Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
MY RANTS.. Funny that is what I think about your comments.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.
Proof?!?! Take off data??? Runway lengths? Aircraft weights????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.
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.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.
Steve - 2x165 gallon tanks closer to 2x1000#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.
Agreed! If you don't know what you're talking about you WILL be eviscerated by the experts here!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...
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.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.
.
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.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.
Does that include drop-tanks or just internal fuel?FLYBOYJ said: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.
Drop tanks, internal fuel and 3000 pound bomb load if I'm reading the posted chart correctlyDoes that include drop-tanks or just internal fuel?
When they add the additional tankageThat is internal fuel for the P/F-47-N with added fuel tanks in the modified wing.
The flight profile to achieve the specified range, was it low-low-low, hi-lo-hi, etcDrop tanks, internal fuel and 3000 pound bomb load if I'm reading the posted chart correctly