p51 vs p47

[Dan Fahey]

Actually I'm not and I never had a dog in the fight. I've always accepted and supported the P-51 was the better aircraft. This started with your very simplistic and mis-informed statement that the P-47 "could not get off the ground to support missions in Korea." Yes the P-51 was the way better aircraft but the P-47 was not junk and performed its role quite well.

So just for the hell of it, here's the 1946 flight test report for the P-47N since you come up short to support your from the hip responses. This is the only statement made with reaguards to the P-47's performance at high weights;

"1. Due to the large quantity of fuel it can carry, the P-47N is a good long range fighter-bomber. Although the performance is not too good at high gross weights, it improves as the external fuel is used and by the time the target area is reached it compares favorably to earlier P-47N's."

P-47N Performance Test

No where does it make a statement about the P-47 "not being able to get off the ground."

And just for reference, here's performace data for the P-51H performed about the same time

P-51H Performance Test


Bottom line the P-47 "could have" been used during the Korean conflict at a higher operational cost. It would be debatable if it would have out performed the P-51 in the ground attack role, a role it was originally designed for.

So at the end of this, where is your reference for the "3 day engine change"???

Flyboy the P47 could not fly off the Japanese made airbases in SK..period!
They were too heavy and needed a bomber base to get off the ground especially with a combat load.
The Corsair and Mustang could!
The P47N at IWO struggled to get off the Bomber bases fully loaded!
Couple pilots died trying thinking otherwise...these are documented facts!

In Korea P47 would not have survived any better than the Mustang or Corsair.
In fact less maneuverable a dna huge target would have fallen to the Migs a lot easier.
There is a whole Thunderbolt write up on the Internet.
The Thunderbolt would have been a logistics and maintenance hog.
They were in WW2...

Like the Corsair it would have gone down in Flames because of unprotected oil tank and cooler.
Plus on the P47 oil lines, inter coolers to the hot Turbo.
In fact the Mustang and Corsair had a better loss per sortie loss ratio than the P47 had in Europe.
Check it out!

The only attack fighter that fared slightly better was the AD1 and AU1.
Then only After it got those areas armored but they still were shot down.

What the archives have not detailed.
I am looking for information was how long the Mustang stayed on Station vs the Corsair vs jets
The Jets had a better loss per sortie on ground attack.
But all the jets took off from Bomber bases in Japan and were not fuel efficient.
So they were limited staying around protecting the combat area.

This is the untold story where the ground based Corsair and Mustangs were so effective.
Carrier based Corsairs stayed as long as fuel was available to trek back to the Carrier.
They destroyed a lot of NK WAR MATERIAL.

 

[Zipper730]

I think your post captures it in a nutshell.

Basically, the P-51 was more maneuverable and had better climb performance at most altitudes.

The P-47's air-cooled engine gave it an inherent ruggedness the P-51 did not have, though both were not exactly flimsy aircraft, the P-47 was physically somewhat sturdier in a few ways.

Not going to make a bit of difference!

I'm not sure if you're right about the weight of the P-47 in the air-to-ground configuration, but even if that's true: It was more likely to survive the mission...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Flyboy the P47 could not fly off the Japanese made airbases in SK..period!

Flat out BS! You've provided no proof of that. I posted the take off and performance data. The rest is just your opinionated babble.

In Korea P47 would not have survived any better than the Mustang or Corsair.
In fact less maneuverable a dna huge target would have fallen to the Migs a lot easier.
There is a whole Thunderbolt write up on the Internet.
The Thunderbolt would have been a logistics and maintenance hog.
They were in WW2...

No one is saying they would have survived any better or worse, the point is they could have been used.

Like the Corsair it would have gone down in Flames because of unprotected oil tank and cooler.
Plus on the P47 oil lines, inter coolers to the hot Turbo.
In fact the Mustang and Corsair had a better loss per sortie loss ratio than the P47 had in Europe.
Check it out!

You keep droning on about that and still don't realize that liquid cooled engines were just as vulnerable!!! Over 300 F-51s were lost during the Korean War. You could speculate all you want on how the P-47 would have fared. Your one sided speculation at this point does not consider operational scenarios, mission types and ordnance carried. The fact that the F4U had the same amount of losses as the F-51 is probably a statistical tribute to the Corsair as it was flying through out the war, flew more missions, flew more hazardous mission and flew the entire length of the war, but you fail to mention or realize that in your very simplistic and sometimes ignorant views of these aircraft and the way they were actually operated!

I'm still waiting of your 3 day engine change reference

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This info comes from Bill Marshal (drgondog) and I'll trust his research with my life!

"a rollup decomposed from USAF85 for all ETO air credits (8th and 9th AF - June 1943 to May 1945) is 452 for P-38, 2658 for P-47 and 4179 for P-51 - does not include RAF totals. My own studies arrive at (8th AF only) P-47 = 1562:214; P-38 = 281:101: P-51 = 3313: 322 (air credits in USAF 85 8th AF ETO to air combat losses, known and probable causes)"

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A good bit of information from JoeB with references;

"AFAIK there really is no specific statistical research behind that statement. It really just means that the USN and USMC were disappointed with F4U AA vulnerability in Korea, and the AF was also disappointed with F-51 vulnerability. The USN/USMC didn't publish anything like our favorite 'Naval Aviation Combat Statisitics' for Korea, unfortunately . No Navy publication or record for Korea AFAIK adds up sorties flown and compares it to losses. My general impression from quotations of loss rates per sortie for sub-periods of the war is that F4U combat loss rates were in the same ballpark as F-51, which were .54% enemy action losses per combat sortie (341 enemy action losses in 62.607 combat sorties), perhaps lower, not a lot lower. Non scientific, and even if we had better stats, unlike the NASC F4U/F6F comparison, the stats wouldn't effectively control for differences in mission profile and tactics, which NASC stats essentially did control for, by quoting rates of a/c *hit* (similar between F4U and F6F) and downed (notably higher for F4U) by AA. In Korea there's no hope of compiling that kind of detail, AFAIK.

The absolute number of F4U's and F-51's lost was similar, 341 enemy action 474 total for F-51's, USN 145 F4U's to enemy action 267 total, Marines lost 164 to enemy action 206 total, not counting 16 AU-1's to enemy action and 21 total. 3 of those F4U's were lost to MiG's along with around 8* F-51's so that was a (n interesting but) statistically negligible aspect of losses. None of either were lost to enemy prop planes against several claims by the US props (it's possible some night disappearances of USMC F4U-5N's might have been to NK night fighters, whose operational details are not known, a couple of Marine F4U/F7F night intruders were jumped by night fighters now known not to have been Soviet or Chinese, in one case an F4U turned the tables and claimed a night kill v Yak-9). Note that the prop loss ballpark .5% per sortie to enemy action, was low by WWII standards; and moreover the focus in both USAF and USN/USMC tended to be high prop fighter losses compared to jet losses, even in ground strike missions. For example, the F-80's enemy action loss rate was only .15%, and Navy jets (and AD's) likewise suffered much less than F4U's."

 

[fubar57]

Thanks for the name Joe. I've been trying to remember so that I can look for his books

 

[fubar57]

I have a Bill Marshall and a James William Marshall....same drgondog?

 

[Meusse]

P51 was superior at dogfighting and escorting, wich was the most important role with bombing at that time.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I have a Bill Marshall and a James William Marshall....same drgondog?

Yep! That's what I meant.

 

[fubar57]

Sorry, I meant is he using different names on different books?

 

[Dan Fahey]

Flat out BS! You've provided no proof of that. I posted the take off and performance data. The rest is just your opinionated babble.


No one is saying they would have survived any better or worse, the point is they could have been used.
You keep droning on about that and still don't realize that liquid cooled engines were just as vulnerable!!! Over 300 F-51s were lost during the Korean War. You could speculate all you want on how the P-47 would have fared. Your one sided speculation at this point does not consider operational scenarios, mission types and ordnance carried. The fact that the F4U had the same amount of losses as the F-51 is probably a statistical tribute to the Corsair as it was flying through out the war, flew more missions, flew more hazardous mission and flew the entire length of the war, but you fail to mention or realize that in your very simplistic and sometimes ignorant views of these aircraft and the way they were actually operated!

I'm still waiting of your 3 day engine change reference

You will find it one day!

Read what Joe B has to say!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You will find it one day!

Read what Joe B has to say!

I have and that's why I've called BS on just about everything you've posted. It's evident you're biased against the aircraft and you're entitled to your opinions but please don't try to peddle 2nd hand fecal matter here because you'll be called on it. There's plenty of data that shows the P-47 "could have" adequately performed in Korea. It's obvious you have no aviation maintenance experience to understand the difference between radial engines with dry sump oil systems and in line engines with liquid cooling systems. There's no doubt the P-51 was an over all better aircraft in many respects but what you posted in some cases was just half assed BS! If you want to remain a meaningful participating member of this site I suggest you start backing up your rants.

So it's evident - you were just talking out of your ass with regards to a 3 day P-47 engine change...

 

[billrunnels]

I always felt the P-51 and P-47 had two distinctly different missions. The P-51 for high altitude bomber stream support and one on one combat with the enemy fighter aircraft. The P-47 provided great support for our ground troops. I had a friend who flew both during WWII. He preferred the P-47 because that big radial engine gave him more protection. He moved from the P-47 to the P-51 and said his first take off in the latter scared him to death due to the rotation. Both served our cause very well.

 

[YGBSM]

I always felt the P-51 and P-47 had two distinctly different missions. The P-51 for high altitude bomber stream support and one on one combat with the enemy fighter aircraft. The P-47 provided great support for our ground troops.

I heard almost the exact same words from a P-47 veteran this past week.

Bomber crews tended to favor the 'little friend' which could hang around the longest, and GIs tended to favor a tough, hard-hitting support aircraft that can brave AA fire to take out imminent threats. P-51s had the 'Berlin and back' range, and P-47s were so important to ground support that P-47 pilots were embedded with ground troops as forward air controllers.

The amazing thing was that each aircraft was versatile enough to cover the other role. While perhaps not optimal, each could do a secondary role admirably when the situation demanded it. I believe this fact is why the aircraft get directly compared so frequently - they were good enough to blur the lines between primary and secondary roles.

 

[billrunnels]

I heard almost the exact same words from a P-47 veteran this past week.

Bomber crews tended to favor the 'little friend' which could hang around the longest, and GIs tended to favor a tough, hard-hitting support aircraft that can brave AA fire to take out imminent threats. P-51s had the 'Berlin and back' range, and P-47s were so important to ground support that P-47 pilots were embedded with ground troops as forward air controllers.

The amazing thing was that each aircraft was versatile enough to cover the other role. While perhaps not optimal, each could do a secondary role admirably when the situation demanded it. I believe this fact is why the aircraft get directly compared so frequently - they were good enough to blur the lines between primary and secondary roles.

I witnessed the roll of the P-51 pilots on the missions I flew so know of their excellent support at altitude. However, I only had one opportunity to see the P-47 pilots in action. We had just crossed the enemy line heading for our target of the day when on the radio I heard machine gun fire and guys talking. I remember one saying " I am out of ammo will return as soon as possible". I finally spotted them. It was a squadron of P-47 aircraft strafing the enemy at cross roads near a small town. They were in a circle making their runs. Their action was very impressive.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Bill, thank you for your inputs - basically confirms 99% of what has been written on this subject, from someone who was "actually there".

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Bill, thank you for your inputs - basically confirms 99% of what has been written on this subject, from someone who was "actually there".

Let's take this a step further. They should have put an inline Merlin in the A1 Skyraider to prevent it from going down in flames right?

 

[YGBSM]

I witnessed the roll of the P-51 pilots on the missions I flew so know of their excellent support at altitude. However, I only had one opportunity to see the P-47 pilots in action. We had just crossed the enemy line heading for our target of the day when on the radio I heard machine gun fire and guys talking. I remember one saying " I am out of ammo will return as soon as possible". I finally spotted them. It was a squadron of P-47 aircraft strafing the enemy at cross roads near a small town. They were in a circle making their runs. Their action was very impressive.

That's impressive that you were able to spot that from altitude - did you catch the P-47s through the Mk1 eyeball or Norden?

 

[billrunnels]

That's impressive that you were able to spot that from altitude - did you catch the P-47s through the Mk1 eyeball or Norden?

Eyeball view from about 20,000 ft. It took me several minutes to locate them.

 

[Zipper730]

I always felt the P-51 and P-47 had two distinctly different missions. The P-51 for high altitude bomber stream support and one on one combat with the enemy fighter aircraft.

In practice, that's how they turned out but there origins were a bit more complicated

The P-47, as I understand it, started out as a fighter competitor alongside the Curtiss XP-46 (never entered service) known as the XP-47A. The goal seemed to revolve around producing lighter aircraft which incorporated some of the best features seen in European aircraft (more streamlined, lighter weight it would appear) in both aircraft.

The XP-47A was not well received it would appear by the USAAC because it's wing-loading was a bit heavy, and Alexander Kartveli seemed to favor radial engines over the V-1710's that were proposed because of their sturdiness. There were also some combat reports from Europe that came back indicating a need for an aircraft that wasn't just fast, but rugged and heavily armed (I'm not sure if they realized that at this point that the RAF's Hurricane and Spitfires both had 8 x 0.303 as a means of putting more rounds on target, and the Me-109 had 20mm in the wings). With experience on the P-35, the XP-41 (a P-35 with a twin-stage supercharger and streamlining), the P-43 (had a turbocharger), they built around the R-2800 with elliptical wings like the P-35, and a turbocharger like the P-43 had giving good altitude performance, and produced "a dinosaur" but one with good proportions.

This aircraft was called the XP-47B, and while it had a variety of problems early on (the canopy opened sideways, and wouldn't always open right for bailout, problems with the control surfaces causing aileron snatch, and poor tuck-under response), they would be worked out in the P-47C production run.

The P-51, from what it appeared started out as an export fighter for the French and, if any attempts were made to build them here in the US, it seemed unsuccessful. This was around 1939. By 1940, the British wanted to import more fighters and since the P-40 performed fairly well, they went to Curtiss to buy some, and then went to North American to buy more. They didn't want to build it since they had a better design that they could get built and flown faster. They asked them if they could build it to a specified timetable from when he contract was signed, and it was agreed upon.

The early designs used the Allison V-1710 and a single-stage supercharger, and were able to achieve around 378 mph which was better than the P-40 could achieve at the same weight on the same engine. The belly mounted radiator was variable geometry able to vary the inlet area, and was actually a success (The P-40 originally was to have a belly radiator, as was the XP-46, and the Hawker Tornado, neither worked), though the P-51A soon incorporated a fixed radiator that had a large splitter. Speed went up slightly past 400 mph at 15,000 feet, and was still around 378 by the time 20,000 feet was reached, making it about as fast as the Spitfire VC except with twice the range.

Both the P-47 and P-51 were used for escorting at different points in time, the problem with the P-47 was basically that

• It's early range wasn't all that impressive to start out with
• The desire to use drop-tanks was either stubbornly opposed or not pursued to the degree it should have
  • The P-47C on had a ferry tank, but it didn't work above 10,000-14,000 feet as it was not pressurized -- turns out it's altitude limits were basically the same as ours
  • When drop tanks were procured, they didn't procure them in large enough numbers at first to be useful
• The maximum dive speed was 0.72 mach which was less than the Me-109 and Fw-190

The P-51's naturally had good range to begin with, though it's critical altitude was a little bit low. Contrary to the story that the low altitude was a shock to the designers, that's actually not true at all, the performance of the engines at altitude were well known facts already. The high performance of the aircraft made it a good candidate to fit the Merlin 60's.

Some changes had to be made including the exact shape of the nose, the carburetor intake was placed underneath the engine instead of above as before, the greater engine power resulted in a four-bladed propeller, the twin-stage supercharger used an after cooler, which demanded modification to the aircraft's belly-radiator to dispel the heat produced by it, and that made it into a substantial airplane. The P-51B could achieve 447 mph at 29,800 feet with the V-1650-3, the -C used the -7's if I recall which had more overall power but was geared for lower altitudes so it reached peak performance around 24,900 feet, but as a result of having more power, even as it went above the critical altitude there was still enough to achieve a decent rate of speed. The use of drop-tanks of increasing size helped drive up the range, and when the center tank was added on the aircraft, it became truly remarkable (though the aircraft was almost neutrally stable when the tank was full).

It was capable of diving at Mach 0.75 which put it similar to the Fw-190 and Me-109 in theory

The P-47 provided great support for our ground troops.

Yeah, it was extremely rugged and turned out to work magnificently in that area. It's ironic that it was originally designed for high altitude