Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Wouldn't it be great to be young, all-knowing, immortal, and invincible again? "No patience or tolerance for ignorant old farts!"Still shaking my head over that "no catapault on WWII carriers" thing.
I assume that simply flying so high-up that the enemy cannot reach you is also against the spirit of the question ("into COMBAT")? Otherwise, I'd change my vote to B-29.F8F would be better still as it was a post-war aircraft. But picking an aircraft that didn't see WWII combat is cheating.
The P47 wins the pole among those who understand the combat data, not by those judging by some other criteria. The Thunderbolt was the best fighter of the war in Europe. You can make a case for the P38 and Corsair in the Pacific. The P38 because of its 2 engines over long distances of ocean and the Corsair because of its carrier capability and the fact that Japanese aircraft were lightly built and didn't fly as high as the German ME109 so the P47's 8 guns and high altitude weren't as important. As an aside, I believe the use of P51s from Iwo Jima to escort B29s was another one of the stupid command decisions along with not using drop tanked equipped fighter escorts in Europe in 1943 bomber raids. Iwo should have been a P38L or P47N base. Either would have been preferable to P51Ds. For all its fame the P51 arrived late in the war and really was a single purpose aircraft only excelling at long range escort over land and nothing else. The P51 replaced the P47 in the spring of 1944 because of its range over the P47, not because it was a better air to air fighter.Keep wondering why there are no soviet planes in the poll. Yikes a Yak..., lol a La. They had good planes too.
Sounds like a controversial statement, I am curious what will be brought up in favor of the P-51.The P51 replaced the P47 in the spring of 1944 because of its range over the P47, not because it was a better air to air fighter.
even with a licensed engine
... interesting. So i guess the insistence on using the Alison engine in the Twin Mustang was more 'buy America' than economics ...?
The P47 wins the pole among those who understand the combat data, not by those judging by some other criteria.
For all its fame the P51 arrived late in the war and really was a single purpose aircraft only excelling at long range escort over land and nothing else.
I don't think you fully understand the air war of 1939-1945, nor "combat data" for the same time period.The P47 wins the pole among those who understand the combat data, not by those judging by some other criteria. The Thunderbolt was the best fighter of the war in Europe. You can make a case for the P38 and Corsair in the Pacific. The P38 because of its 2 engines over long distances of ocean and the Corsair because of its carrier capability and the fact that Japanese aircraft were lightly built and didn't fly as high as the German ME109 so the P47's 8 guns and high altitude weren't as important. As an aside, I believe the use of P51s from Iwo Jima to escort B29s was another one of the stupid command decisions along with not using drop tanked equipped fighter escorts in Europe in 1943 bomber raids. Iwo should have been a P38L or P47N base. Either would have been preferable to P51Ds. For all its fame the P51 arrived late in the war and really was a single purpose aircraft only excelling at long range escort over land and nothing else. The P51 replaced the P47 in the spring of 1944 because of its range over the P47, not because it was a better air to air fighter.
Fair ... but we both know $$$ talksand the P-51 - even with a licensed engine - was way less expensive to produce than either the P-38 or the the P-47, IIRC - and more basic to maintain in the field. Engineers' thinking, haha.
P-47s deployed in Korea in place of P-51s would have made a difference in CAS mission losses. The new Airforce, IMO, would have possessed their Corsair or Douglas SkyRaider, by deploying the P-47.
The Soviets weren't/aren't fools. They showed no interest in receiving P-51s thru LL - it didn't offer them anything they needed or already had - whereas they used the few dozen P-47s they received to provide high altitude CAP over Moscow and other strategic centres, IIRC.
... The Soviets were flying Merlin Spitfires ... so they were very familiar with both it and the Alison P-39.
I am interested in the P-51 - Corsair losses in Korea. If those are mission losses TAC, or, groundfire inflicted? Many of the F4U missions were launched and recovered from flight-decks - not ground strips, for the Mustangs.
You seen to dismiss the most fundamental point in my post "... $$$ talksand the P-51 - even with a licensed engine - was way less expensive to produce than either the P-38 or the the P-47, IIRC - and more basic to maintain in the field. Engineers' thinking."
You have not convinced me that cost-all-in per unit was not decisive in the outcome of the P-51 vs P-47. Hot-Rod vs Cruiser.
P-38 - $97,147 per unit
P-47 - $85,578 per unit
P-51 - $51,572 per unit
[Source: WWII Aircraft]
"....The AAF's worst accident rate was recorded by the A-36 Invader version of the P-51: a staggering 274 accidents per 100,000 flying hours. Next worst were the P-39 at 245, the P-40 at 188, and the P-38 at 139. All were Allison powered."
I want to fly something pretty, not a milk jug mated to an ironing board with a fan hidden somewhere.The P47 wins the pole among those who understand the combat data, not by those judging by some other criteria. .
Hardly anyone would call the P-47 NOT pretty. At least not to its face.I want to fly something pretty, not a milk jug mated to an ironing board with a fan hidden somewhere.