# Only one fighter



## renrich (Nov 21, 2007)

I am stealing this question from one of our members who expressed his opinion to me but here is a hypothetical question: In 1940, in the US, the Roosevelt administration decrees that all future development and production of fighters shall cease except for one fighter and that all development and production will focus on that one design for the duration of the impending war. Which fighter aircraft should it be?


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 21, 2007)

seeing how one fighter will have to be a Naval bird also that leaves the Vought Corsair as the one and only choice


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2007)

I would have to agree with leadfoot... The Corsair really is the only choice when dealing with the naval requirement...


----------



## ToughOmbre (Nov 21, 2007)

Also vote for the Corsair...for the reason already mentioned.

TO


----------



## Jank (Nov 21, 2007)

I'm not sure the Corsair was being though of as a carrier based plane in 1940. I don't think the first production dash one even flew until 1941, or was in 1942, either.

*In 1940, it would have been too speculative to place all of one's eggs in a design that was not tried and true. * In 1940, I say Spitfire. You would have seen development into longer range and carrier variants.


----------



## renrich (Nov 21, 2007)

The intention was US fighters only and those in development or production in 1940 or before.


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 21, 2007)

Corsair... It's landing probs could have been worked out earlier if it were that necessary. 

or the P-26! The meanest looking bird ever!  

Chino 2006 Airshow Highlights


----------



## renrich (Nov 21, 2007)

Since it narrows the field too much, if I may, lets do away with the ship board requirement.


----------



## Thorlifter (Nov 21, 2007)

Corsair for me also


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2007)

If there is a shipboard requirement I go with the Corsair.

If there is no shipboard requirement I go with the P-51.


----------



## Glider (Nov 21, 2007)

FW190, who said it had to be Allied


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 21, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If there is a shipboard requirement I go with the Corsair.
> 
> If there is no shipboard requirement I go with the P-51.



Me too.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 21, 2007)

and the 51 also and it barely makes the list with that date requirement now if the 51 had never shown up I go for the Belle of Niagara the P63


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2007)

renrich said:


> I am stealing this question from one of our members who expressed his opinion to me but here is a hypothetical question: In 1940, in the US, the Roosevelt administration decrees that all future development and production of fighters shall cease except for one fighter and that all development and production will focus on that one design for the duration of the impending war. Which fighter aircraft should it be?



It would be the Corsair for me. Particularly in context of a single airframe/engine base of development. If all our egges ahd been put in that basket the resulting F4U should have been a very effective long range escort fighter by late 1942, in ops in Pacific as carrier fighter, at Guadalcanal, in China, in North Africa as air superiority *** Jabo fighter and capable of derivatives to go higher and faster as required to Approach P-51 and P-47 speen at altitude.


----------



## machine shop tom (Nov 21, 2007)

With the Naval requirement, I'd pick the Corsair. 

Without a Naval requirement, I'd pick the P-47. More versatile and rugged than the P-51.

tom


----------



## ToughOmbre (Nov 21, 2007)

Not flying off a carrier, I'll say P-51.

TO


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Nov 22, 2007)

Even off a carrier - the P-51. Wasn't one modified later and deck-landed?


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Nov 22, 2007)

This the official entry in the ship's log: 

NOV 15,1944 1220hrs 

LT. Robert M. Elder, USN made the first carrier landing of P-51 type fighter plane #44-14017, followed by three landings and four takeoffs all successful. 

This is one of the photographs showing the Mustang flown by Bob Elder on the Shangri-La.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 22, 2007)

For those of you who know how I feel about Mustangs, my choice of the F4U may have been a suprise but RenRich put very strict guidelines around the choice.

WWII offensive airpower in fighters was about two dimensions - agility at all altitudes a long way from home and ability to punish and survive in Fighter Bomber role. With Radar technology it was still a nice attribute to engage enemy formations a long way from the target if possible.

My second choice was the P-51 with growth through the P-51H or the Fw 190with growth through the Ta 152. Even if Mustang had started like with Merlin I would still choose the F4U for the reasons below

The P-38 was better in max range and ground support, less capable in high altitude air to air. The Spit for me was the best defensive fighter in continuous service but lacked range and payload to be top escort or ground support. The 109 was similar to Spit in all regards. I felt the F6F was inferior to F$U in almost every dimension. 

But, in 1942 the F4U would have been fully operational as a fast, long range, fighter/fighter bomber and had the engine baseline in the R-2800 to develop an even better high altitude fighter than the P-47, would have been able to carry two drop tanks immediately, would have been as good a dogfighter at low/medium altitudes as we had in the war and superb through 24,000 feet. The F4U-4 and 5 would have been developed earlier and were faster than 51D and marginally slower than Fw 190D-9 and P-47N in speed at altitude

Obviously the USN would have had to commit to it for carrier Ops earlier, the AAF would have had them available in numbers at Guadalcanal and New Guinea and North Africa and England when 8th AF ops started there as there were no other fighters soaking up production capacity.There would have been more bandwidth from Aero and propulsion teams crafting derivatives - including possible in-line engine advances, different airfoils, lightweight airframe, etc to achieve very high altitude 'niche' Corsairs if necessary (same as Ta 152 or P-51H).

Ground Support? Already better than P-51, Spit, (and Fw 190 if range is a factor for ops). Tough as P-47, huge payload, heavy firepower either in 6x 50 or 4 x 20mm and way better than P-47 on deck in defensive mode.

And for what it's worth I think you have to include Naval air simply because that was a requirement that added a lot of structural weight to the F4U that, removed, would have increased its thrust to weight, wing loading, top speed and climb rate. Let the others add the weight to be modified for Carrier ops (such as P-38 or Fw 190D-9) to get it on level playing field?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 22, 2007)

Good post Bill, agree with the whole thing....


----------



## Soren (Nov 22, 2007)

Not that I disagree with Bill really but wasn't the thread about which AMERICAN fighter all focus should be directed upon? Just asking..


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 22, 2007)

F4U and P-47....


----------



## drgondog (Nov 22, 2007)

Soren said:


> Not that I disagree with Bill really but wasn't the thread about which AMERICAN fighter all focus should be directed upon? Just asking..



True but I was thinking about Roosevelt buying out Tank's contract.. and the Fw 190 as a base system was very high on my list as 'Best'..


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Nov 23, 2007)

I guess the F4U for me too. Unless the US goverment decided to go beyond prop planes and jump to jets real soon.


----------



## renrich (Nov 23, 2007)

The P51 made a few carrier landings but the USN determined that the slow speed controllability of the Mustang was insufficent for carrier operations. My guess is that the Mustang would not have robust enough for shipboard sustained operations not to mention the aft CG problem on takeoff with full internal fuel.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 23, 2007)

Was making the Spitfire in the USA under licence ever considered?

was a super light Corsair ever flown?


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Nov 23, 2007)

F4U for me as well


----------



## Elvis (Nov 24, 2007)

renrich said:


> I am stealing this question from one of our members who expressed his opinion to me but here is a hypothetical question: In 1940, in the US, the Roosevelt administration decrees that all future development and production of fighters shall cease except for one fighter and that all development and production will focus on that one design for the duration of the impending war. Which fighter aircraft should it be?


Grumman F4F.

...and if you think about it, that's kinda what happened, since F4F > F6F and eventually we ended up with the F8F before the services went all-jet powered.



Elvis


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 24, 2007)

Gonna need longer legs than the Wildcat could provide....


----------



## drgondog (Nov 24, 2007)

While Grumman Ironworks started with F4F in 1940, the F6F and then F8F were entirely new airframes (and wings).. so if you start with F4F and you put all your eggs in that basket you will never have the high altitude or long legs of say a P-38, P-51, F4U or even latest model P-47 which were derivatives of the base airframe..

If we started with Jet series it just means no fighters until at earliest 1944 and when we get them, the range issues would limit any form of Strategic bombing in the PTO and put restrictions on ETO. The 'middle' game is dismal.

I love the Spit on license but at the end of the day its limitations for both range and load carrying ability and equal vulnerability to flak make it slightly less desirable (for me) than the 51 (for US Doctrine). If I get to 'license' I go with Fw190 over Spit.


----------



## renrich (Nov 24, 2007)

There were a number of F4Us made without folding wings which saved a little weight. I think they were actually made by Goodyear so technically they were FGs. Also I recall that in the early part of the Pacific war some of the Corsairs based in the Solomons had their tailhooks removed. They had to be replaced when those AC were missioned to take off from land but land on carriers to be refueled in sort of a shuttle mission. This was before the Navy officially decided the Corsair could be "safely" operated off carriers. I have never seen any tests which showed whether the lack of folding wings or tailhooks helped the performance of the Corsair. I am sure although lacking the credentials of Bill that if a manufacturer such as Republic or North American had taken the basic Corsair design and modified it for strictly land based use there would have been a substantial loss of weight resulting in all around increased performance. Also, I believe that Vought stuck with certain features such as manual supercharger controls for reliability that could have been automated to make the Corsair a little simpler to operate. It is well to remember that the USN demanded reliability at all costs which is the reason they would not consider liquid cooled engines. It is also well to remember that the F4U1 and 1A had internal fuel capacity of 361 gallons later reduced to 234 gallons but with the original internal fuel augmented with two 150 gallon drop tanks the Corsair would have been capable of carrying 661 gallons of fuel which would have resulted in a "yardstick" range of approx. 2400 nautical miles. It might have been possible for a landbased Corsair to have carried an 85 gallon tank behind the pilot like the Mustang. It would have caused an aft shift in the CG but structural weight savings in the landing gear and wing area because of the lesser strength requirements imposed by land based only operations could have offset that CG situation. The problem with AC like the Spitfire and BF and to a lesser extent the FW was that they had very small airframes which could not accomodate a lot of add ons such as additional weaponry or internal fuel. There just was not enough space inside. Since they did not weigh much to begin with any weight added had more impact percentage wise than it did on a large AC such as the Corsair, Thunderbolt, Hellcat and to a lesser extent the Mustang.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 24, 2007)

renrich said:


> There were a number of F4Us made without folding wings which saved a little weight. I think they were actually made by Goodyear so technically they were FGs. Also I recall that in the early part of the Pacific war some of the Corsairs based in the Solomons had their tailhooks removed. They had to be replaced when those AC were missioned to take off from land but land on carriers to be refueled in sort of a shuttle mission. This was before the Navy officially decided the Corsair could be "safely" operated off carriers. I have never seen any tests which showed whether the lack of folding wings or tailhooks helped the performance of the Corsair. I am sure although lacking the credentials of Bill that if a manufacturer such as Republic or North American had taken the basic Corsair design and modified it for strictly land based use there would have been a substantial loss of weight resulting in all around increased performance. Also, I believe that Vought stuck with certain features such as manual supercharger controls for reliability that could have been automated to make the Corsair a little simpler to operate. It is well to remember that the USN demanded reliability at all costs which is the reason they would not consider liquid cooled engines. It is also well to remember that the F4U1 and 1A had internal fuel capacity of 361 gallons later reduced to 234 gallons but with the original internal fuel augmented with two 150 gallon drop tanks the Corsair would have been capable of carrying 661 gallons of fuel which would have resulted in a "yardstick" range of approx. 2400 nautical miles. It might have been possible for a landbased Corsair to have carried an 85 gallon tank behind the pilot like the Mustang. It would have caused an aft shift in the CG but structural weight savings in the landing gear and wing area because of the lesser strength requirements imposed by land based only operations could have offset that CG situation. The problem with AC like the Spitfire and BF and to a lesser extent the FW was that they had very small airframes which could not accomodate a lot of add ons such as additional weaponry or internal fuel. There just was not enough space inside. Since they did not weigh much to begin with any weight added had more impact percentage wise than it did on a large AC such as the Corsair, Thunderbolt, Hellcat and to a lesser extent the Mustang.



I agree Rich's points and would add to them. The F4U was simply a great fighter in comparison to the Mustang, the P-38 and the P-47 - and none of them had to add hundreds of pounds to provide wing folding, arrest gear, and spar capacity for 10G+ landings.

From a structural POV - if I needed high altitude interceptor performance I would look long and hard at the extra internal fuel, replacing the six 50's w/20mm, the look at overall weight and key structure to support 8g limit loads. If removing carrier landing and load carrying capability requirements further isolates a few areas of easy improvement like a lighter Wing spar, or Tail Spar as areas to 'lighten up' w/o changing the lines geometry, then do that also

If its an interceptor I don't need to carry 3,000-4,000 pound external loads and I might be able to use smaller wheels and gear if I don't carry the big load or crash on a carrier deck. I imagine it would be relatively easy to carve 700 to 1000 pounds and still get a 7+G interceptor that could fight at 36-38,000 feet with a much faster climb rate and top speed... without going through a complete re-design like the P-51H.

In 1944 I would also be looking at the P&W 3350 with the lightweight Corsair.

I like this aircraft for its a.) engine type and growth potential in P&W line, b.) wonder how aerodynamics and drag could be improved with Packard Merlin (Radiator and Oil Cooling would be in same area as 51) for the interceptor version, c.) have one beefed up version for carrier/Ground support and d.)one land based version with all carrier related weight stripped but otherwise unchanged.

Never get the max rang available for P-38 at end of war but have one superb dogfighter and ground attack aircraft superior to P-51A, P-47B and C and P-38F in late 1942, early 1943 at a better state of performance than any of its counterparts at that time.


----------



## Elvis (Nov 25, 2007)

re: F4F

Range of an F4F is 770 miles. 
The main alternative is the P-40. It's range? 840 miles.
After that, its like the P-26 which had a range of less than 650 miles.
So, the F4F had "short" legs? Compared to what was available at the time, I'm not so sure it would be considered that way.

There's also the fact that it didn't neccessarily need long legs. 
It's purpose built to be carrier based.
That doesn't mean it can't be used by land forces, but it was designed for carrier work, so the ship can pretty much take it to the edge of the battle.

since it's designed to be carrier based, that means it has to be built tougher than most other aircraft (Chance-Vought found that out in the 20's!).

You've also got superior armour protection and firepower.
Granted, you lack a little power and manuverability, but you're also able to play that _Turran_ game the Russian's loved so much, better than most others you came up against.

The F6F was based on the F4F and purpose built to beat the Zero at its own game.
Even though they ended up with, what, a 90 percentile new airframe, it was orignially designed as improvments to the F4F.

The F8...well, ok, I'll give you that one, but the basic design still harkens back to the F4F, even if it is its own fuselage.

Still, F4F - built like a tank and hits like a ton of bricks.
If I HAD to use only one fighter, and we were still in a position of neutrality, my choice would still be the F4F, if for no other reason than those two accolades alone.



Elvis


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 25, 2007)

U seem to be forgetting that this airframe is going to supply ALL of the USA's fighter arms... Not just the Navy...

The F4U was a much more multi operational aircraft...


----------



## Jank (Nov 25, 2007)

Renrich said, "_It is also well to remember that the F4U1 and 1A had internal fuel capacity of 361 gallons later reduced to 234 gallons but with the original internal fuel augmented with two 150 gallon drop tanks the Corsair would have been capable of carrying 661 gallons of fuel which would have resulted in a "yardstick" range of approx. 2400 nautical miles._

Certainly the Corsair would have had a long range with 660 gallons of fuel but 2,400 nautical miles? That's *2,760 *statutory miles.

Now the P-47N was significantly heavier and could muster about *2,350* statutory miles with a fuel load that was 300 gallons more.

So the Corsair would have had a range that was 400 miles greater on 300 less gallons of fuel?

Is that a Chance Vought "yardstick" that you are using?


----------



## renrich (Nov 25, 2007)

When I say "yardstick" range I am taking the amount of usable fuel at the Corsair's most economical cruise but a realistic range would be approx. 70% of the "yardstick" If you take 361 gallons of internal fuel which at econ. cruise of 42 gal/hr gives you 8.6 hrs, one 150 gal drop tank(the other gets eaten up by drag) yields 3.57 hrs for a total of 12.17 hours at 200 knots (which may be a little high) so round down to 2400 nautical miles. A realistic range which would include warm up, take off, climb out, cruise, combat at full power, cruise back and reserve would yield about 70 % of 2400 or 1680 nautical miles which to be conservative would give a safe 800 statute mile combat radius. That would get you from London to Warsaw and back.


----------



## Jank (Nov 25, 2007)

"_If you take 361 gallons of internal fuel which at econ. cruise of 42 gal/hr gives you 8.6 hrs, one 150 gal drop tank(the other gets eaten up by drag) yields 3.57 hrs for a total of 12.17 hours at 200 knots (which may be a little high) so round down to 2400 nautical miles._"

A P-47D-25 with 780 gallons of fuel (370 Internal and 410 external in wing [2x150] and belly [1x110] tanks) has a range of 2,100 miles.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg

A Corsair with 660 gallons of fuel (120 gallons less) has a range of 2,760 miles (660 miles further)?

I know that the Corsair can go further with the same fuel load but I still say something's rotten in Denmark.


----------



## helmitsmit (Nov 26, 2007)

I'd pick the Spitfire/Seafire combination there was almost a mark for every day in a month so no probs developing it for all those roles!


----------



## helmitsmit (Nov 26, 2007)

I now it is an American aircraft thread. But us brits would give you our spits! I mean we gave you our merlins! As long as u build then under licence but don't call them P52 or something!


----------



## Elvis (Nov 26, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> U seem to be forgetting that this airframe is going to supply ALL of the USA's fighter arms... Not just the Navy...
> 
> The F4U was a much more multi operational aircraft...


Except no one could fly on and off a carrier. That's why we gave it to the freakin' Brits!
It took them to show us it actually could be done (with a little technique).

...and fear not, I am thinking ALL services.
The F4U was very, very new in 1940. There were still teething problems at the time, not to mention its "seeming inability" to do carrier service.
The F4F's basic airframe dates back to the FF-1, almost 10 years earlier, so the frame was already well developed, via the exploits of the FF-1, F2F and F3F fighter planes.
It was a much more reliable platform, in 1940.
Had the question been placed later in time, say 1942, I would side with you guys, but in 1940, I would have to go with the Grumman.
The Chance-Vought was just too new at the time.
Its not always the smartest move to gamble your country's defense with an "unknown quantity".




Elvis


----------



## renrich (Nov 26, 2007)

No matter what you did with the F4F it would have had a difficult(impossible?) job competing with the Axis fighters and could never function in the fighter bomber role as the Corsair did. The XF4U, the prototype, had substantially more performance than the F4F. It was the first single engined fighter to exceed 400 mph in level flight in the US and that was in October, 1940. I think the flaw in my example of range is the 200 knot cruise. I will try to find a more accurate figure. I do think the 800 statute mile combat radius is pretty realistic though.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 26, 2007)

Elvis said:


> Except no one could fly on and off a carrier. That's why we gave it to the freakin' Brits!
> It took them to show us it actually could be done (with a little technique).
> 
> *But it (f4U) WAS capable of being flown off a carrier! But an F4F was not able to perform any other role of the F4U near as capably from 1942 onward and had zero growth ability to 'become' an F6F or even an F8F *
> ...



Elvis the one intangible is that putting all your eggs in one basket puts a huge sense of urgency on accelerating a program to solve problems. 

If the P-38, for example, had been accepted before a prototype was built, the production tooling would have been there from day one, instead of being started after the prototypes crashed and a test program to look at compressibility issues for example would have been done two years earlier.. 

If the P-51 was selected and a spec was set for high altitude performance as an interceptor, a.) the Merlin would have been selected earlier or Allison would have built an engine suitable for it earlier... The internal fuel design for a P-47 would have been incorporated earlier to meet requirements for range, etc.

ALL of those ships are superior to the F4F as a base airframe for any purpose. 

Conceivably the P-38L is embodied in the P-38B with dive brakes, intercooler problems, etc solved in 1942.. 

Would you pick the F4F against the P-38 as the airframe to take you to battle anywhere for any reason? And there is no reason to believe a P-38 can't land on existing carriers of 1940 - but if length was an issue then all future carriers laid down after that get the necessary extension?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## renrich (Nov 26, 2007)

It is a myth that the British "taught" us to land the Corsair on carriers. The British used some of the early Corsairs with it's visibility, landing gear bounce and stall problems because they were desperate for high performance naval fighters. The USN had already defined the deck landing characteristics that needed to be corrected of the Corsair and had begun solving them before the Hellcat was deployed on our carriers but the Hellcat spare parts and other necessary requirements were already in the pipeline and it was easier to transition pilots from the Wildcat to the Hellcat than to the Corsair so the Hellcat became the carrier fighter until sometime in 1944 when the better performing Corsair became needed. Jank, I have checked my reference and it shows the F4U1 with 536 gallons of fuel to have a range of 2200 statute miles. that is with one drop tank of 175 gallons. Another drop tank with 124 gallons to bring it up to my hypothetical 660 gallons would give it an additional say 250 miles range for a total of 2450 miles. These numbers are at 5000 feet. My reference states that a practical range is 75% to 80% of the "yardstick" range. 75% of 2450 miles is around 1800 miles which gives a combat radius of 900 miles. Not as good as the max numbers for P51, P38 or P47N but this is early F4U1 before the land based "escort" Corsair is developed in this hypothetical scenario.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 26, 2007)

P-38 Lightning; it was more or less operational by 1940 (both the Corsair and the P-51 were a couple of years off still), plus it had a lot of room for improvement. Take all of those Packard Merlins that would've been built for the Mustang, and put them in a Lightning and you've got a helluva fighter. Design studies were drawn up for Merlin-powered Lightnings, but they never got off the drawing board. Imagine a P-38 with the high-altitude performance of a P-51 or a Spitfire, *and* capable of carrying 4,000 lbs. of bombs, if necessary.


----------



## helmitsmit (Nov 27, 2007)

good point! I had another thought you remember the handed de haviland hornet? Well then it would have been possible to hand earlier merlin marks. If I am not mistaken the lightnings engine nucles could take bigger inline engines so griffon or sabre might have been a final development possiblity! No ofference the alison although reliable was bit crap towards the end of the war


----------



## Elvis (Nov 27, 2007)

renrich,

"X" stands for *X*perimental...something to remember.

--------------

drgondog,

Why are you concerning yourself with what happened after 1940?
The original question deals with making a pick of what was available IN 1940 and going with it from there.
Did you have a crystal ball that could see accurately into the future in 1940?
If so, you should have lent your talents to the US government.
A lot of soldiers who never came back from that conflict could've thanked you for saving their lives.

-------------------

You guys must remember to stay within the confines of what was available in 1940, since that's a key part of the original question.
Not what was "under developement", but available.
The main choices at that time would've been the F4F and the P-40, so I'm looking at it from the aspect as those are my two front runners.
Between them, I'd choose the F4F.
All of this talk about the Corsair, while interesting, is really moot to this thread.



Elvis


----------



## drgondog (Nov 27, 2007)

Elvis said:


> renrich,
> 
> "X" stands for *X*perimental...something to remember.
> 
> ...



There has been another Elvis sighting, sigh.


----------



## renrich (Nov 27, 2007)

Elvis, thank you so much for explaining to me what X stands for! Since I am the one who started the thread, I think I know what was intended. My intention was that if the war department decided in 1940 that all the aircraft manufacturers should concentrate only on one fighter AC for the future and that fighter would either be in production or development during the year 1940, what fighter would you choose. To me the fighters available under that definition would be: P39, P40, P38, P51, P47, F2A, F4F, F4U. The reason I brought up the XF4U to you was that the prototype for the F4U already had a great deal more performance than the F4F. The F4F was a great AC for it's day and held the line in the Pacific until 1943 and derivatives of it served throughout the war. In my opinion one of the best fighter pilots of the war got all his kills in it. Fellow by the name of Joe Foss. However, the F4F had not much potential to be developed beyond the F2M series and the only reason the average pilot in the Marines or Navy stood a chance versus the A6M was by using superior tactics. Read the pilot reports after Midway if you want to get an idea about the F4F and it's capabilities against the A6M. I hope my intentions as far as this thread is concerned are clear to you now. I would also mention that this forum is filled with some very knowledgable people, myself not necessarily included, so I have learned to conduct myself(at least some of the time) as if I am a novice and there are a bunch of experten ready to pounce as soon as I stick my neck out and act like a know it all.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 27, 2007)

I would see what is the best enemy aircraft out there which would have been the Bf 109E and built the best to match it. The Wildcat doesn't really do that.

Could the Americans have built an aircraft to match the Emil in the 1940 timeframe which could have been sold to the French and RAF? To fight the Germans then?

Picking one fighter is a real bad idea if the tail starts falling of like the Hawker Typhoons did...or needed a new engine like the Fw 190. crash program or not...The quick Spitfire fix would be very tempting if I was expecting enemy aircraft over American cities in 1940.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 27, 2007)

I'm still sticking with the P-38; when it was introduced in 1940 in the form of the YP-38, it was the fastest military aircraft in the world (400+ mph). Although not as maneuverable as a single-engine fighter (I don't think anybody will argue with that), if used properly, it could hold it's own against Axis aircraft, particularly Japanese a/c. And, as I mentioned a few posts above, it still had a lot of room for improvement in case of future developments (like the Merlin, dive flaps, etc.).


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 27, 2007)

Ummm, how about the Naval variant???? Like to see THAT tail with an arrestor hook on it...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 27, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Ummm, how about the Naval variant???? Like to see THAT tail with an arrestor hook on it...



Good point; would it have one tail hook, or two? And if it had one, where would you put it? On the horizontal stabilizer? Would probably rip the tail off . . . .


----------



## magnocain (Nov 27, 2007)

> Ummm, how about the Naval variant???? Like to see THAT tail with an arrestor hook on it...


Mabey they could put a really long arrestor hook at the end of the cockpit(cockpit...pod...thing... you know what im talking about)! 

I would pick the f4u.


What about the beaufighter?


----------



## Njaco (Nov 28, 2007)

> You guys must remember to stay within the confines of what was available in 1940, since that's a key part of the original question.
> Not what was "under developement", but available.



"The XF4U-1 was flown for the first time on 29 May 1940 demonstrating outstanding performance from the very beginning, and during a flight between Stratford and Hartford, Conn. on 1 October 1940, a speed of 404 mph (650kp/h) was attained, singling this prototype out as the first US fighter to exceed a speed of 400 mph in level flight." _American Aircraft of WWII pg 234._

I think with that in mind, the Corsair looked to be the most promising for the US and it appeared to be available. A design that is flying and testing would count. Variants and add-ons can come later but when you're gonna focus on one design, its the Corsair.


----------



## renrich (Nov 28, 2007)

On the subject of substituting engine of higher power in various AC, (like putting the Merlin in the P38) a higher power engine does not always mean a great improvement in performance. Examples: the P40 got the Merlin but not much performance improvement and the F2G got the R3350 but hardly improved on the performance of the F4U4. The reason the Merlin helped the P51 was because of a really low drag air frame and wing and because it kept the power up high where that low drag would allow the AC to really boogie.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 28, 2007)

renrich said:


> On the subject of substituting engine of higher power in various AC, (like putting the Merlin in the P38 ) a higher power engine does not always mean a great improvement in performance. Examples: the P40 got the Merlin but not much performance improvement and the F2G got the R3350 but hardly improved on the performance of the F4U4. The reason the Merlin helped the P51 was because of a really low drag air frame and wing and because it kept the power up high where that low drag would allow the AC to really boogie.




Yeah, I don't think the actual speed of the P-38 would've improved much, but it would've had better high altitude performance, and it definitely would've had more reliable engines (it's main problem in the ETO).

I was also somewhat surprised, initially, to find out that the performance of the Corsair didn't improve much when they installed the P&W R-4360. Obviously, it wasn't enough of an improvement to put the F2G into production, because only 10 examples were ever made before the War ended. Several were "surplused" out to the Unlimited racing crowd after the War, and competed successfully with hot-rodded Bearcats, Mustangs, and Sea Fury's in the late '40s and early '50's.


----------



## renrich (Nov 28, 2007)

Did I get the engine wrong in the F2G? I was doing it by memory but please excuse.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 1, 2007)

Ok, before this turns into some kind of blood bath and I'm marked as some kind of "bad guy", let me apologize to renrich and drgndog if I offended them.
I didn't mean to.
renrich, I can only work off the information I read in the initial post.
Your last posting better qualified that question you originally asked.
Thanks for clarifying that.
I suppose, given the further expanation of the original statement, I would have to say that maybe its not one single design that would've been best, but maybe a marriage of the best points of several "more desireable" designs?

...or maybe not, since that may result in aircraft assembled by "comittee".

Of course renrich did mention that whatever aircraft was selected, did not neccessarily have to be the _epitome_ of aricraft design of its day, since we're given the chance to work with the design and develop it into something all forces could use.

In my case, that may mean that, should the F4F be accepted, maybe the "development outcome" would've been the F6F, just sooner than it had actually happened (of course, without that crashed Zero to use as a test mule, a lot of developement would've been more "guesswork" than the actual flight characteristic data they did have to work with, resulting in an aircraft that may have been slightly inferior to the actual F6F).

This also brings to mind the fact that its often been said that the Allison V-12 was never developed to its fullest potential.
Basing the "single fighter" on one that used that engine, could've also showed what it was capable of.

My problem with liquid cooled engines is that the cooling system is more fragile than the air-cooling of a radial engine and thus, that's just one more thing to go wrong.

Given all of this, including the further qualifying of Renrich's question, it seems to me that maybe the "best" aricraft to pick may have been the P-47.
It had superior firepower and armour, was tougher than rawhide, could be easily adapated for carrier use, could carry a decent bomb load (when/if needed), could easily be adapted to a non-fighter role (such as an air ambulance - all you Vietnam era guys, think "Sandy") and was agile and fast.

Given all that, its a pretty hard design _not_ to pick.


...and before you guys rag all over me, its not that I have anything against the F4U.




Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Dec 1, 2007)

renrich said:


> Did I get the engine wrong in the F2G? I was doing it by memory but please excuse.


this might help.


Elvis


----------



## Njaco (Dec 1, 2007)

> ...and before you guys rag all over me, its not that I have anything against the F4U.



"Room 12 for an Argument - Mr. Barnard."

Elvis, I think the only stumbling block would be "what was available". Many designs were in development and the few that were created "during" the war, wasn't until 1941. So the question of what was available in 1940 kinda restricted the options. You make a great post and without a first-hand knowledge, I ask, was the P-47 in development or actually available?


----------



## renrich (Dec 2, 2007)

733 P47Bs and Cs were ordered by the US Army in Sept. 1940, so the P47 was definitely in development in 1940. To say that the P47 could "easily be adapted for carrier use" is probably a huge stretch. To begin with the early P47s had problems with landing gear collapses. That is hardly a recipe for succesful carrier operations. Even more problematical was the fact that the P47 was always known as a ground lover. How a P47 could take off from a carrier would be a real question. At the joint fighter conference in 1944, the P47 was not even mentioned when it came to the category-"best overload take off from a small area." The P47 was a fine AC but the early versions were range limited, had poor climb and were not very good performers until they got really high. One of my uncles was a IP in P39s and P47s and he told me that when they encountered Corsairs in mock dogfights in their P47s, the F4Us made mincemeat out of them. I actually thought my first post was pretty clear but to say that development of the Wildcat would lead to the Hellcat is like saying development of the SBD would lead to the AD. In both cases they were completely different air craft. Even if the Hellcat was legitimate as a development of the Wildcat, the Corsair was superior to the Hellcat in most areas, particularly as a ground based fighter.


----------



## renrich (Dec 2, 2007)

Interesting coincidence when it comes to shipboard fighters being considered as inferior to land based fighters. There were two fighters designed in the beginning as shipboard fighters that turned out to be very effective as fighters and fighter bombers, in land based versions as well as ship board versions. They were both in production for a long time, they were both bought and used by several foreign countries besides the US and they were used in numerous wars and foreign actions. They both had inverted gull wings(more or less) and they were both F4s. One was the F4U and the other was the F4H and in their day they were considered close to the epitome of fighter design.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Dec 2, 2007)

If you think about it, performance-wise, a shipbourne a.c will be less agile than its exact frame in a land-based configuration (i.e. no folding wings, no hydraulics for the wings, no arrester gear etc.) Though I know what you mean. Hall and Vought pretty much disproved the common stereotype of a any naval design being worse than the land based design. 

Britain, however, usually had inferior naval planes. But if Britain had been in the Naval war chaos which the US was experiencing, their Seafire probably would have been great by 1944. The Seafire XV was already a great plane... simply a cleaned-up naval version of the rag-tag, jerry-rigged but good Spitfire XII of early 1943.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 3, 2007)

Renrich,

That's the first time I've ever heard of P-47's have landing gear issues.
Is there anything that you could link to that talks about that in any depth?



Elvis


----------



## renrich (Dec 3, 2007)

I am more of a book guy than internet expert as I have accumulated a fairly large library of books. My preferred reference on US fighters WW2 is"America's Hundred Thousand' by Francis Dean. This tome has almost everything you would want to know about the roughly 100,000 fighters the US produced during WW2 including a chronology of their use. On page 287 the book mentions the gear collapses on the runway as one of the several teething problems of the early P47s. This was in March, 1943 and I don't know if this was a structural or hydraulic problem but I think the weight of the P47 and it's long takeoff run would be more significant in shipboard use. As far as the Spitfire- Seafire use on carriers is concerned, if the Spitfire had been modified enough to make it robust enough and truly suitable for anything but stopgap use on carrier duty, much of that sparkling performance would have been lost because of increased weight and then you would have had to deal with it's short range which was essentially insoluble. To me the salient point about the AC of the RN was that shortly after the end of WW1, there was a political battle in Britain about who was to have overall responsibility for the future of England's air arm, the RN or an entity which turned out to be the RAF. The RAF was the winner and that meant that the design, development and deployment of the AC in the Fleet Air Arm was controlled by the RAF. You can be assured that if the US Army had been detailed to determine what AC would serve in our Navy, few if any of the superb AC that fought for the USN in WW2 would have made it to our carriers. That is the main reason that the RN was stuck with inferior AC until they bought American.


----------



## MacArther (Dec 3, 2007)

For the sake of laughs, I would have taken the P40, and jumped on Curtiss' back from the beggining to institute massive upgrades in each variant, instead of piecemeal ones. P40Q with bubble top, 2000 pound of bombs, and a capacity for 4 20mm guns doesnt look too bad. 

Then again, this is all coming from someone who has a P40 in their signature.....


----------



## drgondog (Dec 3, 2007)

Elvis said:


> Ok, before this turns into some kind of blood bath and I'm marked as some kind of "bad guy", let me apologize to renrich and drgndog if I offended them.
> 
> *I'm OK - I've been called worse*
> 
> ...



No rag or gag - your opinion is fine. Where those of who favor the F4U over the P-47 is that it seems to combine all the attributes (positive) of the P-47 in context of bomb load and firepower (if you want the 4x 20MM version), better basic dogfighter performance in same context as P-51 and had significantly more intitial range than the Jug when it was needed the most in 1943.

It fell short below 30,000 feet but candidly that's all about engine and mission - there just wasn't any need for the F4U to tangle above 25,000 feet... but see no reason it doesn't get close to 51 and 47 with mod to engine/turbo combination.

As for comparing the P-47 as a VietNam Sandy, think A7D instead of the P-47 or A1E. 

Regards,

Bill


----------



## renrich (Dec 3, 2007)

Curtis tried to develop follow on models to the P40, namely the XP46 and XP60. Different varients of these models included Merlin engines, laminar flow wings, turbo charged Allisons and R2800s with 2 contra rotating props. None of them could exceed the performance of fighters already in production.


----------



## renrich (Dec 3, 2007)

An interesting sidebar to the battle over who would control the British air arm post WW1 was that Admiral Beatty of Jutland and battle cruiser fame was the primary advocate of the RN having control of the air assets. He was the one who supposedly said, after watching another of his battle cruisers apparently blowing up(I think Princess Royal) "Something seems to be the matter with our bloody ships today. Steer two points closer to the enemy."


----------



## davparlr (Dec 3, 2007)

renrich said:


> One of my uncles was a IP in P39s and P47s and he told me that when they encountered Corsairs in mock dogfights in their P47s, the F4Us made mincemeat out of them.



Must have been below 25k as the Report of Joint Fighter Conference indicates that the P-47 was the best fighter above 25K. The F4U-1 came at third, quite a bit below the ratings of no. 2 P-51. Below 25K the F4U-1 again came in a third, but close, to the F8F and again right behind the P-51.


----------



## Jank (Dec 4, 2007)

Interesting discussion.

Mock dogfights between friendlies are really just twisty turny games of tag / keep away and were not really indicative of the vast majority of actual combat which was fought utilizing boom and zoom tactics. Read encounter reports from Mustang and Bolt drivers for a plethora of illustrative examples.

Imagine if you will what conclusions one would draw had such contests been held between 109's/190's and P-47's. The P-47's would get waxed 95% of the time. And the 5% of the contests where the P-47's came out on top would be due to mismatched pilot skills. We know that the P-47 held its own quite effectively though in spite of performance that would have lead one to conclude that it was not fit for air to air combat.

Such contests also do not factor aircraft survivability. Just look at the huge disparity between Hellcats and Corsairs with respect to surviving AA hits. Corsairs were more than 50% more likely than Hellcats to leave their pilots in the soup, behind enemy lines or just plain dead after suffering AA hits. There is no reason to believe that the vulnerability of the Corsair's oil coolers was confined solely to AA hits either as hits from even small caliber rounds in the .30 caliber class were known to put a Corsair down in a matter of minutes. ( See pages 15 to conclusion in the thread "Hardest plane to take down in WW2?" http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hardest-plane-take-down-ww2-3114-15.html )


----------



## The Basket (Dec 4, 2007)

To me the P-40 was a stopgap between biplanes and the P-51.

To remove the P-40 from production for a superfighter which may or may not be available would be silly.

If the only good thing about the P-40 was availability then so what...better something than nothing. You would have to keep it in production for numbers alone.


----------



## CPWN (Dec 4, 2007)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRGYXMs9n1s_


----------



## renrich (Dec 4, 2007)

Dav, your report from the joint fighter conference must be different from mine because mine does not mention the F8F. Something else I noticed which seems screwy to me in the report is that the F4U4 is listed behind the F4U1D in both best fighter below and above 25000 feet. The F4U4 had substantially better performance than the F4U1D so that doesn't make sense to me. My guess is that ACM in WW2 took place largely below 25000 feet. As Bill has stated before if the Corsair had needed to have better performance up high, a supercharger modification could have provided it as in the F4U5. Since the oil cooler issue has been discovered on the F4U, one wonders how they shot down all those Japanese AC with the loss of only 189 Corsairs in ACM? No question however about the P47 being a formidable fighter and fighter bomber. Going back to the statistics business the P47s sorties/loss ratio in Europe was 138, the P51s was 85 and the P38s was 74. If someone asked me which one of those Ac I wanted to take into combat, I know which one I would take.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 4, 2007)

renrich said:


> Dav, your report from the joint fighter conference must be different from mine because mine does not mention the F8F.



Strange. My book, on page 319, under "Best All-Around Fighter below 25,000 Feet" shows F8F-30%, P-51-29%, F4U-1-27%




> Something else I noticed which seems screwy to me in the report is that the F4U4 is listed behind the F4U1D in both best fighter below and above 25000 feet. The F4U4 had substantially better performance than the F4U1D so that doesn't make sense to me. My guess is that ACM in WW2 took place largely below 25000 feet.



Looked funny to me, too. Since the test was run in Oct. '44, early for an F4U-4, maybe they had a bad bird.




> No question however about the P47 being a formidable fighter and fighter bomber. Going back to the statistics business the P47s sorties/loss ratio in Europe was 138, the P51s was 85 and the P38s was 74. If someone asked me which one of those Ac I wanted to take into combat, I know which one I would take.



Depends on the mission. Of those three, for a air-to-ground my selection would certainly be the P-47, air-to-air would be the P-51, for mixed, probably the P-47.


----------



## renrich (Dec 4, 2007)

Dav, as you know the F8F never even saw service in WW2. My list does not give percentages but breaks out this way-Best fighter below 25000 ft: P51D, F4U1D, F6F5, F4U4 and best fighter above 25000 ft: P47D, P51D,F4U1D,F6F5, F4U4, P38L.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 4, 2007)

Jank said:


> Interesting discussion.
> 
> Mock dogfights between friendlies are really just twisty turny games of tag / keep away and were not really indicative of the vast majority of actual combat which was fought utilizing boom and zoom tactics. Read encounter reports from Mustang and Bolt drivers for a plethora of illustrative examples.
> 
> ...



On the latter point, all those points are important - but not necessarily conclusive depending on the Primary Mission. If air superiority, a selector might pick the 51 over the P-47 (and did) or the F4U over the F6F (and did).

At the end of the day I would have picked and F4U over F6F simply because I believe I would have a better chance of escaping an air to air hit - no matter how vulnerable to a 30 caliber round. Same attitude most Mustang pilots had when comparing their experiences in both a/c (air to air).

The AAF, then USAF picked the 51 over the 47 and 38 on the judgement that in the nuclear age, escort (not ground support) was the Primary mission for the last piston engine fighters. Korea made that a bad decision but the 51 was deemed the best choice for Strategic doctrine.

If I had been fully knowledgeable about the issues we would encounter over Europe I would have picked the F4U over the P-47 (and P-51) simply because the a/c was as good or better than both in about 75% of the air to air criteria up to 25,000 feet (where ETO was fought) and superior on the deck - plus as good air to ground as P-47 with added advantage of being a better defensive fighter on the deck.

My love is the Mustang for all around but my head is on the Corsair.

In ETO, the only group that did exceptionally well air to air against the Luftwaffe throughout the campaigns in P-47s was the 56th (in context of air to air ratios achieved by Mustangs). The 51s had far better success against the Luftwaffe but I believe the Corsair would have done as well and far better air to ground.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 4, 2007)

renrich said:


> Interesting coincidence when it comes to shipboard fighters being considered as inferior to land based fighters.




In general, land base aircraft design have a large advantage over shipboard aircraft design. Also, It is inherently easier to reduce weight for less stess than it is to beef up an aircraft for higher stress. An example of this is the YF-17/F-18. To make the YF-17 carrier compatable, much heavier landing gear and stronger airframe to handle the arrester gear and landing stress, had to be incorporated. Weight added is always a weight multiple. In order to maintain maneuver performance, wing area had to be increased. To maintain range, more fuel was required. To maintain thrust to weight, larger, thirstier engines were needed. To handle all this added structure and fuel, the fuselage had to be widened, compromising the clean YF-17 aerodynamic design and reducing top speed (lower Mach). All of this added about 7700 lbs (over 40% increase!) to the empty weight to the original YF-17. The YF-17 was a cleaner and better flying aircraft than the F-18. Through an odd series of events, Northrop generated a redesign of the F-18A for land operations called the F-18L. This was much easier. Lighter gear was added, arrester hook removed, etc. making a lighter aircraft. Unfornuately nothing could be done about the wide fuselage. Had the F-17 been the AF version, it would have been a significantly better performer than its seaborne brother, the F-18. 



> There were two fighters designed in the beginning as shipboard fighters that turned out to be very effective as fighters and fighter bombers, in land based versions as well as ship board versions. They were both in production for a long time, they were both bought and used by several foreign countries besides the US and they were used in numerous wars and foreign actions. They both had inverted gull wings(more or less) and they were both F4s. One was the F4U and the other was the F4H and in their day they were considered close to the epitome of fighter design.



There is a difference between the F4U and the F4H. The F4U was outstanding fighter and an outstanding ground attack aircraft. The F4Hs real claim to fame was versatility. It was not a great fighter nor a great ground attack aircraft but it was good at both and adaptable to various other missions. The AF designs were philosophy poor in that they were specifically designed for a war that never occurred and left them ill prepared for the type of war that was to be fought.


----------



## Jank (Dec 4, 2007)

"_Jank - in the ETO that would be true primarily for the P-47_."

Agreed that it was a mandate for the P-47 but I believe it was nonetheless primarily true in the vast majority of Mustang encounters as well based on my reading of hundreds of encounter reports. Friendly games of tag / keep away where each are aware of the other's position at the start of the engagement and both start in relatively fair positioning vis a vis the other simply was not the order of the day in air combat and in that respect, such contests are not indicative of outcomes in actual air combat. (Again, consider my example of how indicative such contests would have been between 109's/190's and Thunderbolts.) Moreover, not to be nitpicky but such contests also did not factor relative differences in firepower. All things being equal, I'd rather be on the receiving end of six .50's than eight .50's. (I have no doubt that Macchi Mc.202's would have fared far better against Spitfires had their armament been greater than just two .50 cal. and two .30 cal. guns.)

What is the title of the 60 page report you referenced? I would like to obtain a copy.

I don't think I implied that survivability was necessarily conclusive overall but comes much closer to being so with respect to the air to ground role. I threw it out as an additional factor I thought is important. I don't really disagree with you except with your assertion that the F4U was "as good air to ground as P-47 ". The P-47 has 1/3 more gun firepower, a greater ammo capacity, is just as stable of a gun platform and is more survivable. As for ordinance load, the P-47D could have handled 4,000lb loads too. Just becauase it didn't doesn't mean it couldn't. At the point in time before F4U's carried such loads, it would have been an error to assert that it could not have been done because it had not been done. The weight differential between an empty and fully laden P-47D was about 7,000lbs. 

Republic Aviation's own design specs for the P-47M, which had the exact same wing and fuselage structure with respect to load bearing, indicate a maximum bomb load of 4,200lbs The P-47N, which did often carry 3,900lbs of bombs and rockets actually had a maximum design bomb load that was somewhat less at 3,700lbs. I have never come across Republic Aviation's design specs for the P-47D but there is no reason to assume that they would be any different than those for the P-47M.

I can not stress enough that the fact that the F4U actually did carry 4,000lb ordinance loads and the P-47D didn't is not conclusive on the issue of whether the P-47D could have carried such loads. Moreover, the survivability advantage of the Thunderbolt in the air to ground role is a far greater determinative factor of superiority in that role. The difference in survivability between the Corsair and Hellcat was so striking that the US Navy itself concluded that, "*The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage*." 

In short, the far and away superior performance of the Corsair could not overcome the effect of this inferior attribute.


----------



## helmitsmit (Dec 4, 2007)

I take the point about the P40. No one actually tried mating the P40N to a merlin 61. The P40F only had a merlin 20. It might not have made it the best but it would have been a match for most of it's enemies. It was also in service before 1940 so design issue could have been ironed out.


----------



## renrich (Dec 4, 2007)

Dav, I think your observations about the F4H are probably right on. I have a good friend in Texas who originally was a F100 driver but wound up flying 150 missions as a FAC. (How that happened is another story) He said that bombing results by the F4s were uniformly somewhat poor as compared to say the F105s.


----------



## renrich (Dec 4, 2007)

Speaking of ACM tactics in the Jug, I seem to remember that Bob Johnson in mock dogfights with Spitfires used what I would call "early energy tactics." Since he could neither turn, climb or accelerate with a Spit, he said the Spit could not roll worth spit( my description) so, since the Jug was a good roller, when a Spit was on his 6 he would roll one way and then the other until he got the Spit off his tail a little then dive a few thousand feet(the Spit couldn't stay with him in a dive) zoom climb and by then he was way in front of the Spit, continue the climb until almost out of AS, hammerhead stall and the Spit would be below nose high and a sitting duck.


----------



## Jank (Dec 4, 2007)

Bob Johnson's book is a keeper. To be fair though, I do not think the P-47D could have contended with the F4U-1 at lower altitudes until the paddle blade was installed and its engine was cleared for 2,600hp later in 1944. And, of course, the P-47D could never have contended with the F4U-4. 

Stock P-47D (July 1944)
70" Hg. top speed of 444mph at 23,200ft.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg

65Hg. rate of climb 3,260fpm at 10,000ft.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-climb.jpg


----------



## renrich (Dec 4, 2007)

Johnson's book is one of the best about WW2. I read somewhere that if you compare Johnson's mission and kill record to (I think) Werner Moelder's that if Johnson had been in combat the same length of time, his number of kills would have been comparable and of course all his kills were in the Jug.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 4, 2007)

Jank said:


> "_Jank - in the ETO that would be true primarily for the P-47_."
> 
> Agreed that it was a mandate for the P-47 but I believe it was nonetheless primarily true in the vast majority of Mustang encounters as well based on my reading of hundreds of encounter reports.
> 
> ...



And so the USN said - "Well, post war we want the inferior airplane because we are Squids and have a reputation to uphold - so we choose the worst of the two to carry into all future conflicts through Korea. We want the one whitch is far and away the inferior combat aircraft."

Works for me.

Do you propose the selection of F4U as all politics? 

Regards,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Dec 4, 2007)

Design Analysis of the P-47 Thunderbolt

Jank - I just spotted this site for structure on the 47

Based on the design of the wing, all the P-47 primary bomb carrying structure was outboard of Gear and Guns, and rockets outside of bombs, starting at about (guess) 50% span.

The F4U had all bomb racks inboard of main gear (which was significantly closer to fuselage than P-47 due to gull wing design), at about 20% Span, plus had more ground clearance for cl rack. All rocket stubs were on folding wing.

Those bending loads are a direct function of distance from wing/fuse interface - so by inspection, the bending loads for the main bomb loads (same bomb) would be at least 2x over the corsair for mains.

This is a reasonable guess for difference in load capability..but I don't have the stress 'stuff' in front of me.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Dec 4, 2007)

helmitsmit said:


> I take the point about the P40. No one actually tried mating the P40N to a merlin 61. The P40F only had a merlin 20. It might not have made it the best but it would have been a match for most of it's enemies. It was also in service before 1940 so design issue could have been ironed out.



You can only compensate for drag so much with increased Hp. The reason the 38 didn't improve much was overall airframe drag w/o reducing weight in the upgrade over the Allison - Ditto the P-40F.


----------



## Jank (Dec 4, 2007)

_"in the 175 encounter reports I have for the 355th, there are six bona fide 'boom and zoom' encounters - and those were all within weeks of transitioning to the Mustang in March, 1944. Almost every encounter in which there were multiple claims the Mustang driver a.) got his second in a diving chase or b.) a deflection/turning chase."_

Ineresting that you just happened to have all 175 encounter reports categorized on such a basis on short notice.  Did you really go and read through all 175 after my post or do you want to have an honest discussion here?

I am not going to read through all of Mike Williams encounters for you (as you have done for me) but as I indicated, my recollection is far different. I will also say there is no reason to believe that P-51 escorts attacking an advancing German threat would necesssarily be involved in twisty, turny fights (indicative of friendly mock combats) where Thunderbolts would not. Put differently, why is it that Mustang drivers would be required to chase down and outmanuever their prey while Thunderbolt drivers would not? Pehaps those daring Mustang pilots just liked the thrill of a good chase.

_"I suspect that it would be hard to prove that 6x 50 cal was less 'effective' in ground attack"_ 

Oh, I don't think it requires proving do you? Would you accept the premise that six .50's are more effective than four .50's? Bill, dead is dead but a miss is not a hit. 1/3 more bullets unleashed on your target means significantly more things on and around the target getting hit. That's proof enough for me. I am sorry I do not have a statistical analysis of six gun versus eight gun fighters for you.

_"It would be an error to stipulate that because it Might be feasible that there weren't operational considerations prohibiting 2,000 pound bomb on each pylon for the P-47."_

Who said anything about a 2,000lb bomb load under each pylon on the P-47? Moreover, the F4U's that carried 4,000lb bomb loads did so with 1,000lb under each wing and 2,000lb under the centerline. You might be correct that there may have been operational considerations. We do not know. It does not follow that therefore there were operational considerations prohibiting it. Perhaps range and the need to carry fuel could have been such a consideration between AAF and Marine units operating from different locations. That might be an operational consideration. The P-47N's certainly carried 4,000lb ordinance loads.

And as I pointed out, the P-47M was designed to handle a 4,200lb bomb load. The P-47M and D would have been indistinguishable in that regard.

_"IIRC correctly all four Primary (51, 47 and F6F and F4U had pylons stressed for 1,000 pound bombs or 200 gal ferry tanks"_

The P-47M and N were designed to handle bomb loads under each pylon of 1,600lbs. I have never seen the Republic Aviation design spec fpr the P-47D but the M is obviously instructive here. 

_"On the other hand the F4U's (as limited as they were until Korea) also was equipped with 4 20mm which is heavier firepower"_

I did not know at 4x20mm Corsairs saw combat. Do you know how many outfitted in this fashion saw combat? I do think that 4 x 20mm's are probably a better set up than 8 x .50's. 

"How do you know that?" (with respect to the bomb load under each wing)

Because I own a copy of the Republic Aviation Performance and Specification Manual for both the P-47M and N. 

_"They put one hell of a lot of fuel in the M wing" _

I am afraid you are mistaken.

_"Jank - what statistical basis do you have on 'survivability' between the P-47D and the F4U? I've seen the USN discussions between the F6F and F4U but missed the comparison between either and the P-47?"_

It is based on the presumption that the Thunderbolt was at least as survivable as the Hellcat. Remember that statistically speaking, Corsair drivers were more than 50% more likely not to bring their planes back after taking AA hits and that this was apparently due to the more vulnerable oil cooling arrangement of the Corsair. The Hellcat and the P-47 share the same oil cooler setup. I am aware of no studies but first person accounts of Thunderbolts continuing to fly with horrific damage abound in relation to such accounts involving Hellcats. I am quite comfortable in this presumption.

I am not sure why you want to see a "statistical basis" for that presumption. A moment ago you were standing by the assertion that, "It would be an error to stipulate that because it might be feasible that there weren't operational considerations prohibiting 2,000 pund bomb on each pylon for the P-47." Can you share the data that you have on these "operational considerations"? 

In your earlier thread you stated, " _I believe the Corsair would have done as well and far better air to ground_." (You were referring to the Corsair vs. Thunderbolt.) Tell me Bill. What statistical basis do you have on 'would have done far better air to ground' between the P-47D and the F4U? I've seen the Joint Fighter Conference Report stating that the Thunderbolt fared better than all other types in the ETO specifically including the P-38 but missed the comparison between the Corsair and the P-47.

What is your opinion on the survivability of the Thunderbolt vs. F4U Bill?

_"And so the USN said - "Well, post war we want the inferior airplane because we are Squids and have a reputation to uphold - so we choose the worst of the two to carry into all future conflicts through Korea. We want the one whitch is far and away the inferior combat aircraft."

Works for me."_

Now you are just being silly Bill. Conversely, do you think that the Navy had bogus statistics, or drew conslusions that were bogus or was basing that conclusion on political considerations? Maybe someone at Grumman paid them off? Corsair pilots liked to ditch their planes for fun?


----------



## drgondog (Dec 4, 2007)

Jank said:


> _"in the 175 encounter reports I have for the 355th, there are six bona fide 'boom and zoom' encounters -
> 
> Ineresting that you just happened to have all 175 encounter reports categorized on such a basis on short notice.  Did you really go and read through all 175 after my post or do you want to have an honest discussion here?
> 
> ...


_

No Jank, my sarcastic reply is that You made the case that the F6F was more survivable and "F6F was slightly superiorto the F4U in combat" - QED why would Navy choose to labor on with the F4U?

Below is your statement in its entirety since you like to 'edit'.

The difference in survivability between the Corsair and Hellcat was so striking that the US Navy itself concluded that, "The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage." 

In short, the far and away superior performance of the Corsair could not overcome the effect of this inferior attribute.

If you want to continue this kind of dialogue don't bother -_


----------



## davparlr (Dec 4, 2007)

renrich said:


> Dav, as you know the F8F never even saw service in WW2. My list does not give percentages but breaks out this way-Best fighter below 25000 ft: P51D, F4U1D, F6F5, F4U4 and best fighter above 25000 ft: P47D, P51D,F4U1D,F6F5, F4U4, P38L.



That's really strange as mine has a rating for the XF8F. The report is not limited to WWII combatants. It also mentions the XF2G-1. Also, I noticed that the F4U-4 was really the XF4U-4.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 4, 2007)

renrich said:


> Dav, I think your observations about the F4H are probably right on. I have a good friend in Texas who originally was a F100 driver but wound up flying 150 missions as a FAC. (How that happened is another story) He said that bombing results by the F4s were uniformly somewhat poor as compared to say the F105s.




Interesting. One of my classmates at pilot training was orginally assigned to an F-100, but before he could qualify, the aircraft was removed from service. He got a OV-10 and was shot down in the same action as Bat 21. In fact his name is mentioned in the book. He was captured. I recognized him when he got off the C-141 at Clark when they were released.


----------



## Jank (Dec 4, 2007)

_"If you want to have an 'honest discussion' why question my integrity Jank?"_

I frankly did not know about your working nearly 20 years doing research on the 355th FG. That's why. 
_
"OK J - prove it. Prove that the P-47 with 8 50s was more effective (or efficient) than the F4U-4 with six 50s"_

Again, I think you are being silly. Again, Would you accept the premise that six .50's are more effective than four .50's? Bill, dead is dead but a miss is not a hit. 1/3 more bullets unleashed on your target means significantly more things on and around the target getting hit. That's proof enough for me. I am sorry I do not have a statistical analysis of six gun versus eight gun fighters for you.


_"And you fact base is?? for either the bomb load or the same wing or the same structure.?"_ (Here you are taking issue with my claim that the P-47M is designed to handle a 4,200lb bomb load.)

Republic Aviation - Models P-47N and P-47M, Description, Performance Dimensions: Chapter 4 "Fuel, Oil, Capacities, Armament and Weights" P-47M - Total Bomb Load (U.S. Units) (a) Wings: 2-1,600lb (b) Belly: 1-1,000lb

_"You haven't proved same (unmodified) wing yet"_ (In reference to my claim that the M and D had the same wing and wing to fuselage structure.)

You are correct. I have not and frankly do not feel the need to do so. If you want to reject my claim, that is fine. We can agree to disagree. I suspect that you know my claim is true. The P-47M had the same wing as the D.
_
"For us math challenged that would appear to be a bomb load of 3200?"_

The centerline has 1,000lbs as well. Do you have some data on the planes and circumstances where they could not carry maximum wing and centerline loads together? The P-47N has a total bomb load capacity according to this publication of 3,700lbs. (1,600lbs under each wing and 500lbs under the centerline) In fact, the P-47N often exceeded this. See the picture below of a P-47N loaded with 2,500lbs of bombs and 1,400lbs of rockets. (For us math challenged, that's 200lbs more than the design maximum) I'm sure you will insist that the M and D versions were different in this regard though. 







I asked you the following,"*I did not know that 4x20mm Corsairs saw combat. Do you know how many outfitted in this fashion saw combat?*"

You gave examples that were all post WWII. I'm sorry, I thought we were talking with respect to WWII. My bad. So we have eight .50's vs. six .50's for Thunderbolts and Corsairs that saw combat in WWII?

_"Why does your 'presumption' have weight over published facts?" _(here you are referring to my assertion that the Thunderbolt was more survivable than the Corsair based on the published facts concerning the Hellcat and Corsair)

What published facts are you referring to? Do you know of published facts indicating that the Corsair or Hellcat for that matter was more survivable than the Thunderbolt? And am I thus giving more weight to my presumption than these published facts? My presumption is consistent with the published facts that I have seen on the oil cooler layouts, relative superior survivability of the Hellcat over the Corsair and there being no basis for concluding that the Thunderbolt would have been less vulnerable than the Hellcat. Are you aware of such a basis for concluding the opposite?

I asked for your opinion as to whether the F4U was more or less survivable than the P-47 and you responded, _"My OPINION, as I have stated it before - as contrasted with OPINIONS to the contrary, is the the F4U was just as 'survivable'."_

Upon what is this opinion based? I hope you are not presuming in the absence of "published facts." Of course not. So please do share the "statistical data" and "published facts" that support that thesis.

I am perplexed by the following. _"You made the case that the F6F was more survivable and "F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat" - QED why would Navy choose to labor on with the F4U?

Below is your statement in its entirety since you like to 'edit'.

The difference in survivability between the Corsair and Hellcat was so striking that the US Navy itself concluded that, "The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage."

In short, the far and away superior performance of the Corsair could not overcome the effect of this inferior attribute."_

Yes. And? Let's revisit the Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, WWII:

From the report itself at page 58:

*Thus comparisons are valid between the carrier F6F and F4U totals because they generally operated from the same ships during the same periods.
...
Certain tentative conclusions may be reached from these two tables:

(a) The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage.*

Page 79, Note (e) to Table 29

*The F6F appears to have had considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same conditions. Receiving about the same number of hits per sortie in comparable operations, the F6F had a far lower rate of loss per plane hit.*

Now, as I stated, "*The difference in survivability between the Corsair and Hellcat was so striking that the US Navy itself concluded that, "The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage."

In short, the far and away superior performance of the Corsair could not overcome the effect of this inferior attribute.*" 

I stand by that statement.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 4, 2007)

drgondog said:


> The AU-1, F4U-4B, F4U-4C, F4U-4P and F4U-5N logged combat in Korea between 1950 and 1953.[citation needed] On 10 September 1952, a MiG-15 made the mistake of getting into a turning contest with a Corsair piloted by Captain Jesse G. Folmar, with Folmar shooting the MiG down with his four 20 millimeter cannon.


Among 20mm Corsairs a relatively small number of F4U-1C's saw combat in WWII.

In Korea the relative use of 20mm and .50 cal Corsairs is roughly indicated by losses, all causes, USN and USMC combined. From the Opnav document "Korean Area Aircraft Losses- July 1953 and Campaign to Date". All -5 variants and AU-1's had 20mm
F4U-4 (.50 cal): 310
F4U-4B (20mm): 178
F4U-4P (.50): 1
F4U-5: 29
F4U-5N: 46
F4U-5NL: 29
F4U-5P: 5
AU-1: 22

Folmar's plane was a -4B, his wingman's a -4. They were sometimes mixed together in Marine units at that point in the war.

Joe


----------



## Jank (Dec 4, 2007)

davparlr, I seem to have the same copy as Renrich. I can't find an edition but mine is copyrighted 1998.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 5, 2007)

Jank said:


> _"If you want to have an 'honest discussion' why question my integrity Jank?"_
> 
> I frankly did not know about your working nearly 20 years doing research on the 355th FG. That's why.
> 
> ...



Stand on whatever you want to stand on. Somehow the USN decided that the 'less survivable' fighter should continue production while they killed "the better one" - Why? - I stand by my statement. 

Back to the P-47 vs F4U, what basis of comparison do you have between the Corsair and P-47 for survivabilty...?? because of different threat environment, terrain, mission distances, etc...how do you compare? I'll concede the WWII oil cooler issue as a point of vulnerability - but how does that factor into overall survivabiliy factors such as air to air combat?

-but if you have statistics that break out losses in ground support/airfield attack roles for both fighters at least that is a start - I don't have them - therefore my OPINION is OPINION, but I suspect you don't either.

PS your link didn't show a 4,000 pound bomb load, or even a 3,000 pound load - keep searchin'


----------



## renrich (Dec 5, 2007)

There were 200 F4U1Cs produced during WW2 and they were armed with 4-20mm cannon. I don't know how effective that armament variation was.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 5, 2007)

renrich said:


> There were 200 F4U1Cs produced during WW2 and they were armed with 4-20mm cannon. I don't know how effective that armament variation was.



Rich - anecdotally (don't have the metrics), our 20mm had a fair amount of jams relative to M2 .50. The Brits also had more proportionate jamming with their 20's but apparently less than ours.

The combination of jams and less need for really heavy firepower represented by 20mm over .50 led the Navy to conclude to use .50 for most applications. However before Korea the Navy started specifying 20mm for future guns and the F4U-5 was first of new bacth to roll out of Factory since F4U-1C - (IIRC)


----------



## Jank (Dec 5, 2007)

drgndog,

I understand that you still require proof that eight .50's were more effective than six .50's but I think we're beating a dead horse here. As I indicated, 1/3more bullets unleashed on your target means significantly more things on and around your target getting hit. If this premise requires proof or needs further clarification, read the preceding sentence again.

_"And your proof that that load carrying capability per each rack is used simultaneously is?? ... Unfortunately for this discussion you seem reluctant to produce the factual circumstances that surround the ACTUAL mission of any P-47 carrying a 4,000 pound bomb load."_

I think were getting off track here. My previous post (#79) states: 

*As for ordinance load, the P-47D could have handled 4,000lb loads too. Just becauase it didn't doesn't mean it couldn't. At the point in time before F4U's carried such loads, it would have been an error to assert that it could not have been done because it had not been done. The weight differential between an empty and fully laden P-47D was about 7,000lbs. ... I can not stress enough that the fact that the F4U actually did carry 4,000lb ordinance loads and the P-47D didn't is not conclusive on the issue of whether the P-47D could have carried such loads.*

I never said that the P-47D could carry 4,000lbs of bombs. I said "ordinance load". I did say that the P-47M and P-47D had maximum bomb loads by design of 4,200lbs and 3,700lbs respectively. The only way that the P-47D and P-47M could carry such bomb loads would be through the carrying of 1,600 pounders under each wing with a 1,000 pounder under the fuselage. I understand that 1,600lb aerial bombs did exist in the allied arsenal. I do not think P-47's ever carried these bombs but can see no reason why a pylon stressed for 1,600 lbs could not handle it. 

The problem with the P-47D and M are that they can't handle two 1,000lb bombs under the fuselage. The Corsair gets to 4,000lbs with a 1,000 pounder under each wing and two 1,000 pounders under the fuselage. 

I can see that your hackles are raised again at my claim that the P-47M bomb load was applicable to the P-47D. I have not come across "proof" for you that the P-47D and M were cut from the same cloth, or airframe as it were. I have seen documentary proof of this myself in the past but am not going to try to pass of my recollection to you as proof. We will have to agree to disagree on this one as well.

As to proof that on the P-47, all bomb stations could be occupied to maximum capacty simultanously, I provided a picture of a P-47 with 1,700lbs of ordinance under each wing and a 500lb bomb under the fuselage. Remember that the bomb stations themselves were designed to handle 1,600lbs. Obviously, I do not have a picture of a P-47 carrying a 1,600lb bomb under each wing. I do not think air force fighters carried such bombs as it was a naval device as I recollect. At any rate, I do not see how 1,000lbs on each pylon and 700lbs situated on either side and a 500lb bomb under the fuselage would tend to show that the P-47N could not fuilfil its design maximum in bomb load. That ordinance load is actually 200lbs greater than the design maximum. 

The P-47M and P-47N Are similar in that the design maximum bomb load is the same for the wings but 500lbs greater for the underbelly. Admnittedly, I am engaging in a leap or perhaps step of logic in assuming that the P-47M would be able to handle maximum loads on all stations as well. That coupled with my existing knowkedge that the P-47M and P-47D were formed from the same airframe is how I arrive at the presumption that the P-47D could have handled such ordinance loads.

_"this is third time I actually asked if you had ONE example of the P-47 actually carrying 4,000 (or 4200) pound of bombs. And you have not produced that example. ... Unfortunately for this discussion you seem reluctant to produce the factual circumstances that surround the ACTUAL mission of any P-47 carrying a 4,000 pound bomb load."_

I never said I either had or could produce an example or actual situation where the P-47 actually carried 4,000lb bomb loads. Again, *I can not stress enough that the fact that the F4U actually did carry 4,000lb ordinance loads and the P-47D didn't is not conclusive on the issue of whether the P-47D could have carried such loads.* Back to my previous post (#79) *At the point in time before F4U's carried such loads, it would have been an error to assert that it could not have been done because it had not been done. * Do you see the error in that logic? I undrstand that you are not willing to accept as a conclusive fact that it could have been done but conversely, that in and of itself is not a basis for concluding the opposite either. 

_"I know the P-47M was constructed from a P-47D-25. I don't know what mods were performed. You do not know either... your claim of 'unmodified' remains a claim."_

No, it was not. But that is neither here nor there. Yes, for you and others who read this thread (assuming there are others) it is just a claim.

_"Why does your 'presumption' have weight over published facts?"_

Now this is curious. In post #77, you said, _"I would have picked the F4U over the P-47 (and P-51) simply because the a/c was as good or better than both in about 75% of the air to air criteria up to 25,000 feet (where ETO was fought) and superior on the deck - plus as good air to ground as P-47 with added advantage of being a better defensive fighter on the deck."_

Now you have been very thorough in criticizing me for making the statement that the P-47 was more survivable than the Corsair. I said, *It is based on the presumption that the Thunderbolt was at least as survivable as the Hellcat. Remember that statistically speaking, Corsair drivers were more than 50% more likely not to bring their planes back after taking AA hits and that this was apparently due to the more vulnerable oil cooling arrangement of the Corsair. The Hellcat and the P-47 share the same oil cooler setup. I am aware of no studies but first person accounts of Thunderbolts continuing to fly with horrific damage abound in relation to such accounts involving Hellcats. I am quite comfortable in this presumption.*

To that, you stated, _"Jank - what statistical basis do you have on 'survivability' between the P-47D and the F4U? I've seen the USN discussions between the F6F and F4U but missed the comparison between either and the P-47?"_

So now I ask you what statistical basis do you have that the Corsair 'would have done far better air to ground' than the Thunderbolt. In order to prevail on this point, you will need to provide evidence not just that it would have done just better but far better.

In addition, I asked for your opinion as to whether the F4U was more or less survivable than the P-47 and you responded, _"My OPINION, as I have stated it before - as contrasted with OPINIONS to the contrary, is the the F4U was just as 'survivable'."_ Can you provide the statistical basis for this opinion? Is it just a presumption? On what is it based? Did you flip a coin and it ended up standing on edge? What basis of comparison do you have between the Corsair and P-47 for survivabilty...?? because of different threat environment, terrain, mission distances, etc...how do you compare?

_"Somehow the USN decided that the 'less survivable' fighter should continue production while they killed "the better one" - Why? - I stand by my statement."_

I do not have an answer for you but if I had to guess, it would be because the Corsair airframe had more evolution left. We were entering the jet age and the Hellcat was about 60-70mph slower. The Navy may have decided to shift more emphasis on offensive capabilities rendering the Hellcat no longer superior by virtue of its survivability. Perhaps the anticipated missions had changed in such a way that the Hellcat's edge in survivability was no longer an issue. I don't know either. Why are you asking me? I do not have to provide you with an answer to say that it is a fact that the Navy issued that very conclusion and that there is no reason why it should not be accepted for what it is, the USN's own determination. Like you, I think the oil cooler was the culprit.

One more thing. You said, " All of the 355FG P-47 awards were diving chasing attacks with very little turning."

Do you have some evidence of this? I have reread a bunch of 355th FG P-47 encounters. In order to prevail on this, you will need to show (1) All of the attacks were diving chasing and (2) All of the attacks had very little turning.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 5, 2007)

Jank said:


> drgndog,
> 
> _"And your proof that that load carrying capability per each rack is used simultaneously is?? ... Unfortunately for this discussion you seem reluctant to produce the factual circumstances that surround the ACTUAL mission of any P-47 carrying a 4,000 pound bomb load."_
> 
> ...



Tell you what I would like to propose. I would like to ask Eric to be middleman because he is close enough to my library of both Encounter reports and my combat film. I have nowhere close to the same coverage on the 51 fights as I do on the Jug kills for the 355th.

Lets say you and I make an 'interesting' (substantial) wager on this subject using the film I have on hand that are at least 50% of all the 355th FG kills in P-47s. They include as I recall most or all of Norm Olson's kills, Burroughs, Elder, Szaniawski, Gresham plus one or two others.

Since the actaul attitude is difficuly to judge in all cases it will be impossible to detect if the final coup d'gras is in level or diving flight but it is easy to see the deflection. 

I will stipulate that it is not a turning fight unless there is some representation of a Lufberry in which the target is acquired, overtaken, pull nose through and shoot at or about the same altitude.

All of the film is identified as to date, group/squadron, enemy a/c and 355th pilot scoring the kill. You can match them to the ones that Mike Williams has on his website for verification.

The ground rules are place the funds in an irrevocable escrow and we will negotiate who you wish to be a second witness. All negotiations start off line.

If you wish to continue overloading your canary ass with your alligator mouth I am pleased to respond.

Are you up to it?


----------



## Jank (Dec 6, 2007)

"*I never said that the P-47D could carry 4,000lbs of bombs.*"

_Actually I think you did on page 5 - which is what started my probe on this subject.._

I am afraid you are mistaken. I said that the P-47D could carry a 4,000lb ordinance load. I also mentioned the bomb load for the P-47M as evidence that the P-47D could carry such an ordinance load.

post #79 - 

*As for ordinance load, the P-47D could have handled 4,000lb loads too.*

*I can not stress enough that the fact that the F4U actually did carry 4,000lb ordinance loads and the P-47D didn't is not conclusive on the issue of whether the P-47D could have carried such loads*.

post #88 -

*And as I pointed out, the P-47M was designed to handle a 4,200lb bomb load. The P-47M and D would have been indistinguishable in that regard.*

*The P-47M and N were designed to handle bomb loads under each pylon of 1,600lbs. I have never seen the Republic Aviation design spec fpr the P-47D but the M is obviously instructive here.*

post #98 - This is the post where I said that I never had said that the P-47D could carry 4,000lbs of bombs. Which is true. I had never said that. I know how strongly you feel about proving things so I look forward to your next post. 

_"Actually you have ... yet to prove even a total ordnance load of bombs and rockets to support what you have said so far"_

_"Interesting speculation but what official document have you seen that claims it will do it - and safely as an operational load? You continue to dance around this"_

Have you ever heard that saying about leading horse to water?

From my last and a previous post. (This is hardly dancing around the issue as I squarely address your concern about my lack of proof)

*You are correct. I have not and frankly do not feel the need to do so. If you want to reject my claim, that is fine. We can agree to disagree. I suspect that you know my claim is true. The P-47M had the same wing as the D.*

*I have not come across "proof" for you that the P-47D and M were cut from the same cloth, or airframe as it were. I have seen documentary proof of this myself in the past but am not going to try to pass of my recollection to you as proof. We will have to agree to disagree on this one as well.*

*The only way that the P-47D and P-47M could carry such bomb loads would be through the carrying of 1,600 pounders under each wing with a 1,000 pounder under the fuselage. I understand that 1,600lb aerial bombs did exist in the allied arsenal. I do not think P-47's ever carried these bombs but can see no reason why a pylon stressed for 1,600 lbs could not handle it.*

*The P-47M and P-47N Are similar in that the design maximum bomb load is the same for the wings but 500lbs greater for the underbelly. Admittedly, I am engaging in a leap or perhaps step of logic in assuming that the P-47M would be able to handle maximum loads on all stations as well. That coupled with my existing knowledge that the P-47M and P-47D were formed from the same airframe is how I arrive at the presumption that the P-47D could have handled such ordinance loads.*

*I never said I either had or could produce an example or actual situation where the P-47 actually carried 4,000lb bomb loads.*

_"You seem so desperate to make the P-47 the most durable, heaviest load carrier, longest range, Luftwaffe destroyer that struck fear in all hearts."_

All I can say is that this comment is quite lame. Let's try to suppress the personal attacks. What do you say?

I was hoping you could respond to the following points I raised in my last post:

Now you have been very thorough in criticizing me for making the statement that the P-47 was more survivable than the Corsair. I said,* It is based on the presumption that the Thunderbolt was at least as survivable as the Hellcat. Remember that statistically speaking, Corsair drivers were more than 50% more likely not to bring their planes back after taking AA hits and that this was apparently due to the more vulnerable oil cooling arrangement of the Corsair. The Hellcat and the P-47 share the same oil cooler setup. I am aware of no studies but first person accounts of Thunderbolts continuing to fly with horrific damage abound in relation to such accounts involving Hellcats. I am quite comfortable in this presumption.*

To that, you stated,_"Jank - what statistical basis do you have on 'survivability' between the P-47D and the F4U? I've seen the USN discussions between the F6F and F4U but missed the comparison between either and the P-47?"_

So now I ask you what statistical basis do you have that the Corsair 'would have done far better air to ground' than the Thunderbolt. In order to prevail on this point, you will need to provide evidence not just that it would have done just better but far better.

In addition, I asked for your opinion as to whether the F4U was more or less survivable than the P-47 and you responded, _"My OPINION, as I have stated it before - as contrasted with OPINIONS to the contrary, is the the F4U was just as 'survivable'."_ Can you provide the statistical basis for this opinion? Is it just a presumption? On what is it based? Did you flip a coin and it ended up standing on edge? What basis of comparison do you have between the Corsair and P-47 for survivabilty...?? because of different threat environment, terrain, mission distances, etc...how do you compare?

Lastly, you stated, _"All of the 355FG P-47 awards were diving chasing attacks with very little turning."_

In order to prevail on this claim, you will need to show (1) All of the attacks were diving chasing and (2) All of the attacks had very little turning. As such, even one such deviation from the aforementioned prongs will cause your claim to fail.

I have an alternative idea for a proposal. While it has none of the fanfare, pomp and circumstance of your proposal, it is very clean and efficient. If I produce one such shoot down that does not satisfy both prongs, you lose. 

So, for instance,if I produced:

1st Lieutenant Vernon A. Burroughs, February 11, 1944:

I spotted an Me-109 flying behind us and at our altitude on our right. I was flying on the right and changed to the left to be in position for firing. I notified Major Szaniawski of the E/A and its position; he made a 30 degree turn to the right, then the E/A identified us and made a left diving turn, leaving Major Szaniawski a 45 degree deflection shot in the steep bank. I observed hits on the wings and fuselage and as the E/A passed under me, I did a vertical barrel roll and fired a long burst at 100 yard, closing to 25 yards and saw hits on the empennage. The E/A was smoking badly and was on fire.

Or, say I produced:

1st Lieutenant Jack J. Woertz,November 29, 1944:

We pulled back up to rejoin the bombers at 26,000ft when I spotted eight plus Me-109's. They were coming from SE.,4,000ft above us (flying at 30,000ft) and heading for the bombers at 2 o'clock. They passed over us and I believe were getting set to attack the big friends, when four P-47's of another group appeared in front of them. The E/A's jumped the P-47's. We were climbing all the time, and made two Lufberrys. I closed on the last E/A. He started to roll down, I followed, closed to about 600 yards and gave him a short squirt. I saw no strikes. I again opened fire at 350 yards, then closed to 200, where I gave him about a two second burst. I saw strikes on his canopy, left wing root, and fuselage. Hecht and Peery were with me in the Lufberry and all during the engagement.

One last note drgndog. I don't appreciate the tough guy behind the anonymous posting from the safety of my computer bullshit. You would never take this tone to my face. Trust me.

If you want to keep this discussion going, lets have some fun. I am going to ask you, again, to respond to my queries.


----------



## Jank (Dec 6, 2007)

Of possible interest:

P-47 Thunderbolt: Aviation Darwinism - The Cradle of Aviation Museum - The Cradle of Aviation Museum

"Actual production P-47M fighters used the P-47D-30-RE as the basic airframe."


----------



## helmitsmit (Dec 6, 2007)

I think we are all missing the point a little. Yes, load carrying ability is important but you need the air superiority first. In a fighter this best achiveved by speed, manoevourabilty and firepower. Therefore, I think the Corsair fills most of these requirements on average better then any other american fighter.


----------



## Jank (Dec 6, 2007)

"I think the Corsair fills most of these requirements on average better then any other american fighter."

I agree. The side show going on above, however, is not inconsistent with that assertion. 

Nowhere have I indicated that the P-47 should have been the basket that the government should have invested all of its eggs into.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 6, 2007)

Jank said:


> "*
> 
> Now you have been very thorough in criticizing me for making the statement that the P-47 was more survivable than the Corsair. I said, It is based on the presumption that the Thunderbolt was at least as survivable as the Hellcat. Remember that statistically speaking, Corsair drivers were more than 50% more likely not to bring their planes back after taking AA hits and that this was apparently due to the more vulnerable oil cooling arrangement of the Corsair. The Hellcat and the P-47 share the same oil cooler setup. I am aware of no studies but first person accounts of Thunderbolts continuing to fly with horrific damage abound in relation to such accounts involving Hellcats. I am quite comfortable in this presumption.
> 
> ...


*

I have responded to them all. you keep manuevering with heresay and assumptions - it is circular. 

BTW I believe the bombs on the Jug pic are two 500 and one 250 pounders - but could be wrong. If so, however it does bring evidence to a max 'PUBLISHED' combat load (not bombs) of 2500 pounds

Republic P-47 Thunderbolt - USA
Warbird Alley: Republic P-47 Thunderbolt
P-47 Thunderbolt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All the 355th Encounter reports are now on Mike's site.. The two you cited in my juddgement were not kills made in the turn. One (and only one) chase started that way (i.e Lufberry) but the Jugs could not pull inside (for you that means 'out turn')

So lets parse words - as I did in my last post. I said in the first previous post that all 335th P-47 kills were primarily diving with very little turning. I did not say "no combat in 355th FG P-47s involved turning manuevers in the attack." 

I clarified what I meant in the last post - in establishing the terms of the 'challenge' - by defining a turning kill - namely a turn, in which the P-47 is in a Lufberry, and in the film (or encounter) the enemy fighter continues in the turn, and the P-47 out turns him, gets the lead and pulls through, makes the shot to destroy him. 

That is the way I classify a result in my research for purposes of trying to compare against Mustang in 355th vesrsus the P-47 kills, vis a vis the different ways a P-51 could reasonably score.

Now back to your examples. None of those, and none of the other entire array of 355th scores had a different profile from a.) see, dive, chase, cut inside and shoot, or b.) see, chase, come up unobsrved and shoot, or c.) see, hard turn or roll to change to cut inside and shoot, or. in Woertz's case, d.) see chase, enter a turn, turn, see enemy roll and dive, chase catch shoot.

To your challenge - Woertz's example is one that contradicts a statement that there were no combats ior attacks involving a lot of tuning. I will state that Woertz did a lot of turning chasing his 109... However, I will re-iterate that the kill was NOT made in turning lufberry manuever but in a diving chase

I have mine scored C=chase (dive or level), M=manuever ('twisty, turny, climby, divey), T=turn (chase, luffberry, out turn, shoot), HO=head on. There are no "T" for the P-47 in the 355th FG*


----------



## Jank (Dec 6, 2007)

_"Yes I stated that opinion, and continue to a.) state it as an opinion, and b.) you can't prove otherwise., and c.) because you Assert and I merely express an opinion - where is burden of proof?"_

You did in fact say,_ "My OPINION, as I have stated it before - as contrasted with OPINIONS to the contrary, is the the F4U was just as 'survivable'." _

That certainly looks like an opinion to me.

You also said, that the Corsair "_would have done far better air to ground_" than the Thunderbolt.

Is that an opinion too? Sounds an awful lot like an asertion that the Thunderbold could have carriesd a 4,000lb ordinance load. You say 'would have' I say 'could have'. Are we playing semantic games now drgndog?

Would it make you feel better if I were to tell you that my assertions are my 'opinons' and that I believe them to be actually true for the reasons I have already stated numerous times?

Unlike you, I have been willing to share the basis for my 'could have.' You appear unwilling to share your basis for your 'would have' as well as your opinion that the Corsair was just as survivable.

As to the latter (your assertion / opinion / however you want to characterize it that the Corsair was just as survivable), what is the basis of your opinion? It is you who are engaging in a tiresome dance drgndog. Why is it that you desire not to answer the question which has been asked and skirted around numerous times now. Why are you unwilling to share the basis for your opinion? Why is that off limits?

Lets say I were to say that in my opinion, the Corsair's oil cooler was more efficient than the Thunderbolt's. If you were to ask me for the basis of that opinion, why would I be an asshat and insist that it is just an opinion and point out that you can't prove otherwise and then ask, _"Where is the burden of proof_."? Do you see how you sound?

Opinions are grounded in facts, presumptions, etc. The basis of my opinion may be that I overheard someone say it at a bar and that I place great confidence in that person's kowledge. The basis may be that I had a dream where a hairy man told me so and that I accept it as such because in the past, this hairy man has always been right.

On this forum, people issue opinions all the time and are queried on them. Is there some reason why you are uncomfortable sharing your considerable knowledge? That is rhetorical as we both know that you don't want to get sucked into looking like a hippocrite when it turns out that you are insisting that I conform with statistical data and provable facts while you get a pass.

On the former claim that you made, this looks like the claim I made except that you substitute 'would have' for 'could have.' You will note that the comment was not premised with your trademark THIS IS AN OPINION qualifier. 

You said, _"I would have picked the F4U over the P-47 (and P-51) simply because the a/c was as good or better than both in about 75% of the air to air criteria up to 25,000 feet (where ETO was fought) and superior on the deck - plus as good air to ground as P-47 with added advantage of being a better defensive fighter on the deck."_

So again, I ask you what statistical basis do you have that the Corsair 'would have done far better air to ground' than the Thunderbolt. In order to prevail on this point, you will need to provide evidence not just that it would have done just better but far better.

Still waiting.

Again, you stated, _"All of the 355FG P-47 awards were diving chasing attacks with very little turning."_

I never said that I accepted your "proposal" based on your redrafted conditions. Let's stick to the facts, shall we? It is a fact, a provable fact, that you stated the foregoing.

And again, in order to prevail on this claim, you will need to show (1) All of the attacks were diving chasing and (2) All of the attacks had very little turning. As such, even one such deviation from the aforementioned prongs will cause your claim to fail.

I provided two examples of P-47 awards (kills) from the 355th. Did you read them? Were you merely "expressing an opinion" that ALL of the 355FG P-47 awards were diving chasing attacks with very little turning? Are we dancing again drgndog?

Ah, wait, I see that in a subsequent post, you "clarified" what you meant. 

Well, would it make you feel better if I "clarified" that my assertion that the P-47D "could have" carried a 4,000lb ordinance load was an opinion that I believe based on the evidence / presumptions / examples I provided? Would you also like to now "clarify" that it was just your "opinion" that the Corsair 'would have done far better air to ground' than the Thunderbolt? No? Then prove it.

I will be holding you to the same rigorous standards that you have held me to my friend.


----------



## renrich (Dec 6, 2007)

Three other reasons why the hypothetical "one fighter" perhaps should be the Corsair are: Cost-The Corsair cost was about $75,000 each. I believe the P47 was more than that, the P38 was a lot more and the P51 might have been slightly lower. Air to ground-The Corsair had a form of dive brakes which may have given it an edge in dive bombing. Short field- The Corsair had much better short field take off and landing capabilities than any of the AAF fighters which would have allowed it to use forward landing fields in a fluid battle environment.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 6, 2007)

Jank said:


> _"Yes I stated that opinion, and continue to a.) state it as an opinion, and b.) you can't prove otherwise., and c.) because you Assert and I merely express an opinion - where is burden of proof?"_
> 
> You did in fact say,_ "My OPINION, as I have stated it before - as contrasted with OPINIONS to the contrary, is the the F4U was just as 'survivable'." _
> 
> ...


*

You haven't met your own standards, much less mine.*


----------



## renrich (Dec 6, 2007)

My friend who flew the F100 was an IP and had 2000 hours in them. My memory may be faulty but I believe that at some point during the Viet Nam war he was asked to do some sort of extension of his service in return for some rank. He declined and they pulled him off F100s, sent him to Nam where he flew the 150 missions in the single engine observation plane working primarily for the 1st Div(I think). He won several medals including the DFC. After his service he flew for United and is now retired. He is a spendid fellow.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 6, 2007)

renrich said:


> Three other reasons why the hypothetical "one fighter" perhaps should be the Corsair are: Cost-The Corsair cost was about $75,000 each. I believe the P47 was more than that, the P38 was a lot more and the P51 might have been slightly lower. Air to ground-The Corsair had a form of dive brakes which may have given it an edge in dive bombing. Short field- The Corsair had much better short field take off and landing capabilities than any of the AAF fighters which would have allowed it to use forward landing fields in a fluid battle environment.



Rich - the 51D final price was $50,985 when the last one rolled off in 1945 - a reduction in $7500 from first production P-51A about 1942.

According to the book, the unit cost for the airframe was $3.59/lb, the P-47 was $5.75/lb and the P-63 was $6.74 - this is before GFE was added to airframe to complete it for delivery. I don't offhand know what the P-38 was but it was above $105K


----------



## drgondog (Dec 6, 2007)

helmitsmit said:


> I think we are all missing the point a little. Yes, load carrying ability is important but you need the air superiority first. In a fighter this best achiveved by speed, manoevourabilty and firepower. Therefore, I think the Corsair fills most of these requirements on average better then any other american fighter.



Just because the thread is about US decision, say hypotetically, that Roosevelt could have purchased an off shore airframe as well as duplicate engineering.

Whta would you have proposed for all the US requirements - and remember to add 600-1000 punds for the Carrier version.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 6, 2007)

P-38

1939-41 - $134,284
1942 - $120,407
1943 - $105,567
1944 - $97,147

from #82 USAAFSD


----------



## drgondog (Dec 6, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> P-38
> 
> 1939-41 - $134,284
> 1942 - $120,407
> ...



Thanks Al.. I should realized production would have lowered it below 100K mark


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Dec 6, 2007)




----------



## Jank (Dec 7, 2007)

_"In ETO, the only group that did exceptionally well air to air against the Luftwaffe throughout the campaigns in P-47s was the 56th (in context of air to air ratios achieved by Mustangs). The 51s had far better success against the Luftwaffe but I believe the Corsair would have done as well and far better air to ground."_

I am going to guess that you weren't an English major.  In the above paragraph, you are comparing the Corsair to the Thunderbolt. Let's take it SLOOOOOOOOOWLY as you would say.

The first sentence is independent but the second sentence is dependent. The second sentence does not stand alone. _The 51's had far better success ... _ Far better than what? Far better than the subject of the first independent sentence. The P-47. The _but_ between the P-51 and F4U merely ties both in the conditional alternative to the subject of the first independent sentence.

_"This is complicate english comprehension."_

Yes it is. Yes it is. 

_If by some chance I actually wrote 'far better' in context of Corsair to P-47air to ground capability - instead of the comparison above that you frequntly mis-quote, I will acknowledge my error _

Somehow I doubt that. Care to prove me wrong?

So again (this is actually the fifth time I have asked this question), I ask you what statistical basis do you have that the Corsair 'would have done far better air to ground' than the Thunderbolt.

Do you have any statistical data for Corsairs and Thunderbolts flying similar air to ground missions against similar targets? Are there similar threats from the ground? What about similar threats from the air? Does that matter? Why. Does gun armament make a difference? Are there range considerations? How does survivability enter into the consideration? Bomb load / ordinance load? Which is a more stable firing platform? 

_As the Hypocrite (me) relative to statistical proof_

Yes. Now you are starting to get the picture.

_"I never said 'far better' - I said "as well as".. go find the quote - use 'copy' then use paste' and we will try this one again."_

Does this mean I will have to ask it a sixth time? How about you just agree to answer it on the tenth query. I will even throw in a p-l-e-a-s-e.

Again, you stated, "All of the 355FG P-47 awards were diving chasing attacks with very little turning."

_I DID say that. I also said that the awards in subsequent statements, were never for out turning the adversary in a lufberry type turn._

Ah, yes. The "subsequent statements" defense. I accept your concession. 

_"Three websites that I provided for you all have the bomb load capability of 2,500 pounds (all stores) and you keep asserting otherwise. This is an an example of repeated published stats - as contrasted with your assumptions."_

Wikipedia, Warbird Alley and Republic P-47Thunderbolt? Published stats that you are relying on?

I'm laughing. The last source puts the operational weight of the D-25 at 19,400lbs.  Warbird Alley might as well be a Signal Publication and Wikimoron?

I will go with the published stats put out by Republic Aviation before I place faith in those rags. Tell me. Are you sourcing Wikipedia for your book?  

_"A design spec for individual load bearing points is not a manufacturer's assertion or recommendation to use all such weights on all such racks - under any basis unless so stated in the operating manual. Period. To do so frequently, if not always, results in a burning pile of junk at the end of the runway."_

So what were the manufacturer's assertion or recommendation for the Corsair? A 4,000lb bomb load? Did F4U's frequently, if not always end up burning piles of junk?  

One last question, are you now or have you ever been under the care of a psychiatrist? You sent me a PM with your address (a fake I'm sure) and told me that you were not afraid of dying. 

The tough guy, not afraid to die, here's my address, let's dance posting from the safety of my computer crap makes you look look an ass. I'm guessing your wife lives in fear of you. Maybe your dogs too.

Anyway, this is going nowhere and I am tired of the dance.

You win.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 7, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> P-38
> 
> 1939-41 - $134,284
> 1942 - $120,407
> ...


Comparison to the 

P-47

1939-41 - $113,246
1942 - $105,594
1943 - $104,258
1944 - $85,578
1945 - $83,001

P-63

1942 - $60,277
1943 - $57,379
1944 - $59,966
1945 - $65,914

Why the increase in the 1945 price for the P-63?


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2007)

Jank said:


> _"
> 
> The tough guy, not afraid to die, here's my address, let's dance posting from the safety of my computer crap makes you look look an ass. I'm guessing your wife lives in fear of you. Maybe your dogs too.
> 
> ...


_

You, the one that said I would never accuse you of overloading a small personal orifice with a very large one to your face -and further noted in your PM that a.) I was another one of those anonymous guys sitting behind a keyboard (or words to that effect), or b.) inebriated to say such a thing - in what most people would deem in a threatening manner 

I sent you a PM giving my address in case you wanted to 'drop by'. You disparaged that as a fake address and questioned my integrity because I didn't give my name - which I have done on many posts so I thought you would have filled in the 'Marshall'? There is at least one admin and one other poster on this forum that can validate name and address for you.

I filled it out for you. The address is real, the dogs are real and unafraid. I am real and not under psychiatric care. My wife is not only not afraid of me - she is a better shot with a pistol. 

You 'guess' and 'assume' far too much Jank - but I noted you didn't reciprocate and invite me to come see you and 'discuss' this? nor did you mention your 'anonymous name' or 'unspecified address' in a reply to show how tough you are. I will 'assume' and 'guess' that you ARE tough so we can leave the insults on the table and agree to go separate ways.

One final thought for you.

Why is it that of all the USAAF and USN and USMC 'aces in a day' that only 6 were P-47 pilots in the ONLY eight .50 cal equipped fighter that happened to fly more sorties than any other fighter and actually flew about the same as the P-38 plus P-51 plus P-40...?? STATISTICALLY it would appear that the eight .50s were not as effective as six or four. What do you make of that?

What do you make of the fact that the eight .50 caliber equipped Jug flew nearly 3x the sorties of the combined four and six .50 cal equipped Mustangs, yet only managed to scratch out 2/3 of the air to air kills of the Mustang and less than that ratio on the ground? Theoretically a LOT more firepower than the wimpy P-51 (and F6F) and a 'no brainer' for you - right?

I'm going to have to do some research but I suspect the P-47 comes in 4th behind the F6F, the P-51 and the P-38 in air to air kills - all with fewr weapons (although a 20mm probably counts for two .50s on the 38)..

What do you make of that?

I don't know what to make of it either Jank - but it is a reason I look at statistics as only a factor - not the conclusion.

Have a good day_


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> Comparison to the
> 
> P-47
> 
> ...



i'm guessing but a jump like that would either be an increase in the GFE (the airframe costs as you know would continue to reduce based on volume) or there was some significant design mod that was amortized either in the run or it represents a 'stop' work to and existing contract which had a contractual premium.

I would guess GFE.


----------



## Jank (Dec 7, 2007)

_You, the one that said I would never accuse you of overloading a small personal orifice with a very large one to your face -and further noted in your PM ... in what most people would deem in a threatening manner_.

Did I hurt your wittle feeblings? Why don't you go ahead an cut and paste that "threatening manner" for all to read for themselves. Tell me, do those black helicopter follow you around too?

_I sent you a PM giving my address in case you wanted to 'drop by'._

Now why the Hell would I want to do that Bill? Do you think we're best buds? Do you think I'm gay?

_You disparaged that as a fake address and questioned my integrity_

I notice you didn't lash out with a "How dare you!" I bet you've got a glove handy to slap my face if I happen to "drop by."

I'll tell you what, answer the question I have asked six times now. That one concerns your hypocrisy. Then we'll move on to your sense of "integrity." 

_I noted you didn't reciprocate and invite me to come see you and 'discuss' this? nor did you mention your 'anonymous name' or 'unspecified address' in a reply to show how tough you are._

Duly noted.

On your "final thought," I really don't know. For me to ponder that thought, I would need to presume the accuracy of the figures you pose and also presume that the sole relevant independent variable is six vs. eight wing mounted guns that causes the observed dependent variable.

Chew on that while you peruse Wikipedia.

Again, I don't know where this is going. Good day to you to sir.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 7, 2007)

Another thread gone to hell in a handbasket . . . .

I know the P-38 was expensive, but it wasn't that much more than a P-47 (apparently). The first P-38's were essentially hand-built, and it didn't get a whole lot better by the end of the War (though it did get better), which would explain it's higher manufacturing costs. However, I feel you got a lot of plane for the money. I've always been a sucker for the P-38, and probably always will be; I'd take a -38 over a -47 or a -51 any day.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2007)

Jank said:


> _"In ETO, the only group that did exceptionally well air to air against the Luftwaffe throughout the campaigns in P-47s was the 56th (in context of air to air ratios achieved by Mustangs). The 51s had far better success against the Luftwaffe but I believe the Corsair would have done as well and far better air to ground."_
> 
> So again (this is actually the fifth time I have asked this question), I ask you what statistical basis do you have that the Corsair 'would have done far better air to ground' than the Thunderbolt.
> 
> ...



Nah - I know in your heart of hearts and razor sharp mind that you would merely retire from the field - not quit.

Let's summarize.

I believe (note the hedge) that

a. The 51 and the Corsair were better to far better than the Jug in air to air combat. I believe that because statistically, in aggragate, they had higher air to air ratios, were more manueverable, accelerated faster and had better overall performance up to (but not above) 25-27,000 feet for all models in approximate release stages. I can prove the air to air ratios per sorties for the 8th AF.. 

I can prove the air to air ratios as a function of all sorties flown - (but that is bogus because the Mustang's role was air superiority and the Jug was both air superiority and Ground support and it flew longer in more theatres earlier) - but for 8th the missions were the same

b. The Corsair was equal to nearly equal of the P-47 in air to ground capability. I believe that because they (F4U's) OPERATIONALLY carried higher loads, and were more agile on the deck defensively. I don't know what the survivabilty comparisons should be between the P-47 and F4U. Neither do you. I believe and have stated that the Corsair is far better air to ground over the Mustang for payload and survivability with near equal(one way or other) agility and performance on the deck.

c. In the operational experiences of the 8th AF, the Mustang had fewer operational fatal accidents, had better air to air ratios, shot down far more German fighters and destroyed far more a/c on the ground than the P-47 and lost more than the 47 to flak. So, if you want to argue against the Corsair being the best, or 'not better overall' than the Jug in any category you will have to get something definitive about survivability... because the Jug was inferior to the Mustang in the following categories, and I believe the Corsair was better than Mustang.


number of air to air kills per sortie
number of ground kills per sortie
number of fatal accidents per sorties
number of aces
number of aces with 5 in one mission despite 2x in number of combat sorties in ETO (i.e the P-47 had approximately 420K+ sorties versus 213K_ for Mustang - or for you, 200,000 more opportunites for possible engagement of enemy) and despite the early and frequent engagement with LW (8 months sooner than P-51 even in theatre), 'much heavier' firepower, high altitude performance on par with Mustang (or better in roll and sustained dive) at bomber escort altitudes.

The F6F and F4U both had more '5 in a day' than the 51. The F6F had more air to air than the 51(barely) and even the P-38 was close to the Jug in air to air... so you can make a case that P-47 was number FIVE as a fighter versus fighter despite having 'much heavier firepower and a lot more sorties.

Whatever


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2007)

Jank said:


> _You, the one that said I would never accuse you of overloading a small personal orifice with a very large one to your face -and further noted in your PM ... in what most people would deem in a threatening manner_.
> 
> Did I hurt your wittle feeblings? Why don't you go ahead an cut and paste that "threatening manner" for all to read for themselves.
> 
> ...



It's called catharsis and clarification. 

I didn't appreciate your comments about 'being afraid of you', nor the implied threat that I should be concerned about telling you to your face what I write here. I solved that be taking off the cloak so to speak..so you KNOW who I am and where I live.

I'm Ok with YOU remaining anonymous because I never intended to 'hurt' you - just tell you what was on my mind if YOU dropped by.

I didn't appreciate the gay remards or remarks about being under psychiatric treatment or my wife and dogs being afraid of me - but now understand that these are just you 'acting out' when you have nothing useful to say and probably no one at home has put you in Time Out lately (is that the phrase for 'stand in the corner' these days..) 

Ya'll come back with another blistering and witty riposte - I'll somehow struggle through the barrage.


----------



## Jank (Dec 7, 2007)

_I didn't appreciate your comments about 'being afraid of you', nor the implied threat that I should be concerned about telling you to your face what I write here. I solved that be taking off the cloak so to speak..so you KNOW who I am and where I live.

I'm Ok with YOU remaining anonymous because I never intended to 'hurt' you - just tell you what was on my mind if YOU dropped by.

I didn't appreciate the gay remards or remarks about being under psychiatric treatment or my wife and dogs being afraid of me_ 

This is really getting very far afield and I really don't feel like spending the time to feed this thing any longer. Really.

I apologize.

Let's move on. You can have the last word.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2007)

Jank said:


> _I didn't appreciate your comments about 'being afraid of you', nor the implied threat that I should be concerned about telling you to your face what I write here. I solved that be taking off the cloak so to speak..so you KNOW who I am and where I live.
> 
> I'm Ok with YOU remaining anonymous because I never intended to 'hurt' you - just tell you what was on my mind if YOU dropped by.
> 
> ...



The last from me is I apologise, let's agree to not parse each others comments or pretend we know what the other person meant. If you and I are unclear we will ask.

Love, and don't reach for the soap

Bill Marshall


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 8, 2007)

I just re-read this whole entire spat between u too, and while I found it very interesting and educational, I also found it annoying...

Both u guys are fountains of information, statistical/historical/actual.... U should have kept it that way... I am glad that u both decided to calm down and move on, as it was getting old...

And for the record, both of u gimmie ur address's and I'll come to both ur places and kick the ever lovin sh!t outta both of youse, settle this dispute once and for all...


----------



## drgondog (Dec 8, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> I just re-read this whole entire spat between u too, and while I found it very interesting and educational, I also found it annoying...
> 
> Both u guys are fountains of information, statistical/historical/actual.... U should have kept it that way... I am glad that u both decided to calm down and move on, as it was getting old...
> 
> And for the record, both of u gimmie ur address's and I'll come to both ur places and kick the ever lovin sh!t outta both of youse, settle this dispute once and for all...



HUA - but if you do need it let me know (this is not a challenge but an invitation to come see this place)..


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 8, 2007)

For some odd reason, the smell of soakin wet ass Dog has suddenly overtaken my sense of smell.....

The place looks freakin awesome Bill.....


----------



## drgondog (Dec 8, 2007)

Dan - Ah the smell wet wolfies in the mornin'. Those pot lickers are way too smart. 

Most of them know how to a.) stick their noses in the refrigerator door seal and sometimes get it open, and b.) nudge the patio door handles to 'open' position unless we lock em.

We have 47" kitchen bar type counters to stage steaks, chicken, etc for the grill because they are NOWHERE safe on 37" counters. That is an easy 'hop' if not merely a stretch of the neck.

When they conduct a successful raid (fewer now that they have me trained in threat analysis) they come solit me for info as to 'where is the rest'??

Another pic out the great room window to the east. I see blacktail deer and turkeys out this window all the time. Lot of bear and some cougar in those hills.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 8, 2007)

drgondog said:


> As for comparing the P-47 as a VietNam Sandy, think A7D instead of the P-47 or A1E.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill


Bill,

I know what Sandy is. If I didn't, I wouldn't have mentioned it.
P-47 was a big plane. Could've been pressed into that role, if _development had been allowed to go in that direction._




drgondog said:


> No rag or gag - your opinion is fine.


Oh, well in that case f**k you guys - *F4F* and I don't wanna hear another word about it. 



Elvis


----------



## drgondog (Dec 8, 2007)

LOL - Elvis.. go with it.

I only mentioned the A-7D as a Sandy because going up North with the A1E was just too hot in 1972-1973 timeframe. The A7D was a versatile tough little LUF. 

As a Mustang lover, I wish the USAF had in it's wisdom used P-47s in Korea. My father had just transferred from CO of 35th FBW when Korean war broke out. Jeff Ethell's fater was a squadron commander. Jeff and I used to recall the sons (our friends in Japan) of the fathers that went down in ground support actions.

As to the son of F4F in korea in its last stages of develoment - it might have been a better choice than the 51.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 8, 2007)

Wasn't there a version of the 51 tested where the radiator intake was moved?
That seems to ring a familiar but distant bell in my head.

...oh and I changed my mind again...*MIG-3* and I don't wanna hear another word about it. 
(and that's the last time I'm changing my mind, I promise  ).

BTW, nice spread. Stuart Anderson AND Les Schwab would be jealous! 



Elvis


----------



## drgondog (Dec 8, 2007)

Elvis said:


> Wasn't there a version of the 51 tested where the radiator intake was moved?
> That seems to ring a familiar but distant bell in my head.
> 
> *The prototype Merlin installation had a P-40 like scoop for the supercharger's intercooler - As you know the Merlin and Packard Merlin forced a lot of nose design changes as well as 'dropping the wing' to get clean fairing and aerodynamic flow into the radiator scoop.*
> ...



The 51B had some major cooling and corrosion issues in the conversion from Allison to Merlin. NA engineers didn't know Merlin engines had some copper cores to improve cooling and the new aluminum radiator caused some major corrosion issues before solution discovered.


----------



## renrich (Dec 8, 2007)

Elvis, from Lundstrom, "The First Team," Pg 441, Jimmy Thach, "The only way we can ever get our guns to bear on the Zero fighter is to trick them into recovering in front of our F4F or shoot them when they are preoccupied in firing at one of our own planes." This was from the after action reports of the Midway Battle. However if you want to hear another evaluation of the F4F from Jimmy Flatley, get the book and read on. Both of Lundstrom's books, in my opinion are great reads and belong in every WW2 buff's library, especially one who is an F4F fan.


----------



## Becca (Dec 9, 2007)

LOVE the DOGS!!!!! Oregon is stunning. I loved it.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 9, 2007)

Les'Bride said:


> LOVE the DOGS!!!!! Oregon is stunning. I loved it.



They are all watching the Cowboy game and pouting after Witten's fumble at the one.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2007)

Fu*k the damn Cowboys....


----------



## Njaco (Dec 9, 2007)

> Fu*k the damn Cowboys....



I second that!!

And from my humble experience no dog has been in that kitchen let alone a brigade of wolfies.  

So are we agreed, the Brewster Buffalo was the best for the US in 1940?!


----------



## Soren (Dec 9, 2007)

And I thought I was a troublemaker!


----------



## drgondog (Dec 9, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Fu*k the damn Cowboys....



Is that the same as "youse can take the boy out of Joisey, but ys can't take the Joisey of the boy?"

Aw, theyr'e just tryin to get along..


----------



## drgondog (Dec 9, 2007)

Njaco said:


> I second that!!
> 
> And from my humble experience no dog has been in that kitchen let alone a brigade of wolfies.
> 
> So are we agreed, the Brewster Buffalo was the best for the US in 1940?!



Ah, that turns out to not be the case - on all three points!


----------



## magnocain (Dec 9, 2007)

nice glowing eyes...


----------



## drgondog (Dec 9, 2007)

magnocain said:


> nice glowing eyes...



Mother of Devil Dogs, Devil Dog Jarhead and Devil dog wolfie - or maybe I just forgot to paint out the 'red eye?


----------



## Soren (Dec 9, 2007)

Isn't that the hound(s) of Baskerville ?? Now whe now who bred them! 



Nice set of dogs you've got there Bill - must be a nightmare cleaning up after them though, there's got to be hair bloody everywhere!


----------



## Njaco (Dec 9, 2007)

Thats Darth Wolfie! tellin drgn "Feed the Force, Luke!"

Nice dogs!


----------



## drgondog (Dec 9, 2007)

Njaco said:


> Thats Darth Wolfie! tellin drgn "Feed the Force, Luke!"
> 
> Nice dogs!



This one was Alpha Wolfhound - none of the males or females screwed with her more than once. Unfortunately she would never stand for a male and I didn't have the heart to do AI on her

The Empress


----------



## magnocain (Dec 9, 2007)

So America should have chosen the K9 Wolfhound to protect America... I see


----------



## Elvis (Dec 10, 2007)

Njaco said:


> So are we agreed, the Brewster Buffalo was the best for the US in 1940?!


Yeah, sure, but W/O the extra armour and 80 gallons of gas, but WITH the self-sealing tanks, an R-1820-56 and a 4-bladed prop....then, yeah, I'd probaly take it.

-------------------------

Renrich,

Thanks for the info...of course, as we all know, it was more about _superior tatics_ than a/c that helped us win the air war (and the inception of the "pilot rotation" idea didn't hurt, either).





Elvis


----------



## drgondog (Dec 10, 2007)

magnocain said:


> So America should have chosen the K9 Wolfhound to protect America... I see



They were wardogs a couple of thousand years ago, but they are not aggressive toward people.. I haven't checked lately but the last time I checked there was no recorded case of a wolfhound killing a human being.

The last time I checked the CDC database both the Cocker Spaniel and Dacshund WERE on that list.

They are Death to coyotes and deer, however - all their instincts to chase down those critters are fully intact


----------

