# Douglas SBD Dauntless upgrade/replacement



## gjs238 (Dec 15, 2011)

You have the opportunity to use hindsight to upgrade or replace the Douglas SBD Dauntless.
This is your opportunity to achieve an outcome superior to the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 15, 2011)

Something along with Grumman Avenger with dive brakes seem like non-problematic solution. Another proposal could be Vultee Vengence, with bigger wings (400 sq ft?), 2 wing HMGs, 1 back.


----------



## davebender (Dec 15, 2011)

All the SBD needs is a more powerful engine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> You have the opportunity to use hindsight to upgrade or replace the Douglas SBD Dauntless.
> This is your opportunity to achieve an outcome superior to the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver.


It was done - it was called a "Skyraider."


----------



## davebender (Dec 15, 2011)

A fabulous attack aircraft but it's a long way off. Until then I think the SBD can get the job done provided it has an engine producing more then 1,200 hp.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 15, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> You have the opportunity to use hindsight to upgrade or replace the Douglas SBD Dauntless.
> This is your opportunity to achieve an outcome superior to the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver.



Hey, that's easy! The USN could replace both the TBF and SB2C with license built Fairey Barracudas.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2011)

davebender said:


> A fabulous attack aircraft but it's a long way off. Until then I think the SBD can get the job done provided it has an engine producing more then 1,200 hp.


Actually it wasn't far off...

The Skyraider was to be a succesor to the SBD and was originated designated and named XBT2D-1 Dauntless II. It would have had a bombing and torpedo capability combining VT and VS squadrons. Even before the Skyraider was on the drawing board, Douglas was looking to manufacture an aircraft that would replace both the Dauntless and Heldiver with the XSB2D-1 Destroyer. The aircraft was ordered and later canceled as the war ended. It also had a remote controlled turret. The aircraft eventually morphed into the Skyraider.

The Destroyer flew in 1943, the Skyraider in 1945, not really that far off....

The SBD served well with or without the 1,200 Wright and the 1,000 HP engine birds eventually faded away as the war progressed, replaced with the -5. Basically this is a case of a seemingly obsolete aircraft that served well regardless of its limitations.


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 15, 2011)

I wonder if a crew of 2 or 3 makes for an aircraft too heavy and slow.
Perhaps a crew of 1, more like the A-36.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> Hey, that's easy! The USN could replace both the TBF and SB2C with license built Fairey Barracudas.


 If only they could be operated without glycol!

With a max speed of about 230 and some of the operational problems the aircraft had, I almost would rather fly a Devestator!


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 15, 2011)

Devastating to whom???


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 15, 2011)

The A-36 was a derivative of the P-51.
I wonder if other fighters could have made the switch as well?
F4U, F6F? (Remember though, talking about making a real dive bomber, not a fighter bomber.)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Devastating to whom???


 Those flying it. It was about 25 mph slower than the Barracuda


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 15, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If only they could be operated without glycol!
> 
> With a max speed of about 230 and some of the operational problems the aircraft had, I almost would rather fly a Devestator!


 

Except the Barracuda could carry a torpedo that actually worked, and they weren't that slow:

_Trials of the Mk 1 at Boscombe Down in October 1941 showed a weight of 12,820 lb (5,830 kg) when equipped with 1,566 lb (712 kg) torpedo; at this weight the Mk 1 showed a maximum speed of 251 mph (405 km/h) at 10,900 ft _
Fairey Barracuda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Barra mk2 was also encumbered with ASV and other gear, which the USN wouldn't need for daylight attacks. 

The Mk2 entered RN service about 6 months prior to the SB2C entering USN service (IIRC), and this could probably have been sped up with a US decision to built the Barracuda in mid 1941.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 15, 2011)

double post.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 15, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> Hey, that's easy! The USN could replace both the TBF and SB2C with license built Fairey Barracudas.


Geez thats a very sick idea. Why in the world would you opt for that thing I know you have a penchant for Brit Aircraft and your name suggests RCAF but what was the last Brit aircraft used my guess is the Bristol Freighter. Do you think there is a reason for that


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 15, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Geez thats a very sick idea. Why in the world would you opt for that thing I know you have a penchant for Brit Aircraft and your name suggests RCAF but what was the last Brit aircraft used my guess is the Bristol Freighter. Do you think there is a reason for that



The Barracuda had it's share of problems, but so did the Sb2C, and it was still a very competent dive bomber and an excellent torpedo bomber.


----------



## Juha (Dec 15, 2011)

There were SBD with more powerful engine, that was SBD-6 with 1350hp engine. I cannot remember for sure but I think it was still considered to be too slow and too short-legged by Navy top brass. Controversially at Marianas IIRC more SB2C-1s ran out of fuel than SBD-5s

No Barracudas, please. It was underpowered beast with some bad habits.

Juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> The Barracuda had it's share of problems, but so did the Sb2C, and it was still a very competent dive bomber and an excellent torpedo bomber.


The SB2C had many problems, you still can't compare it to the Barracuda. In hindsite the need was seen for a replacement fro both SBD and SB2C and the answer was the Skyraider.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> Except the Barracuda could carry a torpedo that actually worked, and they weren't that slow:
> 
> _Trials of the Mk 1 at Boscombe Down in October 1941 showed a weight of 12,820 lb (5,830 kg) when equipped with 1,566 lb (712 kg) torpedo; at this weight the Mk 1 showed a maximum speed of 251 mph (405 km/h) at 10,900 ft _
> Fairey Barracuda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



And the Mk 2 had a speed under 230 mph. Even at 251, it wan't dropping the torpedo at that speed. The torpedo issue has NOTHING to do with the aircraft.

Performance
Maximum speed: 228 mph (198 kn, 367 km/h) at 1,750 ft (533 m)
Cruise speed: 195 mph (170 kn, 314 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,524 m)
Range: 686 mi (597 nmi, 1,104 km) with 1,620 lb (736 kg) torpedo
Service ceiling: 16,600 ft (5,080 m)
Wing loading: 32.6 lb/ft² (159 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.12 hp/lb (0.20 kW/kg)
Climb to 5,000 ft (1,524 m): 6 min

from your same source...Fairey Barracuda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 15, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The SB2C had many problems, you still can't compare it to the Barracuda. In hindsite the need was seen for a replacement fro both SBD and SB2C and the answer was the Skyraider.



The Skyraider didn't even fly till March 1945. It wasn't really an option to replace the SBD. The only other naval, carrier rated, dive bomber available in the needed time frame was the Barracuda II.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 15, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And the Mk 2 had a speed under 230 mph. Even at 251, it wan't dropping the torpedo at that speed. The torpedo issue has NOTHING to do with the aircraft.
> 
> Performance
> Maximum speed: 228 mph (198 kn, 367 km/h) at 1,750 ft (533 m)



The Mk 1 had a 1300hp Merlin 30 engine, and the Mk II had a 1640 hp Merlin 32. I really question the wikipedia stats for the Mk2, especially the speed, as they aren't referenced to flight tests, and I wonder if these speeds are with the engine at the 5min combat rating?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> The Skyraider didn't even fly till March 1945. It wasn't really an option to replace the SBD. The only other naval, carrier rated, dive bomber available in the needed time frame was the Barracuda II.


Read the history of the Skyraider. It was intened to replace the SBD once it was decided to go with a single seat aircraft. The initial intended replacement was the XSB2D-1 Destroyer, see post 7. The XBT2D-1 even carried the name "Dauntless II."

_*The piston-engined Skyraider was designed during World War II to meet US Naval requirements for a carrier-based, single-seat, long-range, high performance dive/torpedo bomber, to follow-on from earlier types such as the Helldiver and Avenger.* Designed by Ed Heinemann of the Douglas Aircraft Company, prototypes were ordered on 6 July 1944 as the XBT2D-1. The XBT2D-1 made its first flight on 18 March 1945 and in April 1945, the USN began evaluation of the aircraft at the Naval Air Test Center (NATC).[3]_

Douglas XBT2D-1 Dauntless II


----------



## GregP (Dec 16, 2011)

The Barracuda is easily among the top 5 ugliest aircraft ever produced. Wives of Barracude pilots divorced them when they found out. The Barracuda could drive enemy fighters away by just showing itself in the sky. The fighters would run so their pilots didn't have to look at Barracudas.

I know it was a decent performer but, really, it looked slightly worse than the north end of a southboud mule. Please, no Barracudas ... it would have been a big mistake, aesthetically anyway. The people assigned to fly them would have to have strong stomachs.

I like the Beechcraft A-38 Grizzly (see below), but it wasn't a carrier aircraft. Aside fromm that, it could have done the job. Of course, that's a big aside considering the Dauntless was a Navy carrier aircraft ... OK, I go with the Skyraider, like FlyboyJ.

View attachment 186973


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 16, 2011)

GregP said:


> The Barracuda is easily among the top 5 ugliest aircraft ever produced...



What? Look at these elegant lines:







The Barracuda was the very epitome of grace and elegance...!


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 16, 2011)

How about the Consolidated TBY Sea Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I know it was a torpedo bomber but I am sure I have read somewhere it was stressed and equipped for dive bombing as well.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 16, 2011)

Or How about the Fairy Firefly. The USN is never going to have a liquid cooled engine so license build the airframe and bolt an R2800 on in place of the Griyphon. The Japanese could do it so the US should have no problem with the job. I think tomopauk did one of his re engine jobs on the Firefly.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 16, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> What? Look at these elegant lines:
> 
> View attachment 186974
> 
> ...



Sorry I am a Brit so naturally inclined to think every British aircraft is the best but no just no. Worthy useful but elegant come off it the Barracuda is about as elegant and graceful as an Elephant on roller skates.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> What? Look at these elegant lines:
> 
> View attachment 186974
> 
> ...



Your opinion.....


----------



## renrich (Dec 16, 2011)

As the war began to wind down, the USN realised that the Corsair was almost as accurate a dive bomber as the SBD and a much better (obviously) multi role AC than the Helldiver. The Corsair went on to be the US air to ground airplane, replaced the F8F on all carriers and carried the lion's share of the load in Korea until the AD replaced it. The USN had the replacement for the SBD on hand in 1943-44 but did not realise it.


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 16, 2011)

As soon as feasible, perhaps Douglas could have started developing a R-2600, or even better, R-2800 powered version of the SBD.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2011)

renrich said:


> As the war began to wind down, *the USN realised that the Corsair was almost as accurate a dive bomber as the SBD and a much better (obviously) multi role AC than the Helldiver.* The Corsair went on to be the US air to ground airplane, replaced the F8F on all carriers and carried the lion's share of the load in Korea until the AD replaced it. The USN had the replacement for the SBD on hand in 1943-44 but did not realise it.


Very True and many times during Korea the Corsair flew along side the Skyraider and even made up "composite" squadrons.


gjs238 said:


> As soon as feasible, perhaps Douglas could have started developing a R-2600, or even better, R-2800 powered version of the SBD.


I don't think that was possible as the airframe was "stretched" as far as it can go. It was a dated design and that's why Douglas began development of the XSB2D-1 Destroyer. Compare the two, I think they were on the right track and not only would have developed an aircraft that could dive bomb, but could also be used as a torpedo bomber.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2011)

I am going with FlyboyJ on this. Some planes can be re-engined fairly easy and some cannot. Adding 500lbs of engine and a bigger prop to the SBD would have taken quite a of work plus the added fuel tanks to feed the bigger engine. 
Perhaps it could have been fitted with uprated versions of the cyclone but they depended on both new manufacturing techniques and higher rated fuel to get their 1350-1425hp ratings and would not be available until late in the war.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 16, 2011)

Wow, great info Joe!


----------



## renrich (Dec 16, 2011)

Why reengine the Dauntless( which was probably not possible) when the Corsair was ready. You could send a strike of Corsairs loaded with 1000 pound bombs and as soon as they dropped the bombs, presto, you had an air superiority fighter.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 16, 2011)

renrich said:


> Why reengine the Dauntless( which was probably not possible) when the Corsair was ready. You could send a strike of Corsairs loaded with 1000 pound bombs and as soon as they dropped the bombs, presto, you had an air superiority fighter.



When did the USN approve the Corsair for carrier operations?


----------



## renrich (Dec 17, 2011)

Navy F4U2s, night fighters, began operations off the Enterprise on January 9, 1944.
VMF111, on March 18, 1944, operate Corsairs as dive bombers against Makin Island. It is found that the Corsair can dive safely at 85 degrees, more steeply than the SBD.
The Navy recommends that all carrier fighter squadrons began operating with Corsairs as soon as possible on May 16,1944.


----------



## barney (Dec 17, 2011)

When ready to dive bomb, the F4U-1 Corsair pilot reached over and pulled the dive bomb control and the main gear extended but not the tail wheel. This latter fact fascinates me, with lots of planes flying around with fixed tail wheels, why the special control? The limiting speed for this dive condition was 403 mph per Brown.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2011)

barney said:


> When ready to dive bomb, the F4U-1 Corsair pilot reached over and pulled the dive bomb control and the main gear extended but not the tail wheel. This latter fact fascinates me, with lots of planes flying around with fixed tail wheels, why the special control? The limiting speed for this dive condition was 403 mph per Brown.


I do know that Corsairs did drop their gear for divebombing strikes but never heard of the tail wheel operating on a different hydraulic circuit.

Update! Found this from another site in reference to FAA Corsairs

_Air Ministry Pilot's notes for the Corsair I-IV for RAF and Royal Navy pilots.

Para 7

(i) On early aircraft the undercarriage control is a spring-loaded knob situated below the left-hand side of the instrument panel. To raise the undercarriage, pull out the knob, release the safety catch, and move to UP. To lower the u/c, pull out the knob, and move to DOWN when the safety catch will be automatically engaged. After setting the control to UP or DOWN ensure that the pin on the knob engages with the hole in the quadrant. The main wheels are used as dive brakes and may be lowered or raise independantly of the tailwheel by the control on the left of the u/c indicator._


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 17, 2011)

"... I do know that Corsairs did drop their gear for divebombing strikes ...."

I didn't know that until now ... .. nothing new under the sun.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 19, 2011)

@FLYBOYJ ....

Do you know if - when dropping LG for bombing - the folding doors closed over the wheel openings - just leaving the semi-circular doors covering the leading edge of the oleos ...? 

MM


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> @Flyboy Jr ....
> 
> Do you know if - when dropping LG for bombing - the folding doors closed over the wheel openings - just leaving the semi-circular doors covering the leading edge of the oleos ...?
> 
> MM



It's FLYBOYJ unless you know of an illegitimate son I left behind somewhere! 

As far as I can see all the landing gear doors stayed opened. Here's a grainy clip of one dropping napalm...







Here's an interesting site...

http://www.hms-vengeance.co.uk/page3.htm


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 19, 2011)

".... unless you know of an illegitimate son I left behind somewhere!"

Thank you, FLYBOYJ .... mother meant to speak to you ... 


Seasons Greetings,

MM


----------



## Arossihman (Dec 19, 2011)

first of all seasons greetings to all of you! secondly...what about the tigercat? I have heard it carrier manners werent the best but being a twin radial engined aircraft one could surmise it could haul a decent load into combat and sustain engine damage from ship or groundfire. Aside from all that i do agree that the skyraider was an excellent choice. Just ask the countless ground troops in korea and viet-nam that owe their lives to them!


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 20, 2011)

Was the Skyraider divebombing?
I was thinking of the replacement for the SBD.
With hindsight, perhaps the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver was not the ideal choice.

It's looking more and more like the replacement was at hand, but unknown at the time, the F4U.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 20, 2011)

"... It's looking more and more like the replacement was at hand, but unknown at the time, the F4U."

I agree.

MM


----------



## Njaco (Dec 20, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Was the Skyraider divebombing?
> I was thinking of the replacement for the SBD.
> With hindsight, perhaps the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver was not the ideal choice.
> 
> It's looking more and more like the replacement was at hand, but unknown at the time, the F4U.




Thats what I was thinking. Skyraider was in developement and ready by end of war. To me, that would be a logical extension of the SBD.


----------



## renrich (Dec 20, 2011)

The AD was a dive bomber. It had huge dive brakes which made it a formidable dogfighter.

The Helldiver was not considered to be an especially successful replacement for the Dauntless and the Dauntless soldiered on through the end of the war. By 1950 the Helldiver had been replaced as a dive bomber by the Corsair and the AD. However, the following surprised me:
The SB2C flew more than 18800 carrier based action sorties for the Navy.
The SBD flew sightly more than 6000 carrier based action sorties for the Navy.
The SBD did most of it's work as a Marine, flying almost 41000 land based action sorties.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 20, 2011)

SDB was a hard act to follow. Well balanced in design and a tough bird, kind of like the A-4 of the Vietnam era.

I'm with renrich. Take the F4U-1, put effort into solving carrier landing problems (mostly training) and install dive brakes. It would have great range, great speed, and a couple of thousand pounds better carrying capacity than the SBD. Very fast leaving the combat area. No plane could catch it and if they could, they wouldn't want to.


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 20, 2011)

Makes ya wonder if the USAAF would have benefitted from this aircraft as well.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 20, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Makes ya wonder if the USAAF would have benefitted from this aircraft as well.



Well, they had the P-47 which made its own impressive reputation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Makes ya wonder if the USAAF would have benefitted from this aircraft as well.





davparlr said:


> Well, they had the P-47 which made its own impressive reputation.



While true about the P-47, 20 years later the "USAF" did benefit from the Skyraider.


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 20, 2011)

That looks like a minigun pod on that Skyraider.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 20, 2011)

It is interesting that the AD came in second to the AM Mauler, which was really awesome with its P&W R-3350 and 5k lbs higher gross. Unfortunately, Martin wasn't able to build it acceptably.


----------



## renrich (Dec 21, 2011)

This subject has been sliced and diced before re the P47 versus the F4U but my opinion is that the US overall would have been better off if all resources had concentrated on producing only two fighters, the F4U and the P51, after the P40 and F4F had outlived their usefulness. The early F4U with somwhat more range than the P47 could have been the escort fighter until the P51-Merlin came along and then could have been the ultimate WW2 fighter bomber and carrier fighter and the P51 gone on to be the ultimate escort and long range strike fighter.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 21, 2011)

Ren, suppose we go back in 1939, and are to say just one thing to improve any military system in the US. Would you rather say 
-'plumb the wings of the P-47 for drop tanks', or 
-'build F4U stead of P-47'?


----------



## Arossihman (Dec 22, 2011)

renrich said:


> This subject has been sliced and diced before re the P47 versus the F4U but my opinion is that the US overall would have been better off if all resources had concentrated on producing only two fighters, the F4U and the P51, after the P40 and F4F had outlived their usefulness. The early F4U with somwhat more range than the P47 could have been the escort fighter until the P51-Merlin came along and then could have been the ultimate WW2 fighter bomber and carrier fighter and the P51 gone on to be the ultimate escort and long range strike fighter.



Blasphemy! All kidding aside neither the mustang or the corsair had the armament or armor that the p-47 possesed. Although the mustang and the corsair did very well in ground attack i believe without the p-47 we would have lost even more pilots than we did due to lack of surviveability from ground and air attack.


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 22, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Ren, suppose we go back in 1939, and are to say just one thing to improve any military system in the US. Would you rather say
> -'plumb the wings of the P-47 for drop tanks', or
> -'build F4U stead of P-47'?



I suppose if P-47 had tanks in wings, and capability for wing drop tanks much earlier, there might not have been a need for the Merlin-powered P-51.
So one could argue that the F4U and P-47 be the two planes.

On the other hand, a 2-stage blower powered F4U much earlier in the war may change the game somewhat.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 22, 2011)

The P-47 with 305 internal and 150 gals in belly tank managed a 350 miles combat range, with 305 + 2 x 150 (wing drop tanks) that's already 425 mph (= all the way to Frankfurt, Hanover, Hamburg)- all at 25000 ft.
(P-38 was operating with 165 gal drop tanks as early as mid 1942.)


----------



## renrich (Dec 22, 2011)

The original Corsair had a two stage, two speed blower. The factor, to me that would have made my theory valid was that Vought was a small company with somewhat limited capacity for development, testing and production. Brewster and Goodyear were enlisted to help production with only Goodyear being successful. If Republic and Grumman had been involved in development and production, the gestation period of the Corsair would have been shorter and a land based only version with probably better performance than the shipboard fighter would have resulted. The Corsair was always a better performer than the P47 from sea level up to about 20000-25000 feet, could carry a bigger load, needed a lot less runway and was a carrier fighter which the P47 never could be. The P47 had outstanding performance up really high but was lacking where most ACM took place. The Corsair was a better dive bomber than the P47 and as far as ground attack is concerned the F4Us with four 20 mms was much more lethal than the P47 with 8-50s.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 22, 2011)

USAAF battled LW at high altitude, with bombers flying well above 20 000 ft. If one chooses a plane that is a world class at 15000 ft, instead of a plane that is world class at 25000, the choice is a wrong one.

As for raw performance, here is what I'm extracting from US 100K book. 
At 20 000 ft.....speed....RoC
F4U-1.............385mph...2000 ft/min
P-47C.............410 mph..2100 ft/min
F4U-1A/-1D.....400 mph..1800 ft/min
F4U-1A/-1D.....415 mph..1900 ft/min *WER*
P-47D-23........415 MPH..2650 ft/min *WER*
From cca 23000 ft Corsair gets slower (410 mph for -1A/-1D at that alt, 400 for -1), while P-47 remain at almost 430 mph from 23000 ft above. 

All for the weights with full hull tanks - 305 gals for P-47, but only 237 gals for F4U. So P-47 is a better performer at 20000 ft (let alone above that altitude), even while carrying more fuel and 1/3rd more firepower.



> The Corsair was always a better performer than the P47 from sea level up to about 20000-25000 feet, could carry a bigger load, needed a lot less runway *and was a carrier fighter which the P47 never could be.*



So it's under 20000 ft, for same era. As for bolder part, don't see why we should underestimate Republics engineers.



> The P47 had outstanding performance up really high but was lacking where most ACM took place.



Again, for the task of flying above in front of the bombers, P-47 was wastly better tool. And, with introduction of paddle blade props and water injection for the P-47 (1st 2300 HP, then 2600 HP), P-47 was an all-altitude fighter. Eg. at 10000 ft it was capable of RoC of 3000 ft/min, while F4U-1D was managing 2700 (all for WER). Or 2400 vs. 2100 for MIL rating.


----------



## renrich (Dec 22, 2011)

TP, if the Republic engineers tried to make a carrier plane out of the P47 it would not have resembled the P47 at all. Going by what you say, the P47 was superior to the P51 Merlin as an escort fighter which is patently not true. At the fighter conference for best all around fighter below 25000 feet the pilots chose the P51D as first and the F4U1D second and the P47D was not even mentioned. Vought worked on an F4U with turbo charged engine but decided for naval purposes it made no sense. The whole point, to me, is that Republic or Grumman if ordered to do so had taken the basic design of the F4U, stripped some weight from it which was only needed for carrier ops and tailored the airplane for a long range escort some bomber crew member's lives could have been saved. As far as I know the paddle bladed props were never used on the Corsair but undoubtedly it's climb rate would have been helped also. Of course, none of this happened and never would have happened. It was heresy to believe a carrier plane could compete with a land plane.

I will leave it at this. My uncle was an instructor in P47s during WW2. He told me that when his P47s ran into F4Us in mock dogfights they got their rear ends whipped. I have read that in more than one book including " a well flown SB2C could give a P47 a tough time." In air races after the war, the F4Us excelled. The P47s did not.

The P47 was rugged, could go down hill in a big hurry and at altitudes above 25000-30000 was fast. It was a good ground attack plane but it could not carry the load a Corsair could, was not a dive bomber and was a ground lover which precluded it from using short fields. If caught at lower altitudes where for instance an FW 190 excelled it was at a disadvantage. We will never know what a Corsair dedicated to the AAF would have been like but common sense dictates it would have had even better performance than the Naval version.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 22, 2011)

This has turned into an interesting thread, but the fact is that the USN was looking for an SBD replacement for 1942, not 1944. The SBD soldiered on because there was no viable replacement until 1944.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 22, 2011)

This F4U vs P-47 thing has been gone over a bunch of times. Basically in the planning stages (1940-41) Republic was also a small company. Their only mass produced aircraft was the P-35. The P-43 contracts were given to help Republic expand the building/s and train new workers while they geared up for the P-47. Even having them make F4Us instead is not going to get them into production any faster than they got the P-47 into production. 

We have been over the power thing too. 

In the early days (when the decision as to which way to go would have to be made) they both had 2000hp for take-off, The F4U had 1850hp at 16,000ft (no ram) and 1650hp at 21,000ft (no ram) to the P-47s 2000hp at 25,000ft. The P-47 may have gotten slightly better specific fuel consumption at higher altitudes cruising than the F4U. The F4U (early ones) did NOT use exhaust thrust and even if they tried the exhaust thrust from burning 80-120 gals an hour (cruising) is a whole lot different than the thrust from burning 240 gallons an hour ( full throttle).


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 22, 2011)

For the purpose of this thread, it seems plausible that the SBD could have soldiered on while the F4U program was expedited as a replacement, meaning no SB2C.
It seems that the F4U turned out to be extremely versatile, and if expedited and entered service earlier and in greater quantities, may (or may not) have encroached upon tasks historically performed by other planes.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 22, 2011)

Ren, it't up to our imagination guestimates to picture out just how would a CV-capable P-47 looked like. That may be a topic for another thread, since this one is already went off-topic.
I'm not sure that I've stated the P-47 as a better tool than P-51 for ETO in 1944.
In the JF conference the majority was from USN, was it not? With P-51D as a clear winner, how feasible was for another AAF ship to emerge at second place? And 'below 25000 ft' is really a great envelope indeed - hunting ground even for P-63?
Think that we can agree that escorted bombing raids were much more about USAAF will to conduct them from day one, rather about the equipment available. So the 1943's P-47s with combat (not ferry) drop tanks look as good tool as ground-based F4Us. If we do reduce weight of F4U, and then add the wing fuel tankage, the weight easily returns back, and we are still lacking 25% of firepower vs. P-47D.

I agree that military branches were looking with suspicion prejudice one to another, not just in the USA. 
As for P-47s getting beaten by F4U, in what altitude that was, and what kind of version of planes were flown by both sides?

If SB2C beats P-47, then a P-47 pilot is doing something wrong, like trying a turning fight with a plane with superior wing-loading?
The 'F4Us' that flew races were actually F2G-1s, weren't they? The ones with R-4360? I'd say apples oranges :

The turbo F4U (F4U-3, with 'C' series R-2800) would've been a sight to behold - 486 mph at 30000 ft.



> For the purpose of this thread, it seems plausible that the SBD could have soldiered on while the F4U program was expedited as a replacement, meaning no SB2C.
> It seems that the F4U turned out to be extremely versatile, and if expedited and entered service earlier and in greater quantities, may (or may not) have encroached upon tasks historically performed by other planes.



Hmm, Curtis producing Corsairs maybe?


----------



## renrich (Dec 22, 2011)

While browsing through the Mike Williams site, I reviewed some flight tests of F4U1s with water injection. One of the AC had some cowling modifictions and had the tail hook opening faired over along with a new type of prop. Another was a cleaned up version with openings filled except blast tubes of guns were opened. Both AC had full loads of ammo and fuel. 

One of the F4U1s at 20300 feet with WEP did 431 MPH TAS and at 14600 feet with low blower and WEP did 416 MPH TAS.

The other AC did 442 MPH TAS @ 21800 feet.

These figures vary quite a lot with Dean's AHT and I bring these up to show that most probably a version of the Corsair meant only as land based would have a substantial gain in performance.

Also on the Williams site there are figures which show an F4U1C with two 150 gallon drop tanks, one protected which would be retained during combat, and no internal wing tanks, having a combat radius FROM A CARRIER of 550 miles.

The SBD did soldier on, in spite of the SB2C, until the end of the war. At the Marianas Turkey Shoot there were SBDs and SB2Cs and the SBDs had a lower loss rate.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 22, 2011)

as far as the air races go even at Reno they are flying below 7000ft aren't they? the post war races were at Cleveland. Planes were only a few thousand feet above sea level. The Corsairs (even the ones with R-2800s) might not have even been using the auxiliary supercharger's low gear let alone high gear. This cancels the P-47 advantage. No matter how good the Corsair is at 0-5,000ft it doesn't make it the plane of choice at 25-35,000ft. Escort mission or no, combat altitudes were already at 25-30,000ft during the BoB. While it turns out that they didn't go much higher, every Air Force expected them to in just a few years. Deliberately giving up the 25,000-35,000 ft band to the Germans by going with the Corsair was not something the US Army was prepared to do in 1941/early 1942.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 22, 2011)

".... Hmm, Curtis producing Corsairs maybe?..."

No way, Jose.  Curtis made a batch of P-47s early in the P-47 production cycle and they were so badly made that they were constrained to training in the USA alone, IIRC.

Had the Pacific war not ended when it did and long bomber escort missions became the norm, I think the P-47M would have come into its own ... just for pilot comfort and survivability alone, IMHO. 

MM


----------



## renrich (Dec 22, 2011)

I wonder how many people would claim that the P47 of comparable vintage is a better fighter than than the P51B which was the best performing P51 in WW2.
On the Williams site there is a comparison test of the P51B and F4U1 and below 25000 feet the F4U1 is superior to the P51B in almost all respects. That is just one test and It was run by the Navy. It does prove to me however that the Corsair, in the naval version could at leat hold it's own with the best AAF fighter of the war up to 25000 feet. Incidently, my bet is that the vast percentage of ACM both in the ETO and PTO took place below 25000 feet and the F4U was no slouch above 25000 feet also.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 22, 2011)

renrich said:


> The SBD did soldier on, in spite of the SB2C, until the end of the war. At the Marianas Turkey Shoot there were SBDs and SB2Cs and the SBDs had a lower loss rate.



The primary problem with the SBD was the lack of a folding wing which limited the numbers that could be carried.


----------



## renrich (Dec 22, 2011)

The F4U1 had a service ceiling of 36900, the F4U4 a service ceiling of 41500. The B24 seldom if ever flew bombing missions at more than 20000 feet and the B17s seldom flew at 30000 feet. It makes little sense to me that one would say that a fighter which can be superb at 25000 feet to sea level and still fight at 30000 or more is inferior to one that is in it's element from 25000 and up but below 25000 progressively loses it's performance. The P47 outperformed the Mustang above 25ooo feet but that did not keep the Mustang from being the superior escort fighter. I believe it is a myth that very much combat took place above 30000 feet. The air was too thin and it was too cold and it took too long to get up there. B17s at high altitudes in the winter came home with frozen crew.

The Fw190A8 which was considered a bomber destroyer had a service ceiling of 33800 feet, 3000 feet lower than the F4U1.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 22, 2011)

I believe that it would be against all physical laws of nature for Republic to build an airplane capable of taking off and landing on an aircraft carrier!

Both F4U and P-47 were outstanding aircraft and had their own well earned reputations and I always hate to argue comparisons of these two.


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 22, 2011)

Don't need to compare them, we're going back to their conceptions and dabbling in genetic modification.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 23, 2011)

The Germans wanted planes with more altitude capability than the Fw190A8, and they had them. The 109s could fly "top cover" for the 190s. The escort fighters need to be able to fly (and fight) 5,000ft or more higher than the bombers to try to keep the enemy fighters from attacking from above. 

While we know _NOW_ that prolonged operations over 30,000ft weren't really feasible that was not known at the time that decisions as to which aircraft would be needed and entirely new factorys built to make them. This sort of goes for both sides. Germans were trying to put pressure cabins in 109s for a while, they stopped because the allies never quite reached the altitudes in operations that they wanted to or that the Germans projected they would.


----------



## renrich (Dec 23, 2011)

An F4U1D flown by a Marine intercepted a Japanese recon plane over Okinawa at 38000 feet. His guns were frozen in spite of the gun heaters so he chewed the recon planes tail off with his prop. The Japanese plane crashed and the marine landed with a bent prop. The Marines stationed on one of the islands in the Pacific regularly flew high altitude practice missions in their Corsairs above 30000 feet. It was good practice and they were also able to cool down the beer in the gun bays.

This thread is like a merry go round in that the same characters seem to use the same arguments over and over again. Always fun though to get on the carousel with well informed gentlemen. However, I am not giving an inch and will ignore any facts that do not coincide with my opinions LOL..... Merry Christmas to all!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2011)

renrich said:


> An F4U1D flown by a Marine intercepted a Japanese recon plane over Okinawa at 38000 feet. His guns were frozen in spite of the gun heaters so he chewed the recon planes tail off with his prop. The Japanese plane crashed and the marine landed with a bent prop.


Robert Klingman, VMF-312, May 10, 1945


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 23, 2011)

" However, I am not giving an inch and will ignore any facts that do not coincide with my opinions"

Well, I guess that says it all.


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 23, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Robert Klingman, VMF-312, May 10, 1945


 VMF-312: Later, in the Korean war, the Checkerboards became the first piston engine squadron to shoot down a jet aircraft, I believe it was a Mig-15 shot down by a F4U-4.


----------



## renrich (Dec 23, 2011)

Thanks FB for the link. I have always wondered how a F4U1D that did not have the altitude capability of the F4U4 could get up to 38000 feet and make mutiple runs on the Japanese recon plane. Must have been a mirage.


----------



## Arossihman (Dec 23, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> USAAF battled LW at high altitude, with bombers flying well above 20 000 ft. If one chooses a plane that is a world class at 15000 ft, instead of a plane that is world class at 25000, the choice is a wrong one.
> 
> As for raw performance, here is what I'm extracting from US 100K book.
> At 20 000 ft.....speed....RoC
> ...



let us not forget about the P-47 M numbers at 2800hp!


----------



## renrich (Dec 24, 2011)

As most of us know, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. I decided to do a little statistical study and came up with the following which, to me is interesting but does not prove anything. Too many variables. I have copies of the summary of Navy and Marine carrier and land based operations so those numbers seem pretty accurate and thorough. The numbers I have for P47s are certainly not as thorough and I am not sure they compare exactly. For instance the sorties for Navy and Marine AC are action sorties. I am not sure if that means they were likely to see action or if they mean they actually saw enemy action. The sorties for the P47 are just that, sorties. In addition the P47 numbers are from the ETO. The Navy and Marine numbers are for the whole war. That won't make any difference for the Corsair compared to the P47 because the Corsair, I don't think flew any sorties in the ETO.

To begin with the total amount of bombs dropped by SBDs, Marine and Navy was 22918 tons.
The total amount by Corsairs, Marine and Navy was 15617 tons.
One can see that the Corsair was heavily used as a ground attack plane.
The tonnage dropped by both Corsair and SBD was mostly by Marine pilots but I was surprised that the Corsair dropped as many as they did compared to the SBD.

The P47 flew 423435 sorties in the ETO.
There were 3077 P47s lost during those sorties
The P47 was credited with 2686 kills during those sorties

The Corsair flew 64051 action sorties
There were 768 Corsairs lost ( these include by EA, AA and operational, (I am not sure about
those of the P47)
The Corsair was credited with 2155 kills during these sorties.

Therefore the P47 had one loss for every 138 sorties
And was credited with one kill for every 158 sorties

The Corsair had one loss for every 83 sorties
And was credited with a kill for every 30 sorties.

One thing that surprised me was that the P47 flew many, many more sorties than the Corsair. The numbers of the two fighters built was roughly comparable so the P47 was a real work horse.
I believe the Corsair was somewhat more vulnerable to ground fire than the P47 because of the location of the oil cooler and that shows up in the stats assuming the enemy AA was similar in intensity. The Corsair losses are also skewed by the fact that about a third of it's losses were operational. Even though most of the Corsair sorties were land based they were still operating over a lot of water.
According to the stats the Corsair was much more likely to get credit for a kill during a sortie. 

As I said above, these numbers are interesting but don't necessarily prove anything.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 24, 2011)

Very cool!


----------



## Njaco (Dec 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> " However, I am not giving an inch and will ignore any facts that do not coincide with my opinions"
> 
> Well, I guess that says it all.



I guess you forgot the 'LOL' just after that.



> Renrich - I wonder how many people would claim that the P47 of comparable vintage is a better fighter than than the P51B which was the best performing P51 in WW2.



Don't you mean the P-51 'D'?


----------



## renrich (Dec 25, 2011)

Njaco, I went back and added the LOL after I realised that someone took me seriously on my comments on my hard headedness. To be fair, I think I am not the only hard headed one on ths forum. LOL I do believe that the P51B and C, after the new factory in Texas got sorted out were better performers than the P51D. The D was heavier and slower, perhaps because of the drag caused by the bubble canopy. Perhaps I am wrong?
It was a surprise when I read the comparison on the Williams site of the F4U1 and the P51B and C although the C crapped out. I realise the comparison was done by the Navy but to me it was a realistic comparison which took all the factors into consideration. The F4U outclimbed the P51 and was more maneuverable and as for speed the advantage went back and forth according to altitude but the delta was never very much. I believe we all make to much over a speed difference of say 15 mph. To begin with individual AC may vary by 15 MPH or even more but I doubt that those kind of speed differences are tactically significant. I have read where fighter pilots have scoffed at differences like that. Also, as in the case of the Corsair V P51B one was faster at 5000 feet the other faster at 10000 feet and then back to the other.The Corsair was also more heavily armed than the P51 not only with guns but with ammo load. Of course the Navy qualified the report by saying that the Corsair was overall better up to 25000 feet which was where the Navy needed to have superiority. The P51B was a real hot rod and to be rated equal or better is high praise especially for a carrier fighter.


----------



## renrich (Dec 25, 2011)

VB, thank you for your comment. I am having a little trouble with the number of P47 sorties. The grand total of action sorties flown by all Navy and Marine AC in WW2 was 284,073. That includes even patrol craft such as the PBY. It does not seem reasonable that the P47 flew around twice as many sorties as all the Navy and Marine AC did total unless there is a difference such as the Navy did not judge it an action sortie unless the enemy was encountered and the AAF counted it a sortie regardless of enemy activity. I can't remember where I got the stats on the P47 but I think I have seen them repeated somewhere elso so they are probably valid. My futher info on the ETO shows the following:
P51-213873 sorties
P38-128849 sorties
P40-67059 sorties
P39-30547 sorties

It seems a little far fetched to believe that the P40 in the ETO flew more real sorties than Marine land based Corsairs did in the Pacific (52852)


----------



## Njaco (Dec 25, 2011)

> Njaco, I went back and added the LOL after I realised that someone took me seriously on my comments on my hard headedness...



Then my apologies to Shortround for shooting from the hip.

As for the "D" model - I wasn't aware of that (and it wasn't meant to be sarcastic ) My impression was the 'D' model was the better of all marks of the 51. Thanks.


----------



## barney (Dec 26, 2011)

Njaco said:


> As for the "D" model - I wasn't aware of that (and it wasn't meant to be sarcastic ) My impression was the 'D' model was the better of all marks of the 51. Thanks.



If fastest is best, then B or C. Otherwise, I'd want a D with bubble canopy, two more guns and that had metal control surfaces, tail fillet and the latest engine controls.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 26, 2011)

renrich said:


> It was a surprise when I read the comparison on the Williams site of the F4U1 and the P51B and C although the C crapped out. I realise the comparison was done by the Navy but to me it was a realistic comparison which took all the factors into consideration. The F4U outclimbed the P51 and was more maneuverable and as for speed the advantage went back and forth according to altitude but the delta was never very much. I believe we all make to much over a speed difference of say 15 mph. To begin with individual AC may vary by 15 MPH or even more but I doubt that those kind of speed differences are tactically significant. I have read where fighter pilots have scoffed at differences like that. Also, as in the case of the Corsair V P51B one was faster at 5000 feet the other faster at 10000 feet and then back to the other.The Corsair was also more heavily armed than the P51 not only with guns but with ammo load. Of course the Navy qualified the report by saying that the Corsair was overall better up to 25000 feet which was where the Navy needed to have superiority. The P51B was a real hot rod and to be rated equal or better is high praise especially for a carrier fighter.



There are a few items with this test that should be pointed out.
1.	Both F4U-1s tested were with water injection, which was just coming on line. At the time of the test, only eight F4U-1s were available with water. Water injection for the fleet was probably several months away.
2.	I suspect the Navy slipped a ringer in. I am sure it is not intentional, but rather information gathering for an advanced type. I believe the F4U-1 was an F4U-4 test bed, of sorts. First, there is a comment in the test, under Discussions, para. (c) Drag Condition: “…representative of that to be expected in the F4U-4 airplane…”. Second, boost pressure used is 65”, where the F4U-1A was 60”. AHT shows combat manifold pressure is 59” for the R-2800-8W engine. Third, SL airspeed shows 376 mph. No other 8W engine test of the F4U-1 exceeds 365 mph. Forth, max speed is shown as 450 mph at 29,000 ft.!! These airspeeds are more in common with the F4U-4 than with all other F4U-1 (8W) test. The test of the F4U-1A is closely associated with the other test and I believe most represent the production F4U-1 with water.
3.	The P-51B tested was equipped with the -3 engine. The -3 engine was more optimized for high altitude flight. By the time of the test the AAF was flying he -7 engine, which provide much better low altitude performance. In comparing airspeed and climb of the P-51B-7 performance to the F4U-1A, we find that the P-51 is faster with similar climb to 10k and roughly equal up to 20k and above that, increasing in performance. In general the F4U-1A(W) was equal in performance to the P-51B up to 25k, at this time period.
4.	However, a few months later, May-June, (probably the same time frame as the F4U-1(8W)s were becoming available) the P-51B and D were upgrading to the 44-1 fuel. With this upgrade in power, the P-51D had an advantage in speed and climb to the F4U-1(W) from SL to ceiling, the P-51B significantly so. The F4U may have had similar performance to the P-51, but only for a couple of months. Performance of the two would take another jump in 1945 with the F4U-4 being operational in May. By that time the water injected, 2200+ hp P-51H was operational also.

Just the fact that the carrier capable F4U was competitive with the P-51, especially in the Spring of ’44, when the P-51 was a very dominate aircraft over Germany, is very impressive and is a testimony of the engineers and scientist at Vought.


----------



## renrich (Dec 28, 2011)

Seek and you will find. I went back and looked at the first few pages of Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, WW2. It turns out that the title Action Sorties means exactly that. Only flights by Navy and Marine AC where they were involved with enemy action were counted. That puts a different complexion on things. I am not positive but it seems that the huge number of sorties flown by the P47 in the ETO and those by the other fighters I posted earlier were all flights made by those AC. So the statistics I arrived at regarding the sorties/loss and sorties/awarded kill are meaningless. If anyone has a source which has the action sorties of the AAF fighters, it would be interesting to see them.

There is another glitch in the numbers also. In the Consolidated Summary of the Navy, Marine table there are losses on combat sorties divided into three categories. For instance the land based Marine Corsairs lost in action sorties were to AA-207, to EA-141 and to Operational-157. In addition On Other Flights- there were 458 losses and on Ship or Ground-48 losses. So the Marines operating Corsairs from land bases lost 1011 Corsairs. I won't bother to add up the Navy similar losses and the carrier losses but it looks as if the total of all Corsair losses will be about 2000-2500. Compare that to the 3077 P47 losses in the ETO. None of this proves anything but one can see that almost as many Corsairs were lost by the Marines in non action flights as there were in Action Sorties. The non action flights I assume are mainly training. I would guess that if one had all the numbers for all US AC in WW2 the losses of non action flights versus action sorties losses ratios would be similar.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 28, 2011)

I'm just postulating but I'm assuming anything outside the UK in the ETO would be a combat sortie


----------



## Mike Williams (Dec 28, 2011)

davparlr said:


> There are a few items with this test that should be pointed out.
> 1.	Both F4U-1s tested were with water injection, which was just coming on line. At the time of the test, only eight F4U-1s were available with water. Water injection for the fleet was probably several months away.
> 2.	I suspect the Navy slipped a ringer in. I am sure it is not intentional, but rather information gathering for an advanced type. I believe the F4U-1 was an F4U-4 test bed, of sorts. First, there is a comment in the test, under Discussions, para. (c) Drag Condition: “…representative of that to be expected in the F4U-4 airplane…”. Second, boost pressure used is 65”, where the F4U-1A was 60”. AHT shows combat manifold pressure is 59” for the R-2800-8W engine. Third, SL airspeed shows 376 mph. No other 8W engine test of the F4U-1 exceeds 365 mph. Forth, max speed is shown as 450 mph at 29,000 ft.!! These airspeeds are more in common with the F4U-4 than with all other F4U-1 (8W) test. The test of the F4U-1A is closely associated with the other test and I believe most represent the production F4U-1 with water.
> 3.	The P-51B tested was equipped with the -3 engine. The -3 engine was more optimized for high altitude flight. By the time of the test the AAF was flying he -7 engine, which provide much better low altitude performance. In comparing airspeed and climb of the P-51B-7 performance to the F4U-1A, we find that the P-51 is faster with similar climb to 10k and roughly equal up to 20k and above that, increasing in performance. In general the F4U-1A(W) was equal in performance to the P-51B up to 25k, at this time period.
> ...



That’s an excellent analysis davparlr.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 28, 2011)

Thanks Mike.


----------



## renrich (Dec 28, 2011)

PB, that could be true as far as the AAF was concerned but the Navy seemed to be very clear that if enemy action was not encountered, it was not an action sortie. I do know there were a lot of training and breaking in flights of the P47 and other US fighters once the airplanes were delivered to the UK. Quite a few P47s were lost because of landing gear problems and engine problems early on. Looking at the sortie numbers of the P40 and P39 in the ETO, I have to believe that any flight was regarded as a sortie.


----------



## barney (Dec 28, 2011)

I remember reading a book written by a pilot who flew B-17 sorties out of Italy. Every time an engine was changed the crew was required to put 10 hours of flying on it before joining a combat mission. He wrote that these engineering flights took up a good deal of their time. Maybe fighter pilots had to do the same. I can't imagine these being counted as sorties.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 28, 2011)

renrich said:


> VB, thank you for your comment. I am having a little trouble with the number of P47 sorties. The grand total of action sorties flown by all Navy and Marine AC in WW2 was 284,073. That includes even patrol craft such as the PBY. It does not seem reasonable that the P47 flew around twice as many sorties as all the Navy and Marine AC did total unless there is a difference such as the Navy did not judge it an action sortie unless the enemy was encountered and the AAF counted it a sortie regardless of enemy activity. I can't remember where I got the stats on the P47 but I think I have seen them repeated somewhere elso so they are probably valid. My futher info on the ETO shows the following:
> P51-213873 sorties
> P38-128849 sorties
> P40-67059 sorties
> ...



i'm reading the statistical digest of USAAF and all fighters sorties in ETO were 570097 airborne, 527314 effective, for comparison in FETO were 271400 airborne and 235868 effective (this data is available only from '43)


----------

