We have all heard of both FW-190's and P-47's come home with entire cylinders blown away, however I believe most radial engines wouldn't survive damage like this. A single projectile of 12mm or more can easily sieze a radial engine from working, its all about where it hits.
P-47D or F4U-1?
- Thread starter Sal Monella
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
Thankyou someone finally got what I was saying...
Oh I got you too! Many things can cause you to fall out of the sky. That's not even counting battle damage yet!
jpatrick62
Airman
- 19
- Feb 9, 2007
We need to judge aircraft as they existed and not with special test propellers, cleaned up characteristics, removed arrestor hooks, reduced fuel loads or the like to account for different roles.
Jank,
While that is certainly true for aircraft performing similar roles (P51 vs P47 vs P38), when you campare aircraft built for different roles, you need to account for specialization. That's probably why this whole thread is essentially speculation, but it's fun nonetheless. The P47 was a high altitude bomber escort that also excelled as a rugged low alt combat support machine. Because the role of fighters in the naval sense required interception of torpedo planes and dive bombers at lower alts, naval fighters require more prformance at lower alts and more lift in the form of wing surface for better manuverability and getting airborne quickly off a carrier. If you look at the wing loading of the carrier fighters they are below 40 lbs/sq ft, while the Army aircraft generally allow high loaded aircraft. I guess that's what makes this thread so interesting: with what other navalized fighter is there a comparison in performance to land based fighters except maybe the F4U? It was truly a remarkable design for it's time, although it was not entirely a successful design. One other question remains that truly intrigues me - Why did the Army choose to use the P51 variants over the P47 variants for ground attack roles in Korea?
Jank,
While that is certainly true for aircraft performing similar roles (P51 vs P47 vs P38), when you campare aircraft built for different roles, you need to account for specialization. That's probably why this whole thread is essentially speculation, but it's fun nonetheless. The P47 was a high altitude bomber escort that also excelled as a rugged low alt combat support machine. Because the role of fighters in the naval sense required interception of torpedo planes and dive bombers at lower alts, naval fighters require more prformance at lower alts and more lift in the form of wing surface for better manuverability and getting airborne quickly off a carrier. If you look at the wing loading of the carrier fighters they are below 40 lbs/sq ft, while the Army aircraft generally allow high loaded aircraft. I guess that's what makes this thread so interesting: with what other navalized fighter is there a comparison in performance to land based fighters except maybe the F4U? It was truly a remarkable design for it's time, although it was not entirely a successful design. One other question remains that truly intrigues me - Why did the Army choose to use the P51 variants over the P47 variants for ground attack roles in Korea?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Money....
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Probably, but not the most wise choice.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It was decided in the late 1940's that the P-51 was going to be around for awhile and later model P-47s would eventually go away. I believe "F-47s" could be found in NG units into the 1950s but the "F-51" stayed around well into the 1950s. If you want to believe Martin Cadin, in his book "The Forked Tailed Devil" he made a claim that dozens of P-38s (F-38s) that were stationed in South Korea were hacked apart and buried a year or two before the start of the Korean War.
Operating costs were a major player why the F-51 was chosen in lieu of later model F-47s, but I'm sure some one's own prejudice had something to do with this decision as well.
In contrast, F6Fs and F4Us served through out the 1950s with the F6Fs found in many Navy reserve units.
Operating costs were a major player why the F-51 was chosen in lieu of later model F-47s, but I'm sure some one's own prejudice had something to do with this decision as well.
In contrast, F6Fs and F4Us served through out the 1950s with the F6Fs found in many Navy reserve units.
It was the USAF after 1947. The reason was expediency given the Far East Air Force's familiarity, spare parts supply and even small number, 47 planes, of F-51's still on hand in Japan; they had flown the type until shortly before the war. Although, no F-51's were actually in operational FEAF units by June 1950. And actually the 10 F-51's in Japan immediately ready to go were given to the ROKAF (although some encountered NK planes while being ferried to South Korea by US pilots!). But there was a larger number of F-51's in ANG units on the US West Coast, more or less ready to be shipped out. Which they were, hastily in July 1950, so that some or all fighter squadrons in three of the five FEAF fighter wings, 8th, 18th and 39th, could switch back to F-51D's from the F-80's they flew when the war broke out.
However, the total numbers of F-47's and 51's on hand at the start of the Korean War wasn't as different as it sometimes assumed:
An original USAF document gives the inventory of F-47's and F-51's June 30 1950 (KW started June 25, US entered the 27th) as follows (important note, "inactive" and "active" in this document mean in storage or active flying condition. USAF means the active force component, Air National Guard means the reserve force component; the Air Force Reserve didn't have any of either plane at the time):
USAF: F-51's active: 99, inactive: 798, total: 897
F-47's active: 79, inactive: 771, total: 850
Air National Guard: F-51's active: 907, inactive: 0, total 907
F-47's active: 498, inactive: 1, total: 499
Total F-51's active: 1006, inactive: 798 , total: 1,804
F-47's active:577, inactive: 772 , total: 1,349
Joe
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I think the Navy was tight for money after the war and was struggling to get a good carrier base jet aircraft (not really successful until the F9F). As such, they tended to hang on to any aircraft that flew. As an example, in 1969, when the Navy flew me to NAS New Orleans for a flight physical, they flew me in an R5D (C-54).
Marshall_Stack
Senior Airman
I think I read somewhere that the P-47Ns that were at Ie Shima (Okinawa) were dumped into the ocean after WWII. That would be a shame since they could have been readily deployed if still operational.
