p51 vs p47

p47 or p51

  • Total voters
    135

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Great minds think alike! That was going to be my next point. Almost overnight many S Korean airfields were lengthened as UN forces starting moving north once the initial N Korean push was halted. My friend from earlier posts needs to explore early jet T/O data. There were several airfields where P-47Ns "could have" been operated from, even at higher gross weights and still had plenty of range to reach most targets over N Korea
 
Zipper730 said:
When they add the additional tankage
Click to expand...
When they made the P-47N, the extended the wing center section to make room for the fuel tanks and the clipped the wing tips giving a somewhat different wing shape.
republic_thunderbolt.gif

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

The flight profiles for the different missions in the chart are described on page 6 of the chart/link.
 
Shortround6 said:
When they made the P-47N
Click to expand...
Never mind, I misinterpreted what you said as meaning drop-tanks, normal internal fuel (P-47N), plus modifications of some sort.
The flight profiles for the different missions in the chart are described on page 6 of the chart/link.
Click to expand...
From what that reads, I get
  • Inbound Altitude: 10000 feet
  • Outbound Altitude: S/L
  • Radius of Action 463 nm/532.45
  • Cruise Speed: 212 kt/244 mph
  • Combat provisions: 5 minutes
  • Reserve: 5%
 
At last count the Mustang is gaining on the Jug, down by only two votes. I have to be honest though, I never thought it would ever be this close. Ask the same question 25 years ago and it would probably have been Mustang all the way. Times are definitely a changin...

p.s. It was a difficult decision for me but I still picked the 'stang.
 
Wow almost over night!..hmmm!
Just snap your fingers!....Coulda shoulda woulda!
Took about a year to get the NK Army out of SK.
P47 was not used in Korea because it was not as good an AC as the Corsair or Mustang...period!
Or the USAF would have kept more of them!
They could have staged them out of Japan where they had better facilities.
But they didn't.
The P47 would have taken up more resources and fuel to maintain!
Would,have been easy prey to the Migs and La11 Russian fighters.
May want to look up Cookie Sewell who Documented Korean Airwar statistics!
 
In April 1951, Communist ground fire claimed 40 Air Force fighter-bombers, including 25 Mustangs. As a result, Lt. Gen. George E. Stratemeyer, commander of the U.S. Far East Air Forces, sent a request to Air Force headquarters asking if any F-47s were available for use in Korea. He noted a tremendous increase in small arms fire and flak, but added that "All here know that [the] F-47 can take it." (28) Stratemeyer explained that the situation was so desperate he would gratefully accept just 25 F-47s then serving with the Hawaii Air National Guard. In response to Stratemeyer's request, Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Air Force chief of staff, explained that considering the current availability of F-47s, the lack of spare parts, and the problems of introducing another type of fighter aircraft, "we fail to see any appreciable results to be gained by the substitution." (29) Vandenberg admitted the F-47 would likely confirm its reputation from World War II and prove less vulnerable than the F51, but he believed that "the disparity between the F-47 and your jet types would be almost as great as the disparity between the F-51s and jets." (30) He concluded that the problem could really only be solved by replacing the Mustangs with jets, adding that exchanging the F-51s for F-47s would require a complete change in the familiarization training pilots received prior to flying combat missions in Korea. (31) Unfortunately for the pilots who continued flying missions in the F-51, the jets came slowly–the last Mustangs were not withdrawn from combat until January 22, 1953

Article:
Why the U.S. Air Force did not use the F-47 Thunderbolt in the Korean War
Article:
 

You forgot one thing - it WAS able to get off the ground!!!!!
 
FlyboyJ and Dan Fahey,

When I first heard Fahey's comment about being unable to takeoff out of fighter bases, I thought he was talking about the strength of the runways, not the length of the airfields. Admittedly, it makes little sense because P-47's took off out of pierced plate strips in WW2 all the time.
 

Not really, concrete and dirt runways were used by P-47s although PPS were probably the norm. Look at the flight manual and the data is there to counter any half-assed from the hip assumptions about P-47 performance.
 
Dan - I'll repost this and make the print big so it could sink in...

In April 1951, Communist ground fire claimed 40 Air Force fighter-bombers, including 25 Mustangs. As a result, Lt. Gen. George E. Stratemeyer, commander of the U.S. Far East Air Forces, sent a request to Air Force headquarters asking if any F-47s were available for use in Korea. He noted a tremendous increase in small arms fire and flak, but added that "All here know that [the] F-47 can take it." (28) Stratemeyer explained that the situation was so desperate he would gratefully accept just 25 F-47s then serving with the Hawaii Air National Guard. In response to Stratemeyer's request, Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Air Force chief of staff, explained that considering the current availability of F-47s, the lack of spare parts, and the problems of introducing another type of fighter aircraft, "we fail to see any appreciable results to be gained by the substitution." (29) Vandenberg admitted the F-47 would likely confirm its reputation from World War II and prove less vulnerable than the F51, but he believed that "the disparity between the F-47 and your jet types would be almost as great as the disparity between the F-51s and jets." (30) He concluded that the problem could really only be solved by replacing the Mustangs with jets, adding that exchanging the F-51s for F-47s would require a complete change in the familiarization training pilots received prior to flying combat missions in Korea. (31) Unfortunately for the pilots who continued flying missions in the F-51, the jets came slowly–the last Mustangs were not withdrawn from combat until January 22, 1953
 
Dan Fahey said:
Not on the Japanese WW2 Fields...maybe new bases built a year later!
But the A26 invader was a more effective solution.
Click to expand...
Again you're 100% WRONG - please stop shooting from the hip. Earlier in this thread I listed some of the Japanese fields that were used at the start of the Korean War, many were well over 6,000'.

Misawa - 10,000'
Itazuke Air Base (formally Mushiroda Airfield) 9,000'

Shall i name a few more?
 
Last edited:
http://napoleon130.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/b26kflightmanual.pdf

At a "normal" combat weight, the A/B-26 Invader needed over 4,100 feet of runway. In a ferry range 4,820. I saw where they were being run to over 30,000 pounds Take Off Weight, in that configuration the take off distance had to exceed 6,000 feet.

Site Builder

Performance tables
Anything to add Mr. Fahey? Now please, before you shoot your mouth off, a little research and a little thought behind your post please!
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Again you're 100% WRONG - please stop shooting from the hip.
Click to expand...
Sadly, some people think more like lawyers than scientists and when confronted, they simply double down on their convictions harder figuring if they do it enough they'll eventually be right.

swampyankee said:
The initial users on the Pacific disliked the A-26, due to poor visibility
Click to expand...
Yes, but the reason had to do with the shape of the canopy, and that was fixed.
 
Last edited:

They were later built or existing lengthened later !
Early war the Pusan Perimeter had few forward fields like T2 which were only 2700ft.
There were no modern fields and built by the Japanese.

What longer fields available were used for Transport Planes.
Even then the C54s were wrecking the packed gravel fields landing their loads.
Lighter footprint C47s took up the landing of supplies, which did not need a 6000ft field.
P47 needed 5000ft base at a minimum plus would have been a gas hog.
Mustangs were flying 3 and 4 attack missions a day, then stayed for CAS.
The heavy impact and carnage by the Mustangs is well documented.
At Pusan there were few choices for airbases.
Stop with the misinformation.
 
Last edited:
Dan Fahey said:
They were later built or existing lengthened later !
Early war the Pusan Perimeter had few forward fields like T2 which were only 2700ft.
Click to expand...
And a P-47 with a normal internal fuel load or bomb load could operate from - and BTW most if not all tactical operations were NOT operated from "T" airfields.
Dan Fahey said:
There were no modern fields and built by the Japanese.
Click to expand...
WRONG - the two I mentioned were housed JAAF bomber units and were well over 6000' when first built. Even on unpaved runways the P-47 could have easily operated from those bases.
Misinformation? Dan - stop with the bullshit!!! - you're wrong and coming on here with half-assed information and comments just make you look very dumb. First you said the P-47 "couldn't get off the ground." Next you stated it couldn't operate from any bases in Japan. Next you said it couldn't operate from bases on the Korean peninsula. I posted the charts and the P-47, depending on the fuel and bomb load could operate from a 2500 - 3000 foot runway with a 2-300 mile combat radius, perhaps those charts are too advanced for your Osprey aviation education. I posted nearly all the major bases in both Japan and Korea where the P-47 could have easily operated from. Post 307 clearly sources the reasons why the P-47 wasn't used in Korea, wrap your mind around this DOCUMENTED information!!! I'll post this again - read it slowly so you can comprehend who wrote it and when!!!!

"Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Air Force chief of staff, explained that considering the current availability of F-47s, the lack of spare parts, and the problems of introducing another type of fighter aircraft, "we fail to see any appreciable results to be gained by the substitution." (29) Vandenberg admitted the F-47 would likely confirm its reputation from World War II and prove less vulnerable than the F51, but he believed that "the disparity between the F-47 and your jet types would be almost as great as the disparity between the F-51s and jets." (30) He concluded that the problem could really only be solved by replacing the Mustangs with jets, adding that exchanging the F-51s for F-47s would require a complete change in the familiarization training pilots received prior to flying combat missions in Korea."

So you know more than, General Vandenberg????

Hoyt S. Vandenberg to George E. Stratemeyer, May 10, 1951, Y'Blood, Three Wars, pp. 509-10.

You also can't grasp the fact that combat aircraft are normally not operated at their maximum gross weights, perhaps its just easier for you to read certain performance factors rather then figuring out how to determine aircraft loading and performance from flight manual charts!!!

And finally you seem to know little difference between in-line and radial engines. You've provided no references for any of comments, so again, if you want to continue to participate here, start providing references for your statements!!!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
9K
Thumpalumpacus
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
2K
mjfur
M
  • Poll
Yak3 vs Spitfire IX?
Replies
10
Views
5K
bravenest0
  • Poll
Gloster Gladiotor vs PZL P24
Replies
0
Views
2K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
  • Poll
Hurricane Mk1 vs 109E-6
Replies
2
Views
2K
Shortround6
S