If you were a pilot in ww2 which plane would you want to fly (3 Viewers)

[GrauGeist]

Still shaking my head over that "no catapault on WWII carriers" thing.

It they could put catapults on Battlewagons and Cruisers, surely they could figure out how to put a few (or more) on a flat-top...

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Still shaking my head over that "no catapault on WWII carriers" thing.

Wouldn't it be great to be young, all-knowing, immortal, and invincible again? "No patience or tolerance for ignorant old farts!"

 

[Acheron]

F8F would be better still as it was a post-war aircraft. But picking an aircraft that didn't see WWII combat is cheating.

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.

I am surprised how popular the P-47 is in the poll and how little the P-51 and the Spitfire, how come?

 

[Snautzer01]

Keep wondering why there are no soviet planes in the poll. Yikes a Yak..., lol a La. They had good planes too.

 

[oldcolt357]

Keep wondering why there are no soviet planes in the poll. Yikes a Yak..., lol a La. They had good planes too.

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.

 

[Acheron]

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.

Sounds like a controversial statement, I am curious what will be brought up in favor of the P-51.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Fair ... but we both know $$$ talks and 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.

 

[fastmongrel]

even with a licensed engine

Rolls Royce did not charge Packard any license fees to build the engine, neither was the assistance RR gave to Packard setting up production and development charged for. Even post war when they were offered the chance to claim back dated fees worth probably millions they didnt take up the offer.

 

[michaelmaltby]

... interesting. So i guess the insistence on using the Alison engine in the Twin Mustang was more 'buy America' than economics ...?

 

[fastmongrel]

... interesting. So i guess the insistence on using the Alison engine in the Twin Mustang was more 'buy America' than economics ...?

As I understand it any production after wars end would have accrued license fees. So using the Merlin/V1650 in the P82 would have cost extra.

 

[Stig1207]

The P47 wins the pole among those who understand the combat data, not by those judging by some other criteria.

Pretty bold statement; could you clarify how you understand the combat data?

 

[nuuumannn]

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.

Umm, Let's start with the fact that Mustangs arrived with the RAF well before the USAAF got them, remembering the type was built to a British requirement, and used them as tac recon platforms throughout the war - 16 RAF squadrons operated Allison engined Mustangs alone in this role right until the end of the war. Many of those pretty pre and post-raid recon images of US 8th AF daylight missions were taken by British Mustangs, as well as the majority of images for planning of Operations Jubilee and Overlord. Then there were the Mustang IIIs and IVs, equivalent to P-51B, C and D models that were not just used for bomber escort but also fighter sweeps into enemy territory, air-to-ground operations pre and post-Overlord, V 1 interceptors etc... And it could even be said they excelled at these things, too.

 

[Peter Gunn]

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.

I don't think you fully understand the air war of 1939-1945, nor "combat data" for the same time period.

Might I suggest starting here: P-51B Mustang - The Bastard Stepchild that Saved the 8th AF has been sent by Osprey Publications for Print.

You might want to look up posts by this guy --> drgondog he knows a thing or two about this issue.

 

[drgondog]

Fair ... but we both know $$$ talks and 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.

To argue a point - To postulate that the P-47 would have made a difference in mission losses, shouldn't one prove that losses would be significantly less for P-47 than F4U? F4U losses were only very slightly less per sortie than P-51 in Korea

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.

Well, the original purpose of the P-47 was high altitude interceptor. As to the 'importance', no Merlin Mustangs were offered for LL due to extreme priority for AAF and only a few were in hand due to maintenance/damage issues arising during the FRANTIC/Shuttle Missions of summer, 1944.

 

[michaelmaltby]

... The Soviets were flying Merlin Spitfires ... so they were very familiar with both it and the Allison 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 "... $$$ talks and 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 (Appache) 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."

 

[drgondog]

... 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 "... $$$ talks and 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 don't think I tried to 'convince you of anything' - I asked questions regarding tour assumptions. Make your own decisions.

 

[pbehn]

The P47 wins the pole among those who understand the combat data, not by those judging by some other criteria. .

I want to fly something pretty, not a milk jug mated to an ironing board with a fan hidden somewhere.

 

[Acheron]

I want to fly something pretty, not a milk jug mated to an ironing board with a fan hidden somewhere.

Hardly anyone would call the P-47 NOT pretty. At least not to its face.

 

[Zipper730]

I'd want to fly something that gets me home in one piece.

 

[michaelmaltby]

The Brits were a pretty good judge of 'horseflesh' IMHO -- I'd like to know the impressions of RAF pilots and crew who transitioned to the P-47 late in the war and operated in Burma and thereabouts.

Republic P-47 Thunderbolt in RAF Service