Best USAAF fighter for escort missions over Japan

[tomo pauk]

Bill, the P-38 was capable for cross-feed. The pages 181 and 182 in the AHT describe the feature. It was used regularly when operating on drop tank fuel.

 

[drgondog]

Bill, the P-38 was capable for cross-feed. The pages 181 and 182 in the AHT describe the feature. It was used regularly when operating on drop tank fuel.

Thanks Tomo- Then the 38 should have been able to get back over 800 miles

 

[derek45]

P-47N

Roomy
had armrests and fold down rudder peddles and autopilot for those log missions
reliable R-2800
and shitloads of firepower

 

[OldSkeptic]

P-47N

Roomy
had armrests and fold down rudder peddles and autopilot for those log missions
reliable R-2800
and shitloads of firepower

P-47N

Roomy
had armrests and fold down rudder peddles and autopilot for those log missions
reliable R-2800
and shitloads of firepower

And absurdly expensive. It cost what 3/4 of a P-38 which was twice the price of a Mustang. Resources count, expenditure counts, logistics count, attrition counts. It used twice the fuel as a Mustang, which means that fuel has to be made, refined and shipped. Which means, for example, more tankers....

Only the US then and now seems to think that resources are infinite, as it now run out if money it will find that the laws of resources, money and logistics apply to them just as much as everyone else (I mean spending more on air conditioning tents in Afghanistan than they spend on NASA.. I mean WTF).

Back then the US could afford that nonsense like late model P-38s or P-47s, which it then dumped real fast...note a P-38 in Korea?

 

[timmy]

And absurdly expensive. It cost what 3/4 of a P-38 which was twice the price of a Mustang. Resources count, expenditure counts, logistics count, attrition counts. It used twice the fuel as a Mustang, which means that fuel has to be made, refined and shipped. Which means, for example, more tankers....

Only the US then and now seems to think that resources are infinite, as it now run out if money it will find that the laws of resources, money and logistics apply to them just as much as everyone else (I mean spending more on air conditioning tents in Afghanistan than they spend on NASA.. I mean WTF).

Back then the US could afford that nonsense like late model P-38s or P-47s, which it then dumped real fast...note a P-38 in Korea?

Not that I don't agree on some of your points

But I wonder if North American had much more capacity left to supply large numbers of P51s for the PTO in 1945
I mean wouldn't the plants be flat out producing the 51s for the ETO, replacing the 47s there

I think Republic would have had that capacity. So I'm thinking even if you wanted all 51s in the Pacific, you may not have got them

 

[tomo pauk]

And absurdly expensive. It cost what 3/4 of a P-38 which was twice the price of a Mustang. Resources count, expenditure counts, logistics count, attrition counts. It used twice the fuel as a Mustang, which means that fuel has to be made, refined and shipped. Which means, for example, more tankers....

The P-47 was using 50% more fuel than Merlin Mustang to achieve same range, not 100% more. If one wants the range/radius of the P-47N, one Merlin won't cut it. Once two Merlins are in one fighter, one can forget cheap fighters and low fuel burn, as per P-82 or Hornet.

Only the US then and now seems to think that resources are infinite, as it now run out if money it will find that the laws of resources, money and logistics apply to them just as much as everyone else (I mean spending more on air conditioning tents in Afghanistan than they spend on NASA.. I mean WTF).

Problem with today's procurement should belong to another thread.

Back then the US could afford that nonsense like late model P-38s or P-47s, which it then dumped real fast...note a P-38 in Korea?

Those were the aircraft that brought daylight air war to the Germany proper, and in the same time presented themselves as tough costumers for the Japanese. In other words - great aircraft.

 

[GrauGeist]

And absurdly expensive. It cost what 3/4 of a P-38 which was twice the price of a Mustang. Resources count, expenditure counts, logistics count, attrition counts. It used twice the fuel as a Mustang, which means that fuel has to be made, refined and shipped. Which means, for example, more tankers....

The P-47 was also a beast. You get what you pay for, and the P-47 delivered. Both in survivability and in a multi-platform role. When they weren't confronting enemy aircraft, they were scouring the earth, leaving no stone unturned. They had a good reputation for absorbing damage and still making it back safely...not many other aircraft could take the punishment a P-47 could (except perhaps for the B-17).
One often overlooked aspect of an aircraft's survivability, is the protection of the pilot. A great deal of money is spent on a pilot and if the aircraft saves the pilot then it was a good investment.

Back then the US could afford that nonsense like late model P-38s or P-47s, which it then dumped real fast...note a P-38 in Korea?

Korea was a different ballgame. The airwar mission changed to the point that even the P-51 was phased out. The P-47 was a very capable ground attack platform, but with the introduction of the A-1 Skyraider aka the "flying dumptruck", the P-47's abilities were eclipsed.

 

[RpR]

Korea was a different ballgame. The airwar mission changed to the point that even the P-51 was phased out. The P-47 was a very capable ground attack platform, but with the introduction of the A-1 Skyraider aka the "flying dumptruck", the P-47's abilities were eclipsed.

In Korea the Skyraider was a NAVY plane as was the Corsair.

Some ranking persons in the U.S.A.F. wanted to use the F-47 but there were fewer examples flying and a short spare parts supply.
That is why the F-47 was not used.

In one of the recent magazines titled MUSTANG ---- (I have cousin who spends, literally, thousands of dollars a year of aircrfat journals, current and vintage types so I get to read them but do not have to worry about storing them. When he sold his late mother's house where his stash was stowed, he had to get a dumpster to get rid of the collection of magazines he had collected over the past forty years.) ---- a former Mustang pilot said that as ground-fire was concerned the Mustang was easily shot down if it took a hit to the engine bay. That was why the P-47 was the primary ground attack aircraft.

 

[GrauGeist]

as ground-fire was concerned the Mustang was easily shot down if it took a hit to the engine bay.

Another reason why the P-51H wasn't used in Korea, too...

The F-82 filled the void well enough, for the USAF although they did go with the A-1 in Vietnam

 

[drgondog]

NOTHING was safe from AAA from Korea forward in CAS role. Neither the AD nor the F4U was materially 'safer' than the 51. The reason the AD survived in SAR/RESCAP role in Vietnam is that most of its cover/support was away from high density AAA locations in RP6. Had it loitered around up there, they would have stayed up there.

Having said this, both would have been better than the 51 in Korea if for no other reason than payload and firepower.

Back to the PTO and 1946-1949 timeframe when the P-47 fleet was being downsized and P-38 was phased out. The AAF, the USAF was under huge pressure to cut costs. The 51s in Japan and Phillipines were primarily escorts to B-29 fleet at Okinawa and Guam. A land war was not contemplated for Korea.

The USAF was a shell in comparison to WWII days and a 10% increase in operating costs was a killer unless the capability for the higher cost airplane was very much higher. SAC came into play and when Lemay took over it dominated USAF thinking until late 60's. CAS was an afterthought, TAC came under SAC and BUFF was king. Escort was primary fighter mission. That is why the Army was almost able to wrest CAS away from USAF until Key West Accords were ironed out in 1954 (?). One of the outcomes was that Helicopters Not be Armed, if the Army was to keep observation and vertical aircraft.

 

[Garyt]

Off topic a bit, but I can see one reason why the Japanese would like a light weight fighter like the Zero.

The A6M2 got about 6.3 miles to the gallon, the Hellcat about 4.3

Makes a difference I would think if you are having issues with fuel from the beginning of the war.

Also makes sense why one may not want a 2 engine plane as a carrier regular - the P-38 gets about 2.3 miles per gallon. This means one would really have to bump up the AVGAS storage.

 

[davparlr]

Defense budget went down 93% from 1945 to 1946. Not much room for anything, lots of things had to go.

 

[RpR]

NOTHING was safe from AAA from Korea forward in CAS role. Neither the AD nor the F4U was materially 'safer' than the 51.

Pilots who flew them, in both WWII and Korea, call bs on that.

 

[davparlr]

Pilots who flew them, in both WWII and Korea, call bs on that.

Opinion is one thing. I'm interested in seeing what the stats say. I'm sure drgondog will respond.

 

[parsifal]

Pilots who flew them, in both WWII and Korea, call bs on that.

what accounts do you have from pilotsd that the f4U was was more resistant to ground fire. After that, what statistics do you have that show the P-51 was more vulnerable. Ive seen a number of pilots accounts that say the '51 was quite resistant to AA damage. but i would make no claim to their veracity. they are opinion based, and not particulalry reliable.

Need to be careful that the rumour mill is not taken as rumour fact.....

 

[RpR]

what accounts do you have from pilotsd that the f4U was was more resistant to ground fire. After that, what statistics do you have that show the P-51 was more vulnerable. Ive seen a number of pilots accounts that say the '51 was quite resistant to AA damage. but i would make no claim to their veracity. they are opinion based, and not particulalry reliable.

Need to be careful that the rumour mill is not taken as rumour fact.....

Look, I have read many dozens accounts, over the years, saying the Mustang's weak point was its engines vulnerability to ground fire.
The most recent was in one of two, I do not remember which one, last Mustang magazines, a pilot who flew both and prefered the Mustang in WWII, said its engines vulnerability to ground fire was a bad weak point and that the Jug was far tougher in shaking off ground fire which is why it was given that job.
Go buy the magazine and just do some general reading and you will see that point mentioned often.

As a matter of physics, I studied auto mechanics, a engine will run without water or oil till the pistons literally melt and it freezes or loses compression because the rings have collapsed.
In an air-cooled radial engine it is impossible for all cylinders to lose the cooling at once, one can lose an entire cylinder literally and the engine will continue running due to the physics that a radial engine is based on and the fact that each cylinder is cooled separately.
In a water cooled Vee engine, if you lose cooling to one cylinder you lose cooling to all cylinders that plus the simple engine shrouding design of the Mustang made its oil and cooling systems far more vulnerable to being seriously damaged by even small arms fire. (Probably one of the things that made the P-40 a tougher aircraft is all the material between the bottom of the engine and the outside of the outer skin.)
Find the issue of Mustang with the article and the former pilot says exactly that.

 

[RpR]

Opinion is one thing. I'm interested in seeing what the stats say. I'm sure drgondog will respond.

ROFL -- Gee, what an attitude, " I do not care if you fought in the war and what your actual experiences taught you, give me the statistics.
Numbers never lie."

 

[GrauGeist]

Bob, the F4U, P-47 and the A-1 had a higher survival rate because their radials would afford them the ability (in many cases) to get back to bas, or at least get out of nostile territory before engine failure.

The P-40's engine was just as vulnerable to ground fire as the P-51, P-38, Spitfire or any liquid cooled engine. Impacts to the engine, the radiator(s) or oil cooler(s) meant the pilot was in trouble and had a limited window to find a place to put 'er down.

As far as attitude goes, perhaps you should check yours up...seriously, WTF does Benghazi have to do with the thread?

 

[RpR]

Bob, the F4U, P-47 and the A-1 had a higher survival rate because their radials would afford them the ability (in many cases) to get back to bas, or at least get out of nostile territory before engine failure.

The P-40's engine was just as vulnerable to ground fire as the P-51, P-38, Spitfire or any liquid cooled engine. Impacts to the engine, the radiator(s) or oil cooler(s) meant the pilot was in trouble and had a limited window to find a place to put 'er down.

As far as attitude goes, perhaps you should check yours up...seriously, WTF does Benghazi have to do with the thread?

It has to do with people being in a war zone and actually living or dying while number crunchers are saying the people who were there are wrong. Despite all our warbird fan talk, that is what the people who flew these actually did, we should NEVER forget that before questioningthe words of some one who was actually there.
The P-40 was known for being a very tough bird, that is something I have never heard really said about the Mustang.

I removed it for you.

 

[parsifal]

Look, I have read many dozens accounts, over the years, saying the Mustang's weak point was its engines vulnerability to ground fire.

Ican accept that, but just how much difference between a water cooled and an air cooled enine is there in loss statistics. A cannon shot into the crank case of a radial is just as likley to penetrate or crack the housing in either type of engine. For rifle calibre hits, a crank case failure is unlikley, and in that scenario I can see a greater likelihood of a failure there. . but what percentage of the surface are of the plane is devoted to the colling system in an inline engine. We need statistics to determine that

The most recent was in one of two, I do not remember which one, last Mustang magazines, a pilot who flew both and prefered the Mustang in WWII, said its engines vulnerability to ground fire was a bad weak point and that the Jug was far tougher in shaking off ground fire which is why it was given that job.
Go buy the magazine and just do some general reading and you will see that point mentioned often.

Just because a point is mentined often, doesnt necessarily make it right. Understanding the physics or the science, is probably how we can solve or understand this thing better

As a matter of physics, I studied auto mechanics, a engine will run without water or oil till the pistons literally melt and it freezes or loses compression because the rings have collapsed.

Good for you. im not questioning you credentials, but I need to see aome conclusive or at least indicative test results to reach any firm conclusions.

In an air-cooled radial engine it is impossible for all cylinders to lose the cooling at once, one can lose an entire cylinder literally and the engine will continue running due to the physics that a radial engine is based on and the fact that each cylinder is cooled separately.

Yes, that makes sense, however i doubt that a radial is any more resistant to cannon fire damage than is a P-51. Heavy flak is cannon fire on steroids, a hit from an AA cannon, is likley to disintergrate the aircraft and in that scenario, I have real doubts that a radial poweplant would make any difference.

In modern warfare radial power plants make no diffrence. I served on an Adams class DDG, among other ships, and it had been modernised to fire the American Standard AAM. This thing is proximity fused, that detonate within (usually) 75 yards of the target, sending out spirally arms of shrapnel shard that literally slices and dices the aircraft into little pieces. Radial Power plants would have no effct aganst that sort of attack.

In a water cooled Vee engine, if you lose cooling to one cylinder you lose cooling to all cylinders that plus the simple engine shrouding design of the Mustang made its oil and cooling systems far more vulnerable to being seriously damaged by even small arms fire. (Probably one of the things that made the P-40 a tougher aircraft is all the material between the bottom of the engine and the outside of the outer skin.)

Yeah I get that, but such argument is really only vaild against smaller calibre, non explosive weapons, which really isnt much of an AA weapon. Against true AA, which is the discussion we are having here, I dont think there is any difference in the vulnerability of the two aircraft types.

RAAF used both types extensively (P-40 and P-51) and preferred the latter for CAS. P-40 was used in the CAS role during the war, because it was outclassed as a fighter and was available in numbers early on. That doesnt make it a better FB mount.

Find the issue of Mustang with the article and the former pilot says exactly that.

Dont really need a magazine to tell me that. having spoken to a few vets over the years, I know that they are as susceptible to biases as any other part of society, but FWIW, some pilots i know take a different view.