p51 vs p47 (1 Viewer)

FLYBOYJ · Jun 28, 2018

Dan Fahey said:
The Mustang was a far better aircraft than the Thunderbolt.
Was a better dogfighter, excellent ground operations as demonstrated in Korea.
Far less expensive to build, maintain, service, used a lot less fuel for long range missions.

The Thunderbolt would not have been effective in Korea.
It could not use the Japanese bases as it would not get off the ground, Even without a bomb load.
It would have same issues that the Corsair and other Recips had with large oil tank, cooler and turbo.
If hit would burst into flames.

It's only advantage was in high altitude top coverage and diving speed.
One good attribute was that the Thunderbolt came with far less reliability issues.

One of the unreported attribute of the Mustang that they remained on station longer because of its range.
They were very effective in ground attack.

While I agree with some your comments about operational costs and sustainability, I don't know where you can find basis for that comment and your other comments about issues with the oil tanks and turbos and their vulnerability to ground fire. Do you have take off performance charts to show that P-47s couldn't operate from Japanese fields??? Additionally recips were way better suited for ground support as they had no coolant system, the Achilles heel of the P-51.

The Mustang were plentiful, had a good supply chain and was well liked by USAF brass so it was almost a shoe in for Korean war service. Misawa, Iruma, Naha (Okinawa) Yokota, and Tsuiki, were/are all under 500' MSL and even the heaviest loaded P-47 would have no issues getting off the ground. From another post -

"Combat radius per USAF requirements (take off, climb to 25000 ft, cruise at 210 mph indicated air speed, 15 min of combat on military power, 5 min of combat on war emergency power, return to base at 25000 ft and 210 IAS, 30 min reserve) was 700 miles for the P-51B/C/D/H and 1000 miles for the P-47N.
Source: USAF table found in 'America's hundred thousand', pg. 599 and 600". (Tomo Pauk) Range of P-51D and P-47N

The P-47 remained in USAF service well into the 1950s and although more costly to operate would not have been a liability in Korea and in many cases may have been a welcomed asset, so unless you have some other supporting documents, pilot reports or data, I look forward to FACTS to support your comments...

Smokey Stover · Jun 28, 2018

P-51 was a better dogfighter, although the P-47 could hold its own also. P-47 was a better ground attack fighter bomber because it had better firepower/bombload and could absorb more enemy fire and still keep flying.

FLYBOYJ · Jun 28, 2018

Smokey Stover said:
P-51 was a better dogfighter, although the P-47 could hold its own also. P-47 was a better ground attack fighter bomber because it had better firepower/bombload and could absorb more enemy fire and still keep flying.

During the Korean War, either aircraft wasn't going to see much dog fighting.

mad_max · Jun 28, 2018

By the time the P-51 was available in the European Theater the P-47 had cleaned out a large percentage of the better German pilots. The Jug broke the camels back and the Pony finished the rest.

Dan Fahey · Jun 28, 2018

FLYBOYJ said:
While I agree with some your comments about operational costs and sustainability, I don't know where you can find basis for that comment and your other comments about issues with the oil tanks and turbos and their vulnerability to ground fire. Do you have take off performance charts to show that P-47s couldn't operate from Japanese fields??? Additionally recips were way better suited for ground support as they had no coolant system, the Achilles heel of the P-51.

The Mustang were plentiful, had a good supply chain and was well liked by USAF brass so it was almost a shoe in for Korean war service. Misawa, Iruma, Naha (Okinawa) Yokota, and Tsuiki, were/are all under 500' MSL and even the heaviest loaded P-47 would have no issues getting off the ground. From another post -

"Combat radius per USAF requirements (take off, climb to 25000 ft, cruise at 210 mph indicated air speed, 15 min of combat on military power, 5 min of combat on war emergency power, return to base at 25000 ft and 210 IAS, 30 min reserve) was 700 miles for the P-51B/C/D/H and 1000 miles for the P-47N.
Source: USAF table found in 'America's hundred thousand', pg. 599 and 600". (Tomo Pauk) Range of P-51D and P-47N

The P-47 remained in USAF service well into the 1950s and although more costly to operate would not have been a liability in Korea and in many cases may have been a welcomed asset, so unless you have some other supporting documents, pilot reports or data, I look forward to FACTS to support your comments...

Do I have them...they had a hard time taking off from IWO fully loaded. During WW2 they required using the bomber bases because they were so damn heavy. They information is out there all over the place. It took 3 days to change a Thunderbolt engine. Less than one day for a Mustang. Recips had a huge problem with large oil tanks and coolers. The Thunderbots were not armored and neither were the Corsairs. Until the AU1 and they fell at the same sortie rate in Korea. Easy to look up. The AD1 later models were armored but suffered same issue until reinforced.

Few countries took the Thunderbolt. Chennault took all available for Formosa. It is fine to have combat performance above 25k but the dogfighting was done at 25k and below. It was the same with the ajets in Korea. You do not do tight maneuvers in thinner air at 30k.

As far as I am concerned the P47 was a pig of an aircraft. It was more reliable than the P38 until 1944 when they got sorted out. I know a lot about the amustang at IWO because my Uncle was Fighter Pilot with the 7th Squadron. They use to dog fight the touted P47N and no Mustang last a dog fight with a Thunderbolt.

As for service Mustangs were used up to 1972. Few wanted the Thunderbolt. In Korea the Mustang and acorsair suffered the same persortie loss. Slightly better then the Corsair. Yet were exposed to combat longer because of their range and small signature. The Thunderbolt took twice the fuel load to half as far as the Mustang. Logistics wise the Thunderbolt would have used up too much precious fuel. Being a large easy to see target would have suffered similar loss per sortie.

Dan Fahey · Jun 28, 2018

lonestarman63 said:
seems folks forget about jets that take longer runways and they were there ? and yes 51 they could ground strike but why use them for that unless you just wish to find what a bullet does to the cooling system .fact is the mustang was a bad turn fighter. just there were so many of them ,so the best thing about the 51 was the range . and yes they were cheap and you get what you pay for ,

First you have to hit the cooling system. If you did the Mustang had 15 minutes to,leave the area.
That did not happen to the Corsair when hit in the oil tank and cooler. As for a turn fighter. It was very maneuverable. Especially at higher combat speeds.
May want to talk to a Chris Fahey of Planes of Fame. You can reach him on Facebook on the Mustang blogg. At IWO Jima the Thinderbolts always picked fights with Mustang pilots getting into dogfights. the Mustang pilots never lost a dog fight. My Uncle Walt Krieman was one of those Mustang Pilots.

FLYBOYJ · Jun 28, 2018

Dan Fahey said:
Do I have them...they had a hard time taking off from IWO fully loaded. During WW2 they required using the bomber bases because they were so damn heavy. They information is out there all over the place.

Then post it. I guarantee you the take off distance at a S/L base wasn't that much more than any other heavy fighter of the period. Yes, it would require a longer runway than a P-51 the P-47 would definitely "get off the ground>"

Dan Fahey said:
It took 3 days to change a Thunderbolt engine. Less than one day for a Mustang.

I don't know where you got that from but the P-47 used a QEC and I doubt it took more than a day.

Dan Fahey said:
Recips had a huge problem with large oil tanks and coolers. The Thunderbots were not armored and neither were the Corsairs.
Until the AU1 and they fell at the same sortie rate in Korea. Easy to look up. The AD1 later models were armored but suffered same issue until reinforced.

And the P-51 had a high attrition rate to ground fire because of the cooling system. Personally I'd rather get shot at while in a P-47 than in a P-51!!!

Dan Fahey said:
Few countries took the Thunderbolt.

I show 23 countries operated the P-47

Dan Fahey said:
As far as I am concerned the P47 was a pig of an aircraft. It was more reliable than the P38 until 1944 when they got sorted out. I know a lot about the amustang at IWO because my Uncle was Fighter Pilot with the 7th Squadron. They use to dog fight the touted P47N and no Mustang last a dog fight with a Thunderbolt.

And that's your opinion. In Korea the P-47 would not have had many dogfights as did the P-51. As far as "mock" dogfights - unless unless controlled conditions are set and you match pilot skills and combat scenarios. Good for your uncle, the P-47 did very well in the PTO. ~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html

Dan Fahey said:
As for service Mustangs were used up to 1972. Few wanted the Thunderbolt. In Korea the Mustang and acorsair suffered the same persortie loss. Slightly better then the Corsair. Yet were exposed to combat longer because of their range and small signature. The Thunderbolt took twice the fuel load to half as far as the Mustang. Logistics wise the Thunderbolt would have used up too much precious fuel. Being a large easy to see target would have suffered similar loss per sortie.

And for the most part I agree with most of your statement however at the beginning of the Korean War the P-47 could have performed the same mission as the P-51, at greater operational cost but still effective

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 28, 2018

FLYBOYJ said:
Additionally recips were way better suited for ground support as they had no coolant system, the Achilles heel of the P-51.

That is where he was losing me. I was hoping I was just misunderstanding him.

FLYBOYJ · Jun 28, 2018

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
That is where he was losing me. I was hoping I was just misunderstanding him.

Yup!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 28, 2018

Dan Fahey said:
It would have same issues that the Corsair and other Recips had with large oil tank, cooler and turbo.

Dan, maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I think you got it backwards. The P-47 was better suited for ground support because it could sustain more damage. Also it was powered by a radial engine which is air cooled, whereas the P-51 was powered by a liquid cooled engine, making it more vulnerable to battle damage, but more efficient.

Tieleader · Jun 29, 2018

FLYBOYJ said:
Yup! View attachment 499918

Damn! Lets see a 51 do that!

Dan Fahey · Jun 29, 2018

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Dan, maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I think you got it backwards. The P-47 was better suited for ground support because it could sustain more damage. Also it was powered by a radial engine which is air cooled, whereas the P-51 was powered by a liquid cooled engine, making it more vulnerable to battle damage, but more efficient.

That was the general thought but more Thunderbolts were lost in ground attack than Mustangs. Mustangs had more ground kills than Thunderbolts.
The Thunderbolt was less maneuverable down low, slower climber, larger target and a huge oil tank and cooler and hot turbo.
Just because it had a recip engine means nothing! Could the Thunderbolt absorb bit more hits yes possible..but it was a small difference.
Republic did not armor up the P47 for ground attack. Merlin's came home with a 20mm hole on the side of the engine.

Korea made it very clear with the Corsair and Mustang with near identical sortie per loss ratio.
The Thunderbolt was an expensive plane to build and maintain and operate than a Mustang.

FLYBOYJ · Jun 29, 2018

Dan Fahey said:
That was the general thought but more Thunderbolts were lost in ground attack than Mustangs.

That's because they entered theater first, flew during a time when the Luftwaffe was at strength and faced more opposition (and that's not taking a thing away from the Mustang)

GrauGeist · Jun 29, 2018

Dan Fahey said:
It took 3 days to change a Thunderbolt engine. Less than one day for a Mustang.

At a rear depot, either aircraft could have an engine swapped quickly, although it'll take longer than a day.
As far as complexity goes, that would go to the Mustang, as the engine was set into the nose.
On the P-47, it's engine was the nose.

Dan Fahey said:
Recips had a huge problem with large oil tanks and coolers.

ANY water-cooled or air-cooled engine will have a vulnerability with coolant, oil and fuel. It's all how the aircraft is designed that provides suitable protection as well as how accurate enemy aircraft/ground fire is.

Dan Fahey said:
The Thunderbots were not armored and neither were the Corsairs.

Only the Hs129 and the IL-2 had substantial armor - The Fw190A-8 Sturmbocks had additional armor plate to the front part of the cockpit, hung externally.
There seems to be a misconception about "armor", which was only for the pilot's safety and entailed an armor plate to the rear of the cockpit and in some cases, another armor plate at the front of the cockpit. Many types had bullet-proof glass in the cockpit, too. One could also say that self-sealing tanks were also a form of armor, but that's it.
And ALL U.S. fighters were configured like this from roughly 1941 onward.

FLYBOYJ · Jun 29, 2018

Dan Fahey said:
Korea made it very clear with the Corsair and Mustang with near identical sortie per loss ratio.

Proof?!?!?!?

Dan Fahey said:
The Thunderbolt was an expensive plane to build and maintain and operate than a Mustang.

I think anyone on here would agree with that

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 29, 2018

Sigh...

Dan Fahey · Jul 1, 2018

FLYBOYJ said:
Proof?!?!?!?

I think anyone on here would agree with that

Wow Proof...?
Dude go look it up!
The loss per sortie was .5 for each plane.
Marginally better for the P51...All publicly available.
JoeB wrote up this extensively in a post on this topic.
I did research on this 15 years ago.
Can also look up researchers Cookie Sewell..KORWAR !
His counterpart on the Russian side was Diego Sampini.

It is a myth the P47 would have faired better.
It would have been a maintenance and operational nightmare to keep flying.
First of all it would had to use bases in Japan to get to the fight.
Like the jets did until bases were built in South Korea.

Smartly, No other nation built a huge plane like the P47.
The reason used because it did not suffer the operational issues the Lightning had.

Unlike the P40 which could have had a better Allison engine for overall performance.
The P47 with the Chrysler v16 Hemi Engine or the P72 version with the PW4360 were late developments.

Here is one fact.
Nobody raced a P47 in any of the airraces.
But they raced everything else.....

wuzak · Jul 1, 2018

Dan Fahey said:
Just because it had a recip engine means nothing!

The P-51 had a "recip" engine too. "Recip" is short for reciprocating engine, which all the main piston engines were (there were some developments by the Germans for swing piston engines to be used as a gas generator to drive a turbine).

As Flyboy mentioned, the P47 had an air cooled radial reciprocating piston engine and the P-51 had a liquid cooled reciprocating V-12 piston engine.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 1, 2018

Dan Fahey said:
Wow Proof...?
Dude go look it up!

Dude - you're spouting all this opinionated fecal matter with no references, most of it is your personal opinion!

Dan Fahey said:
The loss per sortie was .5 for each plane.
Marginally better for the P51...All publicly available.
JoeB wrote up this extensively in a post on this topic.
I did research on this 15 years ago.
Can also look up researchers Cookie Sewell..KORWAR !
His counterpart on the Russian side was Diego Sampini.

So post it!!! Back up your rants!!!!

Dan Fahey said:
It is a myth the P47 would have faired better.
It would have been a maintenance and operational nightmare to keep flying.
First of all it would had to use bases in Japan to get to the fight.
Like the jets did until bases were built in South Korea.

No one is saying it would have performed "better." The fact is it would have performed.

Dan Fahey said:
Here is one fact.
Nobody raced a P47 in any of the airraces.
But they raced everything else.....

Actually not true. Bill Odom raced the 1947 Bendix with a P-47M. He did not finish

Having worked and crewed an aircraft at Reno, the P-47 would not have done well in a Pylon Circuit.

GrauGeist · Jul 1, 2018

Dan Fahey said:
Smartly, No other nation built a huge plane like the P47.

Except for the British with their Hawker Tempest, who's wing was actually a foot wider than the P-47's.
Or Japan's Kawasaki KI-100, who's wing was a foot less than the P-47's.

Dan Fahey said:
Here is one fact.
Nobody raced a P47 in any of the airraces.
But they raced everything else.....

No one raced the Tempest or KI-100.

Matter of fact, no one raced the world's fastest aicraft (at the time), the Me163 komet, either.

p51 vs p47 (1 Viewer)

p47 or p51

p47

p51

none

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman 1st Class

Banned

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff Sergeant

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Banned

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads