p51 vs p47

[Dan Fahey]

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...

MY RANTS.. Funny that is what I think about your comments.

Here is some information for you why the USAF did not use the Thunderbolt in Korea.
First and foremost it would have never been able to get off the ground

The Thunderbolt would have been a more survivable ground-attack aircraft than the F-51 in Korea, and pilot losses would have been lower in the Jug. However, the plane did have limitations.

The Jug needed a lot of runway to get into the air, which meant the F-47 simply could not have operated from some of Korea's short, rough runways without reducing weapon or fuel loads. One of the Mustang's greatest assets in Korea was that it could fly with a heavy weapons load from undersized dirt runways just a short flight from the front. Fully loaded, the F-47D and F-47N weighed in at 19,400 and 20,700 pounds respectively; the relatively lightweight F-51D topped the scales at 11,600 pounds.

Perhaps most significantly, the Thunderbolt, like all other piston-engine fighters, was outclassed by the straight-wing jet fighters of the late 1940s. The situation became even worse as swept-wing jets entered service. Futrell notes the performance of the Soviet-built MiG-15 jets that appeared over Korea on November 1, 1951 "rendered obsolete every American plane in the Far East." (37) In air combat with the MiG-15

the Mustang had to depend on its maneuverability to survive, since trying to speed or dive away was usually fatal. (38) Vandenberg, in his response to Stratemeyer's request for F-47s, said the Thunderbolt would be much less desirable for aerial combat than the Mustang in the event of a MiG attack. (39)

The Jug could have made an important contribution to the Air Force effort in Korea, but like the Mustang, it would have been replaced eventually by more survivable jet fighter-bombers.

 

[Dan Fahey]

More on the P51 in Korea

The F4U and AD experienced heavy losses in Korea–almost all of the 312 Corsairs and 124 Skyraiders lost to enemy action fed to ground fire. The Corsair, in spite of its rugged construction and radial engine, had a number of weaknesses, including vulnerable, wing-mounted oil coolers. To correct these deficiencies, Vought produced 110 examples of the AU-1, a dedicated ground-attack version of the Corsair. The AU-1 had 25 pieces of armor plating installed and the oil coolers were relocated; 17 of the 25 pieces of added armor protected the underside of the AU-1's engine and accessory, section. (32) Additional armor was also installed in the Skyraider. The F-51 Mustang, on the other hand–a plane without the inherent survivability of the F4U or AD–never received additional armor plating to increase its protection in the ground attack role. (YET from JoeB the more rugged Corsair experienced the same loss per sortie ratio at the Mustang. Now add the 125 AD1 losses plus 12 - AU 1's lost in 1953 which were suppose to be more rugged than the Mustang)

Yet the Mustang, in spite of its weaknesses as a fighter-bomber, still made a fantastic contribution to the Air Force's effort in Korea. F-51s flew 62,607 missions and almost all of these were for close support of ground forces or for tactical reconnaissance. They fired 183,221 rockets and dropped 12,909 tons of bombs and 15,221 tons of napalm. Additionally, Mustangs shot down 19 enemy propeller-driven aircraft and destroyed another 28 on the ground. The Mustang filled a crucial gap in Air Force ground attack capabilities in the days before the installation of mid-wing bomb racks on the F-80C and the arrival of the F-84 Thunderjet. Particularly in mid-July 1950, Mustangs operating close to the front from the rough airfields at Taegu and Pohang proved invaluable in helping to blunt the North Korean advance. Brigadier General E. J. Timberlake, Deputy Commander of Fifth Air Force, which was responsible for tactical operations in Korea, stated, "One F-51 adequately supported and fought from Taegu Airfield is equivalent to four F-80s based [in Japan]." (33) Lt. Gen. Walton H. Walker, Commander of the Eighth Army, summed up the Army's sentiments. During an interview on November 25, 1950, Walker said "I will lay my cards right on the table and state that if it had not been for the air support we received from the Fifth Air Force we would not have been able to stay in Korea." (34) While many F-51s and their pilots were lost in Korea, these losses were actually light considering the tremendous destruction they inflicted on the Communist forces. (35) In a particularly effective close air support strike on October 25, 1951, Mustangs killed or wounded about 200 enemy troop (36)–more than the total number of F-51 pilots killed in ground-attack operations during the entire Korean War.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

MY RANTS.. Funny that is what I think about your comments.

My "rant's" provided supporting data, something that you haven't provided, like your 3 DAY ENGINE CHANGE, but I'll play

Here is some information for you why the USAF did not use the Thunderbolt in Korea.
First and foremost it would have never been able to get off the ground

Proof?!?! Take off data??? Runway lengths? Aircraft weights????

The Thunderbolt would have been a more survivable ground-attack aircraft than the F-51 in Korea, and pilot losses would have been lower in the Jug. However, the plane did have limitations.

OK - what's been said all along....

The Jug needed a lot of runway to get into the air, which meant the F-47 simply could not have operated from some of Korea's short, rough runways without reducing weapon or fuel loads. One of the Mustang's greatest assets in Korea was that it could fly with a heavy weapons load from undersized dirt runways just a short flight from the front. Fully loaded, the F-47D and F-47N weighed in at 19,400 and 20,700 pounds respectively; the relatively lightweight F-51D topped the scales at 11,600 pounds.

And that's at max gross weights in which normally neither aircraft would be loaded at.

AND again you left one thing out genius - the runway lengths!

The P-47 needed a 6000' runway when loaded to maximum weights with wing and centerline tanks. When loaded to 20,000K (fuel only) the P-47N had a greater range than the P-51. That is CLEARLY shown in the POH

There would never be a reason to operate either aircraft at a maximum gross weight at a forward airfield!!!!

Here - educate yourself

This chart is for a P-47D, the P-47N would have offered better performance, but not by much. Hopefully you'll figure out how to read this...

Here's the same chart for the P-51

At the higher gross weights the P-47D would require runways just under 4000', that was about the size of many of the hardened runways in Korea.

At these weights the P-47 carried a heavier bomb load but used more fuel. And had less range

Perhaps most significantly, the Thunderbolt, like all other piston-engine fighters, was outclassed by the straight-wing jet fighters of the late 1940s. The situation became even worse as swept-wing jets entered service. Futrell notes the performance of the Soviet-built MiG-15 jets that appeared over Korea on November 1, 1951 "rendered obsolete every American plane in the Far East." (37) In air combat with the MiG-15

the Mustang had to depend on its maneuverability to survive, since trying to speed or dive away was usually fatal. (38) Vandenberg, in his response to Stratemeyer's request for F-47s, said the Thunderbolt would be much less desirable for aerial combat than the Mustang in the event of a MiG attack. (39)

And this turned out to be nonsense because MiG attacks against any recip aircraft would have (and did) turn into a turning game, although more maneuverable, one can never quantify the P-47's survival rate with regards to a P-51 comparison against the MiG-15!

The Jug could have made an important contribution to the Air Force effort in Korea, but like the Mustang, it would have been replaced eventually by more survivable jet fighter-bombers.

WOW!!!!!

And agree - but again, you've provided NO bases for your very naive "would have never been able to get off the ground" comment.

Shall we discuss Korean bases, locations and runway lengths, something that you have also clearly forgotten to provide data for!!!!! But then again, we have the now infamous 3 DAY ENGINE CHANGE"

I'm waiting with bated breath and please provide references other than some cut and paste Wikipedia paragraph!

PS - as always appreciate Mike Williams' charts

 

[Shortround6]

I would note that by the time of Korea the P-51D may have been rated at up to 13,000lbs max take-off weight.
At least there are take and landing distance charts and a Flight Operations Instruction Chart provided in the Pilot's manual for that weight.
there are several loadings that would get you close to that weight,like full internal fuel, a pair of 1000lb bombs and 6 rockets.
A P-51D that weighed 11,600lbs was not at full gross weight as even with full internal fuel and no rockets a pair of 1000lb bombs would push it to 12,200lbs and in fact even a pair of 110gal drop tanks would push it to 11,700lbs.

I have no idea if those are 500lb bombs or 1000lbs but even 500lb bombs are going to push it past 11,600lbs.


Yes the Mustang could use shorter air fields but lets compare apples to apples and not max gross weight to 90% of gross weight.

 

[drgondog]

I would note that by the time of Korea the P-51D may have been rated at up to 13,000lbs max take-off weight.
At least there are take and landing distance charts and a Flight Operations Instruction Chart provided in the Pilot's manual for that weight.
there are several loadings that would get you close to that weight,like full internal fuel, a pair of 1000lb bombs and 6 rockets.
A P-51D that weighed 11,600lbs was not at full gross weight as even with full internal fuel and no rockets a pair of 1000lb bombs would push it to 12,200lbs and in fact even a pair of 110gal drop tanks would push it to 11,700lbs.

View attachment 501806

I have no idea if those are 500lb bombs or 1000lbs but even 500lb bombs are going to push it past 11,600lbs.


Yes the Mustang could use shorter air fields but lets compare apples to apples and not max gross weight to 90% of gross weight.

Those look like 250# bombs. The Fully loaded (internal) GW is 10,200 pounds for the P-51D. Two 165 gallon externals plus 2x500#, 6x140# Rockets plus 2x500# or two external tanks partially filled w/90 gallons each, two 1000# bombs represent various external Korea vintage load outs.

IIRC 12, 400# = Max GW at STP but I have seen examples of 6xrockets (@140# each) plus 2x1000# bombs but is suspect internal fuel tanks not 100% filled.

 

[Shortround6]

The Manual (or copy) that I have is from 1954. for 10,200lbs it shows ranges using 240 gallons of fuel but the extra 29 gallons may be accounted for by warm up and take-off?
They do a lot of rounding off in the charts as two 500lb bombs are generally equal to two 75 gallon tanks and two 1000lbs are equal to a pair of 110 gal tanks
as far as range/speed goes.

 

[drgondog]

The Manual (or copy) that I have is from 1954. for 10,200lbs it shows ranges using 240 gallons of fuel but the extra 29 gallons may be accounted for by warm up and take-off?
They do a lot of rounding off in the charts as two 500lb bombs are generally equal to two 75 gallon tanks and two 1000lbs are equal to a pair of 110 gal tanks
as far as range/speed goes.

Steve - 2x165 gallon tanks closer to 2x1000#

 

[Shortround6]

I know, just reporting what the manual says

They use ranges of weight like 13,000lb to 11,000bs for one chart and 12,200lbs to 10,300 on another and so on.

The maximum endurance charts have 7 different weight categories/under wing loads going from 10,200lbs with under wing racks up to the 13,000 to 11,000lb chart with the 6 rockets plus different pylon/rack loads.
Strangely non of the charts list the 165 gallon tanks or any tank larger than 110 gallons.

There are normal power climb charts, military power climb charts, the maximum endurance climb charts and the Flight Operations Instruction Charts
all with these variations weight categories and under wing loads.

I don't know what they used in Korea, just pointing out that the max gross of the F-51D was not 11,600lbs like another poster said.

Again this is a 1954 dated manual and/or revised from a 1952 manual so what they were using then could be very different than what they were using in WW II or immediately after.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Interesting information folks! I can't find that 1954 manual but it would be interesting to see what the TAKE OFF DISTANCE would be for the F-51 at 13,000 pounds.

In the mean time I did a little homework, Some of the airbases these aircraft operated (and "would have" operated) out of - K-13 9,000 and 7,000' runways. Kunsan 5000'. Osan 9000'. I believe all were under 200' MSL. If you look at these bases on a map and calculate flight distances into NK, you're talking anywhere from 100 to 300 miles. F-86s required a 5000' runway IIRC, so an F-47 "could have" easily operated from most major South Korean Airbases even at higher gross weights with little issues.

 

[Tieleader]

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...

Agreed! If you don't know what you're talking about you WILL be eviscerated by the experts here!

 

[pbehn]

Interesting information folks! I can't find that 1954 manual but it would be interesting to see what the TAKE OFF DISTANCE would be for the F-51 at 13,000 pounds.

.

I believe these things went hand in hand, I have no idea in Korea but developments and loads had to go hand in hand with minimum airfield requirements on planes like the Typhoon, it could and did carry very heavy loads, but not from a wet grass runway.

 

[Shortround6]

Take-off chart (pages 102-103, this is a reprint )
has weights of 13,000lbs, 12,000lbs,11,000lbs, 10,000lbs and 9,000lbs going down the left side of the chart.
main columns across are for -5 degrees Centigrade, +15 degrees Centigrade, +35 degrees Centigrade, and +55 degrees Centigrade
Subcategories for weights are for Pressure altitude SL to 5,000ft evey 1000ft.
Subcategories for temperature are zero wind and 30 kt wind and each has a column for ground run and to clear 50 ft.
ALL are for hard runway.

13,000lbs on +15 degree Centigrade day at sea level with zero wind calls for a ground run of 2350ft and 3450ft to clear 50ft.
12,000lbs on +15 degree Centigrade day at sea level with zero wind calls for a ground run of 1950ft and 2950ft to clear 50ft.
11,000lbs on +15 degree Centigrade day at sea level with zero wind calls for a ground run of 1600ft and 2500ft to clear 50ft.

A -5 degree Centigrade day shortens things by about 300-400ft (every increment is 50ft).
Every 1000ft of altitude increases distances by about 100-200ft9 (at least in the two colder columns)
A 30-kt head wind can cut the distances by around 1/2 (this one really varies).

One could estimate 3400ft to clear 50ft on a +25 degree Centigrade day at 1000ft pressure altitude at 12,000lbs by averaging columns.

Yes the F-51D can operate out of shorter airstrips than the F-47.

However a SAC chart for the F-47N
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-47N_Thunderbolt_SAC_-_17_May_1950.pdf

shows a take-off distance of 2550ft ground run and 3680ft to feet for a clean F-47N with 557 gallons of internal fuel and using normal take-off power (2100hp) not WEP) at a gross weight of 17,876lbs. The higher gross weights (20,837lbs) with three 1000lbs or 440 gal worth of drop tanks calls for 4600ft of runway and 6250ft to clear 50ft on a +15 degree Centigrade standard day.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Take-off chart (pages 102-103, this is a reprint )
has weights of 13,000lbs, 12,000lbs,11,000lbs, 10,000lbs and 9,000lbs going down the left side of the chart.
main columns across are for -5 degrees Centigrade, +15 degrees Centigrade, +35 degrees Centigrade, and +55 degrees Centigrade
Subcategories for weights are for Pressure altitude SL to 5,000ft evey 1000ft.
Subcategories for temperature are zero wind and 30 kt wind and each has a column for ground run and to clear 50 ft.
ALL are for hard runway.

13,000lbs on +15 degree Centigrade day at sea level with zero wind calls for a ground run of 2350ft and 3450ft to clear 50ft.
12,000lbs on +15 degree Centigrade day at sea level with zero wind calls for a ground run of 1950ft and 2950ft to clear 50ft.
11,000lbs on +15 degree Centigrade day at sea level with zero wind calls for a ground run of 1600ft and 2500ft to clear 50ft.

A -5 degree Centigrade day shortens things by about 300-400ft (every increment is 50ft).
Every 1000ft of altitude increases distances by about 100-200ft9 (at least in the two colder columns)
A 30-kt head wind can cut the distances by around 1/2 (this one really varies).

One could estimate 3400ft to clear 50ft on a +25 degree Centigrade day at 1000ft pressure altitude at 12,000lbs by averaging columns.

Yes the F-51D can operate out of shorter airstrips than the F-47.

However a SAC chart for the F-47N
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-47N_Thunderbolt_SAC_-_17_May_1950.pdf

shows a take-off distance of 2550ft ground run and 3680ft to feet for a clean F-47N with 557 gallons of internal fuel and using normal take-off power (2100hp) not WEP) at a gross weight of 17,876lbs. The higher gross weights (20,837lbs) with three 1000lbs or 440 gal worth of drop tanks calls for 4600ft of runway and 6250ft to clear 50ft on a +15 degree Centigrade standard day.

Thanks for posting that SR - so for the P-47N at max gross combat weight we're looking at 3,000 pounds of bombs, 4640 ground run, over 6000' to clear a 50' obstacle, that with a 450 mile+ combat radius. Let's see, first we "couldn't get off the ground," next we couldn't operate at S. Korean bases.

The P-47 "could have" performed in Korea just fine and I think we could interpulate additional performance data that would show it in the ball park with the F4U or even the P-51 when operating at slightly smaller bomb and fuel loads. Logistics, maintenance and probably operating costs would not have played in its favor. Trying to speculate its survivability as compared to the F4U or the Mustang would have been a guess at best. Trying to speculate how it would have handed the MiG-15 threat is a bigger guess!!

 

[Zipper730]

Thanks for posting that SR - so for the P-47N at max gross combat weight we're looking at 3,000 pounds of bombs, 4640 ground run, over 6000' to clear a 50' obstacle, that with a 450 mile+ combat radius.

Does that include drop-tanks or just internal fuel?

 

[Shortround6]

That is internal fuel for the P/F-47-N with added fuel tanks in the modified wing.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Does that include drop-tanks or just internal fuel?

Drop tanks, internal fuel and 3000 pound bomb load if I'm reading the posted chart correctly

 

[Shortround6]

I believe it is 270 gallons for the main fuselage tank, 100 gallons for the aux fuselage tank and 187 gallons for the internal wing tanks, 587 gallons total internal plus the three 1000lb bombs (ground cleance for teh under fuselage 1000lb is a little suspect but they are operating from pavement)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Other S Korean airbases where the F-47 "could have" operated from with no issues, to name a few;

K-1 and K-9 Pusan, 9,000 & 10,000' runways
K-18 Gangneung, 9,000'
K-14 Gimpo 6,000' later modified to 9,000'
K-16 Seoul 6,000' later 9,000'

 

[Glider]

The only observation I can make is the comments about the length of the runway needed for the P47 and P51. I would have thought that there were enough runways that catered for the prodigious runways demands of the early jets in hot temperatures which makes that discussion point almost irrelevant.

 

[Zipper730]

That is internal fuel for the P/F-47-N with added fuel tanks in the modified wing.

When they add the additional tankage

Drop tanks, internal fuel and 3000 pound bomb load if I'm reading the posted chart correctly

The flight profile to achieve the specified range, was it low-low-low, hi-lo-hi, etc