Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

Peter Gunn said:

Speaking of letting things slide, perhaps, as an example, posting things like, and I quote:



as if this were etched in stone and the issue settled with no further debate necessary elicited a rather persnickety response on my part. If this ruffled your feathers I'd grow a thicker skin. Although I will refrain from being a d!ck from now on.

Much of what you've been posting has been refuted (even before you got here actually) but such pronouncements keep coming. I must confess, I've tried to keep up with your myriad posts but I've stopped because:

A). Much of what you're arguing I've already seen debunked here.
B). There's a key on the right side of your keyboard, it is marked "Enter", try using that a few times between sentences to make your points a bit more readable please.

There may actually be valid arguments/info in your posts but solid walls of text are headache inducing and I will not slog through them.

Also if you're honestly willing to set aside preconceived notions and LISTEN to what some are saying here I'll help in any way possible. My suggestion is to start with reading whatever drgondog suggests if you want the scoop on these issues. Between him and Parsifal's (among others) suggested readings, you can find out what you really "know" and don't know.

That's about as cordial as I can get.
Bowing out now to let cooler and more knowledgeable heads prevail.

Click to expand...

Ok brother, and I mean that, im not being sarcastic. Wanted to just moove on but don't like to be made out to a jerk when i dont think i was. At least that was not my intention to come off that way. You say of my contention that th p51 had only accounted for a minority of kills up to that point( that point being February44) as if it were written in stone but you left out the part, i think 1 or 2 posts later after someone challenged this is that i said I was more than receptive to seeing info that showed this to be inacurate. Then you say my comment produced a persnickery response( love that word by the way) and I should grow a thicker skin. Well it wasn't you persnickety response or the one choice word contained therin, or the basically" you pullin stuff outa your @" accusations made by a few others that ruffled my feathers. I can let that kinda stuff roll off my back. It was having that happen and then having someone call it cordial. I must admit that did kinda rub me the wron way. Kinda like when someone cuts me off when I'm driving I just shrug it off but when someone cuts me off, almost crashes into me, and then stars waving there arms at as if I had done something wrong, ok now I'm not so happy. Not a perfect analagy but you get the point. You say that much of what i was arguing has been debunked. Well i was only arguing 2 things although i repeatedly asked for evidence to the contrary and said I would recosider both of my points if someone provided it so i don't know if you can even call that arguing. There were a couple people who seemed to be hearing me saying things i wasnt saying at all and yes that was frustrating I must addmit. No one ever gave stats showing either of my two points was wrong by the way 1: that the p51 had only accounted for a minority of kills by February44 and 2: that it was not the only fighter to have the capability to make it to Berlin and back i spring44. If someone did i missed it and if you can point me back to that now or if someone wants to provide that evidence now I will eagerly admit I was mistaken and change my mind. As for my writing style, yes you have a point. I just now figured our how to make paragraphs here( I'm new here and not exactly a technology genius) and I know I have a tendency towards run on sentences. Just how my brain works. I think of alot of ancillary things as i write. I'll try to be better about that. Finally you say you won't read my posts anymore. I really hope thats not the case but thats up to you. And last but not least i must admit to becoming a little frustrated because, it seamed to me at least, that some kept getting the impression I was arguing thing that i wasn't while at the same time not giving the info to refute the 2 points i was making that i repeatedly said I was not resistant to seeing. Again maybe someone did and I just missed that post and if that's the case i apologize for that. In closing i hope you do read this post and i hope there are no hard feelings. There certainly are not on my part. I love this site and certainly didn't come here to make enemies. I respect others views but that particular situation was frustrating and if I came off as that I don't I certainly apologize for that. That was not my intention. Looking forward to learning alot here and maybe theres even a few little tidbits I can share. As Biff would say......... Cheers

The Spitfire flew the round trip to Berlin many times.

Haven't ben able to conjure up a smiley face on this site but consider one here....____

You have not seen the smiley icon? It is to the left of the image icon.

Milosh said:

You have not seen the smiley icon? It is to the left of the image icon.

Click to expand...

Ya i see it but when i touch it nothing happens. Maybe because im doing this from a smartphone and not a computer. Oh wait i think i just figured it out. Touch it at the top and the possible selections appear below. Ya they were hidden by the numbers and letters part of the touchscreen that pops up pn my smartphone so i didn't ever see them till now when i went to scroll down and a little sliver of them popped up over the touchscreen.

I'll get the hang of this yet.

Milosh said:

The Spitfire flew the round trip to Berlin many times

Click to expand...

With cannons removed, and camera's installed.
I had heard a story of a PR Spitfire being intercepted by a group of P-51's, and when the recce pilot saw what was happening, he firewalled it and left them behind. The American pilots filed reports afterward, describing their disbelief.
Can anyone elaborate on that or provide a link?

michael rauls said:

Ok brother, and I mean that, im not being sarcastic. Wanted to just moove on but don't like to be made out to a jerk when i dont think i was. At least that was not my intention to come off that way.

*SNIP Lots of words*

As Biff would say......... Cheers

Click to expand...

Michael,

For the record, I don't think you were being a jerk, far from it, I think you're a smart fellow that has a lot to say, just your initial presentation may have been a bit dodgy. Around here it's best to be able to cite source documents or at the very least, a well researched tome to support any points you're trying to make.

Also, dat wall of text yo...

I did read this long post, I will continue to read what you write here as I do with all who post on this forum, just understand that a massive wall of text like that is literally headache inducing for me. Seriously, after a sentence hit the <ENTER> key twice, it will make your posts much easier to read. I'm (for a change) not being sarcastic with that, a readable presentation goes a long way, I too tend to type "Stream of conscious" style many times myself. I usually have to go back and add space before I hit the "POST" button.

One last point, proper English is my second language, my first language is Modern American Snark. I tend to shoot from the hip because I have little patience/tolerance for fools and those who are too set in their ways to be open to any new ideas/data. Understand I DO NOT consider you either a fool or a close minded person, far from it in fact. It's just that at my office, some days I think I could hire trained monkeys and get the same results, perhaps not even trained monkeys now that I think of it...

I do try to watch my manners here because I have too much respect for the knowledge that the regulars here possess. The eye opening issue for me is their willingness to share literally anything they can to help one in understanding the topics at hand.

All that being said, all I can do now is to cordially welcome you to the forum...

Welcome to the forum.

Peter Gunn said:

Michael,

For the record, I don't think you were being a jerk, far from it, I think you're a smart fellow that has a lot to say, just your initial presentation may have been a bit dodgy. Around here it's best to be able to cite source documents or at the very least, a well researched tome to support any points you're trying to make.

Also, dat wall of text yo...

I did read this long post, I will continue to read what you write here as I do with all who post on this forum, just understand that a massive wall of text like that is literally headache inducing for me. Seriously, after a sentence hit the <ENTER> key twice, it will make your posts much easier to read. I'm (for a change) not being sarcastic with that, a readable presentation goes a long way, I too tend to type "Stream of conscious" style many times myself. I usually have to go back and add space before I hit the "POST" button.

One last point, proper English is my second language, my first language is Modern American Snark. I tend to shoot from the hip because I have little patience/tolerance for fools and those who are too set in their ways to be open to any new ideas/data. Understand I DO NOT consider you either a fool or a close minded person, far from it in fact. It's just that at my office, some days I think I could hire trained monkeys and get the same results, perhaps not even trained monkeys now that I think of it...

I do try to watch my manners here because I have too much respect for the knowledge that the regulars here possess. The eye opening issue for me is their willingness to share literally anything they can to help one in understanding the topics at hand.

All that being said, all I can do now is to cordially welcome you to the forum...

Welcome to the forum.

Click to expand...

Peter Gunn said:

Michael,

For the record, I don't think you were being a jerk, far from it, I think you're a smart fellow that has a lot to say, just your initial presentation may have been a bit dodgy. Around here it's best to be able to cite source documents or at the very least, a well researched tome to support any points you're trying to make.

Also, dat wall of text yo...

I did read this long post, I will continue to read what you write here as I do with all who post on this forum, just understand that a massive wall of text like that is literally headache inducing for me. Seriously, after a sentence hit the <ENTER> key twice, it will make your posts much easier to read. I'm (for a change) not being sarcastic with that, a readable presentation goes a long way, I too tend to type "Stream of conscious" style many times myself. I usually have to go back and add space before I hit the "POST" button.

One last point, proper English is my second language, my first language is Modern American Snark. I tend to shoot from the hip because I have little patience/tolerance for fools and those who are too set in their ways to be open to any new ideas/data. Understand I DO NOT consider you either a fool or a close minded person, far from it in fact. It's just that at my office, some days I think I could hire trained monkeys and get the same results, perhaps not even trained monkeys now that I think of it...

I do try to watch my manners here because I have too much respect for the knowledge that the regulars here possess. The eye opening issue for me is their willingness to share literally anything they can to help one in understanding the topics at hand.

All that being said, all I can do now is to cordially welcome you to the forum...

Welcome to the forum.

Click to expand...

Peter just read your post and above all I am relieved there are no hard feelings. I must admit I thought there might be( on the part of some others not myself). Perhaps i was to harsh in my judgement of others judgement so to speak. Thanks for the welcome. I really appreciate that. On the presentation front I swear the concept of paragraphs is not new to me. Since this is the first website that i have ever considered worth my time and I have never used my smartphone for anything more than one or two line texts so on a couple of fronts this all new to me. I promise i will figure it out but be prepared for some possibly less than optimal structure till then. Just to let you know how my quest for the aforementioned enter button is going.....This is my second time writing this whole post because. I got about 2/3 through the first draft, thought this would be as good a time as any, hit what I thought might be said enter button and the whole thing vanished ,necessitating this second draft.I promise however to figure it out at some point just not gonna try that again right now. Be prepared however for some possibly humorous structure as i randomly push buttons from time to time to see what will happen.

BiffF15 said:

Michael,

I will anchor for one last round then I will let it go.

First, regarding your comments quoting "others" who said the Mustang was the only plane who could do the distance. It wasn't the only airplane that could do the round trip so your basing at least part of your argument on info from the uninformed. I was not under the impression it was the only plane that could do the trip, and assumed the Mustang did it best which is why it was phased in while other aircraft were pushed out. There was a reason the USAAF kept improving the range during the late war on the P47 / P51 and not the P38. Think P47M or N, P51BCD /H.

Second my background is retired USAF fighter pilot with 17 years in the Eagle. As such I have fought F16s (Dutch, Belgium, US, Taiwanese, Sings plus more I'm sure), F4 (US and German), F5, F18 (USMC, Canadian, Super and regular flavors), F15 (US, Saudi), Mirages of various flavors, Mig29s, Tomcats, A6s, Harriers, Tornados and probably a few others. I was also operational in OV10s and the RC26. I've had 9 backseat rides in F16s and 1 in a CF18. I did the takeoff in the Hornet, rejoined and flew both close a wide formations, ran the radar, and killed my Operations Officer in my first pass in it. We then did some acro and felt VERY comfy in it right away.

While the P38 and P47 could both do the round trip to Berlin and back that is not the whole picture. The P38 in particular had several vices that could be used to neutralize it, those being maneuverability (particularly in roll) and limiting Mach. I lived strength and weaknesses in the air battle arena for the majority of my adult life (my wife would argue the adult part of that statement). Trust me when I say the German fighter pilots were aware of it and used their strengths against its weaknesses. The P47 would in my opine be more difficult an opponent than the Lightning due to it being easier to fly than Lockheed's big twin. I flew the Eagle for a long time and watched new and experienced guys in various types of aircraft. The F16 being the best for a new guy, the Hornet next and the Eagle a distant third in that trio for one reason. Experience in type required to be lethal. The Viper and Hornet are fly by wire, so the new guy can pull for all he is worth and not hurt the plane or worry about over G'ing it. Not so on the Eagle. My point is some aircraft are much easier to use as a tool than others and there in lies one of the true strengths of the P51. Read Robin Olds book and he speaks to this as a guy who flew P38s and Mustangs in that order in combat. Overrated, I honestly don't think so. The right tool, at the right time, in the right place, flown by the right guys.

Also just because the P38/P47 might have been able to close the door on the Luftwaffe doesn't mean the Mustang was overrated. Also why did the powers that be keep bringing Mustangs into the ETO while pushing the other two out.

Lastly I hope you don't think I was being rude. While I can be unbelievably sarcastic/ obnoxious (reference the previously mentioned time in fighter squadrons) it was not in the least my intent.

Cheers,
Biff

Click to expand...

Biff, don't know why i didn't think to mention this earlier but my grandfather worked for Douglas his entire adult life.He had a a small part to do with at least 20 planes from the C47 to the F15 and alot more in between including the Dauntless(my favorite) but he always seemed the most fond of the c47 and the Eagle I think because they were his first and last. I still have a plack, given to him at retirement that lists all the planes he worked on. Probably my most prized possessions except perhaps my house but I'm not even sure of that. Just something I thought might be of small interest to you considering you actually flew The F15.

I forgot to add this at the end.

drgondog said:

I believe that I gave you a pretty good reading list above.

That said page 283 in Dean's 100K is entirely devoted to the latest P-47D Combat Radius compared to P-47N. Further, Dean made a mistake in listing the 'square' plot starting with the P-47D-23 and citing it as having 370 gallons of fuel, which it did Not have. The -23 range was the same as the -15 with 305 gallons internal and 375 gallons external. It was first delivered to AAF in late March 1944 and only 89 were made, which is irrelevant to the discussion as it couldn't escort to Berlin either.

Dean's table for internal fuel lists only "P-47D" w/o Model number in comparison with P-47N. He didn't make many mistakes but you picked one for reference. Another comment worth noting is that the Yardstick Range and Combat Radius cited is for 10,000 feet, not 25K which is 15-20% less range.

Click to expand...

After taking the time to read and digest all of the information that you and others presented here( and there was plenty) like the change in percentage in relative kill/ loss ratios I must say I have a new appreciation for just how much of a game changer the p51 was. Do I still think that when I hear things like a guy at my work saying of the p51" it won the war for us" ( if I had a dime for every time I've heard something like this I'd be typing this from a beach in the Bahamas)(maybe a bit of an exaggeration) that is still a case of overrating. Ya but certainly not by nearly as much as I did before. Do I think we could have won the war without it. Yes but its obvious alot more guys would have had to die to accomplish the same end. So I can definitely meet you half way on this one( maybe a little more than half way). I'd also like to say when i first got here I thought I was pretty well read on ww2 aviation, not in an arrogant way but just that I thought I had a pretty good handle on things but now im realizing maybe not so much. Anyway there it is for whatever it's worth as they say.

michael rauls said:

After taking the time to read and digest all of the information that you and others presented here( and there was plenty) like the change in percentage in relative kill/ loss ratios I must say I have a new appreciation for just how much of a game changer the p51 was. Do I still think that when I hear things like a guy at my work saying of the p51" it won the war for us" ( if I had a dime for every time I've heard something like this I'd be typing this from a beach in the Bahamas)(maybe a bit of an exaggeration) that is still a case of overrating. Ya but certainly not by nearly as much as I did before. Do I think we could have won the war without it. Yes but its obvious alot more guys would have had to die to accomplish the same end. So I can definitely meet you half way on this one( maybe a little more than half way). I'd also like to say when i first got here I thought I was pretty well read on ww2 aviation, not in an arrogant way but just that I thought I had a pretty good handle on things but now im realizing maybe not so much. Anyway there it is for whatever it's worth as they say.

Click to expand...

I made a post on the subject, this site is in a way a small community, when you post "people say" there is a big difference between what people say in ordinary life and what is said here. Brave of you to make such a post, respect.

pbehn said:

I made a post on the subject, this site is in a way a small community, when you post "people say" there is a big difference between what people say in ordinary life and what is said here. Brave of you to make such a post, respect.

Click to expand...

The respect is mutual. That's for sure.

[QUOTE="michael rauls, post: 1417086, member: 69991 2: that it was not the only fighter to have the capability to make it to Berlin and back i spring44. [/QUOTE]

I agree that both the P-47D and the P-38J, along with the F4U-1, did indeed have the ability to make Berlin and back. However, there was a significant difference in time on station over Germany as compared to the P-51. You calculated approximately 20 minutes in combat for the P-47 using 5 minutes Combat power and 15 min Normal power. In my calculations, at 600 miles, in order to normalize all data across the board, I got 15 minutes at Normal power for the P-47. Using the same normalize data, the combat time at Normal power for the P-51B, at 600 miles was 1 hour and 14 minutes, the P-38J had a combat time of 35 minutes. These numbers are not precise but are applicable. As such, in order to maintain combat time over downtown Germany, the AAF would have had to field three to four P-47s to maintain the time of one P-51. It would have also had to field two P-38s to maintain flight time over Germany as one P-51. I would imagine this plus it overall performance capability from SL to ceiling, and possibility operating cost, would have encouraged rapid replacement of the P-47 and P-38.

You might notice in an above post by Wuzak (?) that the two P-51 combat reports show ground attacks whereas none are shown for the P-47 and P-38, because of low gas??

davparlr said:

[QUOTE="michael rauls, post: 1417086, member: 69991 2: that it was not the only fighter to have the capability to make it to Berlin and back i spring44.

Click to expand...

I agree that both the P-47D and the P-38J, along with the F4U-1, did indeed have the ability to make Berlin and back. However, there was a significant difference in time on station over Germany as compared to the P-51. You calculated approximately 20 minutes in combat for the P-47 using 5 minutes Combat power and 15 min Normal power. In my calculations, at 600 miles, in order to normalize all data across the board, I got 15 minutes at Normal power for the P-47. Using the same normalize data, the combat time at Normal power for the P-51B, at 600 miles was 1 hour and 14 minutes, the P-38J had a combat time of 35 minutes. These numbers are not precise but are applicable. As such, in order to maintain combat time over downtown Germany, the AAF would have had to field three to four P-47s to maintain the time of one P-51. It would have also had to field two P-38s to maintain flight time over Germany as one P-51. I would imagine this plus it overall performance capability from SL to ceiling, and possibility operating cost, would have encouraged rapid replacement of the P-47 and P-38.

You might notice in an above post by Wuzak (?) that the two P-51 combat reports show ground attacks whereas none are shown for the P-47 and P-38, because of low gas??[/QUOTE]
Yes that all makes perfect sense to me know that I read the info everyone posted. Yes I understand and agree that while yes the other p47/p38 could do it the surplus time pf the p51 plus the superior high speed maneuver caracteristics of the p51 made it much more effective in the long range escort role. The only part I might quibble with a bit is the performance to celing part. I believe the p47 in particular had verry good high altitude performance because of its turbo supercharger. At least as far as I know.

michael rauls said:

I agree that both the P-47D and the P-38J, along with the F4U-1, did indeed have the ability to make Berlin and back. However, there was a significant difference in time on station over Germany as compared to the P-51. You calculated approximately 20 minutes in combat for the P-47 using 5 minutes Combat power and 15 min Normal power. In my calculations, at 600 miles, in order to normalize all data across the board, I got 15 minutes at Normal power for the P-47. Using the same normalize data, the combat time at Normal power for the P-51B, at 600 miles was 1 hour and 14 minutes, the P-38J had a combat time of 35 minutes. These numbers are not precise but are applicable. As such, in order to maintain combat time over downtown Germany, the AAF would have had to field three to four P-47s to maintain the time of one P-51. It would have also had to field two P-38s to maintain flight time over Germany as one P-51. I would imagine this plus it overall performance capability from SL to ceiling, and possibility operating cost, would have encouraged rapid replacement of the P-47 and P-38.

You might notice in an above post by Wuzak (?) that the two P-51 combat reports show ground attacks whereas none are shown for the P-47 and P-38, because of low gas??

Click to expand...

michael rauls said:

Yes that all makes perfect sense to me know that I read the info everyone posted. Yes I understand and agree that while yes the other p47/p38 could do it the surplus time pf the p51 plus the superior high speed maneuver caracteristics of the p51 made it much more effective in the long range escort role. The only part I might quibble with a bit is the performance to celing part. I believe the p47 in particular had verry good high altitude performance because of its turbo supercharger. At least as far as I know.

Click to expand...

I think I must have been thinking of some other comparison, maybe to Axis aircraft. At high altitude, above 25-30k , the mighty P-47 was hard to beat. At high altitude even the very potent P-51H was a weakling compared to the P-47M/N and their flat rated 2800 hp to 33k!

Just a question for any of you with more knowledge of aerodynamics than myself. Is it true that as G force increases the speed of compesability goes down? I have been studying the phenomenon, trying to get a handle on it and from my limited understanding it seams like it would.

michael rauls said:

Just a question for any of you with more knowledge of aerodynamics than myself. Is it true that as G force increases the speed of compesability goes down? I have been studying the phenomenon, trying to get a handle on it and from my limited understanding it seams like it would.

Click to expand...

I don't know what level of aerodynamic knowledge you're at, but have you read "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators"? It can be had online as a PDF. There's also a PDF of an old 1948 NACA report, "Technical Note 1697" that has a pretty good discussion of your question, although it mostly defines it in terms of AOA, Coefficient of lift and Mach #, without much reference to the resulting G loads. An interesting voice from early days of the jet age.
Cheers,
Wes

XBe02Drvr said:

I don't know what level of aerodynamic knowledge you're at, but have you read "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators"? It can be had online as a PDF. There's also a PDF of an old 1948 NACA report, "Technical Note 1697" that has a pretty good discussion of your question, although it mostly defines it in terms of AOA, Coefficient of lift and Mach #, without much reference to the resulting G loads. An interesting voice from early days of the jet age.
Cheers,
Wes

Click to expand...

I would qualify my knowledge on aerodynamics specifily as minimal, although not non existent. I have only recently started digging into it more deeply which I know is odd given my interest in aviation. My bad I guess. Thanks for the suggested reading material.