) The 51B-15 is faster than the M on the deck and slightly slower at 20,000 and climbs 10% slower at 20,000. At 32,000 feet the M is demonstrably faster and climbs faster.

At the end of the day, however, the P-51 in 16 months of ops in the ETO outscored the Jug AND the Lighning in combined air scores.. and more than double the P-47 during its entire Combat Operation period - at least 24 months for P-47 versus 16 for the 51.

The air to air ratio for the P-51 was 10:1, the Jug 7:1 and the Lightning 3:1.

The 'ratio' does NOT include other Combat Operations and Accident Losses. 

BTW - for the 8th AF, the loss ratio of Mustangs lost while strafing is much less than the P-38 and less than the P-47. This is stricly based on USAAF Macr details regarding cause or probable cause of loss versus the Awards from USAAF VCB July 1945 totals for German a/c awards for destroyed on the ground 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/marshall/SUMMARY_OF_COMBAT_OPERATIONS.pdf

This article I wrote is going in my new book but it has all the 8th AF FC statistics to serve as a backdrop for comparing the 355th FG.

Whatever conclusions one wishes to draw about the Mustang - it was more effective at taking out the Luftwaffe than both the P-38 and P-47 combined.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 13, 2008)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Erich, no I don't recall but it is common knowledge that there was more or less a wholesale switch from P-47's to P-51's. Your post is consistent with what I had previously read which was that the the P-51 was greatly preferred over the P-47. (You mentioned the P-47 was "absolutely hated" for escort duties.
> 
> As my post above indicates, I am hearing on this thread that many P-47 pilots were unhappy with the switch to P-51's.
> 
> My question still stands. Do you know of any specific complaints by P-47 pilots concerning the switch to P-51's?



For those that did not like the switch from P-47 to P-51 it was all about a perception of more ruggedness and reliability of the R-2800 over the Merlin/plumbing combo.

The late model D-25 and above had superior performance over the 51B and D above 30,000 feet in most categories.

But until it got the fuel that the M and N got - it got the baby sitting duties inbound and outbound while the 51s got to shoot down German a/c during target escort.. thats why the 51 had 1700 more air awards than the P-47 despite being in-theater in the ETO for 8 months less.

Besides - the primary strike zone for air combat was 2-3000 feet above the bombers all the way down to the deck and the 51 had the edge in just about every category except roll and middle zone dive speed.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Mar 13, 2008)

I have read a few accounts of WWII P-47 pilots who later flew in Korea and wished they still had their P-47s due to the fact that they were vulnerable in their ground attack duties with the P-51. I have even read an account of a P-40 pilot in the CBI theater who would have rather have kept his P-40 than change over to the P-51 due to the "miles of glycol plumbing" that the Merlin required (I guess since the Merlin had the intercooler it had more plumbing?).

I think that it will always depend on the pilot as far as preference. I personally would have wanted the P-47N.


----------



## Zarathos (Mar 14, 2008)

One question? Why is Mustang D called high altitude player? I always thought, that it was powered by low altitude engine (US version of Merlin 66)?


----------



## mad_max (Mar 14, 2008)

The early B models had the "high" alt. -3 engine. The reason it was changed out for the -7 is this engine had it's top HP at the alt. the bombers operated at and more power lower than the -3 Merlin.






















Robert W. Gruenhagen - Mustang - The Story of the P-51 Fighter
ISBN 0-668-03912-4


----------



## Bswademn (Oct 6, 2009)

Hey Gang,

I’ve browsed a few books on the 56th fighter group, Beware the Thunderbolt, Wolfpack, Thunderbolt and a few others I cant think of right now, but the consensus of those books it seemed, that the 56th didn’t like or want the mustang for their purposes. They did mostly escort and fighter sweep duties with the strafing coming on the return home after escort release. The late model p-47 with the Hamilton? or paddle prop along with water injection\emergency boost made them superior to most axis or allied fighters above 20,000 and the 56th stayed with them till the end. I think they finished 1/2 or 1 kill behind the 4th? FG. And I get the feeling the added range of the P-51 allowed for a freer hand in looking for axis fighters.

The cool slick scoop, flashy sliver paint and Hollywood good looks of the p-51D was possibly a media magnet for the time but I think the Jugs flown by 56th knew few peers, they outdived(all), outclimbed (paddle) outran(N model) and with 8 50 cals, outshoot most opponents. And in my humble opinion a silver P-47N Thunderbolt is one of the most beautiful Combat airplanesflown, but then again I’m a fan, in case you couldn’t tell.

Thanks
BSW


----------



## fibus (Oct 6, 2009)

The AAF bought more p47s' that any other so that tells us something.
Pilots in inferior aircraft downed the best we had to offer. Example the Oscar and the p38.

Strictly on performanc and handling qualities I endorse the p47.
Over all it is piloting and tactics,
Ponder: Any model p40 would oututrn any p51 or p47 under 300 mph at 15,000 feet or less.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 6, 2009)

fibus said:


> Ponder: Any model p40 would oututrn any p51 or p47 under 300 mph at 15,000 feet or less.



i've some doubt this is true for the P-51, what is the source?


----------



## scottd (Oct 6, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Whatever conclusions one wishes to draw about the Mustang - it was more effective at taking out the Luftwaffe than both the P-38 and P-47 combined.



Another thing to consider is that when the P-51 came into theater, it wasn't dealing with the cream of the crop Luftwaffe pilots that the P-47 and P-38 where. Then in combination with switching of roles for the P-47 and P-51, it reduced the amount of A2A engagements that the P-47 could partake in, outside of the 56th FG


----------



## drgondog (Oct 6, 2009)

Bswademn said:


> Hey Gang,
> 
> I’ve browsed a few books on the 56th fighter group, Beware the Thunderbolt, Wolfpack, Thunderbolt and a few others I cant think of right now, but the consensus of those books it seemed, that the 56th didn’t like or want the mustang for their purposes. They did mostly escort and fighter sweep duties with the strafing coming on the return home after escort release. The late model p-47 with the Hamilton? or paddle prop along with water injection\emergency boost made them superior to most axis or allied fighters above 20,000 and the 56th stayed with them till the end. I think they finished 1/2 or 1 kill behind the 4th? FG. And I get the feeling the added range of the P-51 allowed for a freer hand in looking for axis fighters.
> 
> ...



The paddle blade props took the jug from a sea level hog in climb to respectable but far from 'outclimbing' other Allied front line fighters until the M/N models - and that was only above 30,000 feet. Outdive - barely if at all with respect to the P-51 and the Tempest and the Spit XIV, outran - yes above 28,000 feet, out turn - no, out roll yes.

However the air war over Germany was fought mostly between 25,000 and the deck so the Jug was rarely able to capitalize on its major high altitude strengths.

Every 8th AF Mustang group that started with (357th), or converted to (4th, 355th, 352nd), the Mustang in March/April 1944 outscored the 56th FG in the air to the end of the war.

IMHO the 56th FG would have topped 1000 in the air had it converted to the Mustang as the first P-47 Gp (versus 4th/355th) in late February, 1944. They were handicapped by sticking to the Jug, not helped if air scores is the metric.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 6, 2009)

scottd said:


> Another thing to consider is that when the P-51 came into theater, it wasn't dealing with the cream of the crop Luftwaffe pilots that the P-47 and P-38 where. Then in combination with switching of roles for the P-47 and P-51, it reduced the amount of A2A engagements that the P-47 could partake in, outside of the 56th FG



The 'cream of the crop' for Luftwaffe was at its peak in June 1940 and declined therefater due to lack of foresight of senior command. The USAAF and RAF and VVS were building as the LW was declining in 1942-1943.

In the air battles over France and Holland in 1943, the USAAF 8th and 9th AF and RAF were taking out 100-200 fighters, fewer pilots (bail out, C/L). In March, April, May the LW was losing ~1000 pilots per month to the 8th AF. The major reason the P-47 didn't have a more serious impact is that the LW learned to put their fighters up beyond the range of the P-47s... and continued that policy in most cases until the late P-47D (-25 and -27) came in theatre.

As I noted above - ALL P-47 groups were relegated to Penetration and Withdrawal support while the P-38s and P-51s had Target Escort. 

Having said this, the 56th FG alone had twice the air to air credits of ALL the P-38 scores combined in the 8th AF. The Mustang broke the back of the LW in the battle of Germany - not the P-47 and certainly not the P-38.


----------



## Nikademus (Oct 6, 2009)

drgondog said:


> However the air war over Germany was fought mostly between 25,000 and the deck so the Jug was rarely able to capitalize on its major high altitude strengths.




This was my impression as well. I often see "P-47 was invincible at high altitude" type comments elsewhere but have never really found any consistant instances in my own studies where such ultra-high alt combat occured. As you stated, it was usually below 30k. It would be nice to see good comparisons between it and the 109k, the 190D and Ta-152H for this speculative high alt matchup.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 6, 2009)

Nikademus said:


> This was my impression as well. I often see "P-47 was invincible at high altitude" type comments elsewhere but have never really found any consistant instances in my own studies where such ultra-high alt combat occured. As you stated, it was usually below 30k. It would be nice to see good comparisons between it and the 109k, the 190D and Ta-152H for this speculative high alt matchup.



The Ta 152H should perform well at 35K relative to the P-47M, the P-51D, the 109K based on power loading (acceleration) and lift loading relative to the others. A P-51H with WI would be roughly equivalent to the production 152H with MW50 and a light P-47M should do well also given equivalent pilots.

In fact all were pushing limits to perform aerial combat above 35K as it is much easier to stall during energy bleed manuevers. The Ta 152H theoretically should be better near stall ranges based on extraordinary wing twist to maintain control of wing tips at near stall.


----------



## Nikademus (Oct 6, 2009)

Interesting. Which plane do you think would have the edge in turning maneuverability above 30k? (At least initially) The P-47 tends to get described in general as "suprisingly nimble" in this situation which then tends to get generalized as "more nimble" than it's adversaries (and possibly, it's fellow Allied planes) but i've got my doubts.


----------



## vanir (Oct 6, 2009)

I did read the P-47 had some kind of issue with the turbine impeller overspeeding at the upper ranges of its service ceiling.

Also great point there drgondog about the handling effects of high altitude flight. It's not at all the same thing as a low alt or med alt dogfight and has different rules, so has different engineering requirements for best performance. The Ta152H was specifically designed to address these in every sense, the P-47 not quite as much to such an extreme. So in one sense although the Thunderbolt alt capabilities are remarkable and it is capable, they are still apples and oranges by design I think.

Insofar as combat reports I've seen for Ta152H pilots I've read only what appears to be the accounts of those airfield protection squads, who spoke mainly about boom and zooms from 7km down to 3-5km engagement and then back up to 8km with ease. They remarked on the Ta152H diving strength and powerful zoom. I've not read any reports about high alt combat in these types and only test pilot reports of extreme high alt performance in general.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Oct 7, 2009)

Of relevance to this discussion are the tabulated results of the Joint Fighter Conference in 1944. For what it's worth, participating Army Air Force and Navy fighter pilots who tested numerous fighters judged the P-47 to be the best fighter above 25,000 feet. The P-51 ended up second with the P-47 edging it out with more than a 15% higher vote count. Given the fact that by this time most Bolt drivers were now Mustang drivers, I think it stands to reason that there was probably an over representation of Mustang pilots who were by and large happy with their upgrade. 

For best fighter below 25,000 feet, the P-51 was barely edged out by the F8F Bearcat with the F4U-1 following very closely behind the P-51.


----------

