p51 vs p47

[p-51 mustangman]

is the picture above a TA-152 or a FW-190 D9. It is amazing to me herr Hitler limited the long nose focke wulf to ground attack. There may be limitations I do not know about but it would seem that this airplane would have been a good stopgap until the ME-262 came along

 

[DBII]

Looks like a tie to me. Back in the 90's I was digging around a used book store for aircraft book when the lady I was with started talking to an elderly man. He was a big firt. It ended up that he flew P-47 and transitioned into the A-37 and then P-51. I talked with him several years ago. I think he was in MTO. He did not have any air kills. He flew CAS missions. THe pilot said that everyone was always surprised that he liked the P-51 over the P-47 for the ground attacks. He said that the handling ablilies of the P-51 more than make up for having only six .50 cals and the fact the P-47 could handle more damage.

I am leaning toward the P-47 Razorbacks.

DBII

 

[drgondog]

Here is what I have:

43-50226/50338 Lockheed P-38L-5-VN Lightning
50281 (F-5G-6-LO)

50310 to NC75666, to the Caribbean Legion on Cayo Confites base of MRD (Movimiento Revolucionaria Dominicano), 08/47 taken over by Cuba as CAEC 126

50312 to NL5016N, to the Caribbean Legion on Cayo Confites base of MRD (Movimiento Revolucionaria Dominicano), 08/47 taken over by Cuba as CAEC 122.

That info is from Joe Baugher's serial number search page.

USAAS-USAAC-USAAF-USAF Aircraft Serial Numbers--1908 to Present

He has a pretty comprehensive database for serial numbers. He also has one for Navy aircraft.

His data base is extensive. In the research I did on 355th and SF a/c I found a high error rate, however, so my opinion is use it as a start - collect and correct from other sources, then send Joe your updates to help this public source improve over time.

Still a superb place to start.

 

[merlin]

From a British perspective - it has to the Mustang! After all if it wasn't for the British Purchasing Commission, North American wouldn't have designed and built it!

 

[fly boy]

now from what a vet said to one of my friends if you flying a p-47d if you put the thottle at like 1/4 power and pull flaps all the way out if would almost turn on its axis

 

[kool kitty89]

It would depend on the model (ie weight and wing loading) and the load of the a/c.

But even if you can turn tight it doesn't mean you can turn fast: turn radius is NOT turn rate or turn time. Plus there's instantaneous turn vs sustained turn.

Wing loading and CL are the biggest factors of turn radius, turn rate is much more affected by power loading (though both are affected by power and wing loading) and a clean airframe with good energy retention (for which good power loading and high lift:drag ratio are very important) are most important in sustained turns.

Look at the P-38, it had a very good turn rate but high wing loading (albeit with a high aspect ratio and high-lift airfoil) but very good power loading and could turn better (turn rate) than the F4U (for example: P-38L vs F4U-4), but the F4U could turn tighter (radius) and likely had a higher max instantaneous turn rate. (all anecdotal data, mostly from others statements on this forum and from other discussions, along with some test info from memory)


What you are describing is an instantaneous turn which can quickly brig an a/c to stall if sustained for any meaningful length of time. The P-51 could "flick stall" and turn 360 degrees (with a very skilled pilot and luck) and get behind a chasing opponent.

See:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdCm5z2RpI8

 

[Flightcommander]

p-47 would probably beat the p-51 it's elliptical wing made for good turns and it had much more firepower than the p-51

 

[Flightcommander]

forgot to say that it had a much much more powerful engine, the Pratt and whitney could get about 2750 hp.

 

[B-17engineer]

Well it just depends.....The P-47 and P-51 were different and had different roles. The Story of RObert Johnson just goes to show just how durable the jug can be. The dogfight episode said that he counted 200 holes without even moving.


The P-51, was a remarkable plane, it had the new Laminar flow wings which reduced drag. But, I have heard plenty of accounts of a P-51 catching up to a Me-262 and shooting them down.

Overall, I am gonna go with the P-47. For defense it is very durable and when you are on the offensive you have those 8 nasty .50 cals....

 

[Flightcommander]

I saw that Dogfights episode, totally awsome, for all you undecided people...
vote P-47!!

 

[B-17engineer]

Agreed

 

[Njaco]

I believe that most of those claims of Me 262 kills by P-51s were as the jets were in landing circuit or taking off. That was the most vulnerable time for them. Drew Urban (I believe thats it) caught 2 of them on one pass for a double kill as they took off.

And there is a thread somehwere here that goes over jet kills during the later half of WWII.

 

[Hollywood]

If Hitler hadn't been a "NUT" and left his Generals alone we'd all be speaking German........Ta152rules.......

 

[renrich]

From one of the US fighter conferences during WW2 showing stall speeds in 3G turns, the P51D-15 was a substantially better turning airplane than the P47D-30.

 

[kool kitty89]

The flaps worked quite well to increase CLmax (CL= lift coeficient) on the P-51's otherwise low-lift wing.

I don't know where the

p-47 would probably beat the p-51 it's elliptical wing made for good turns and it had much more firepower than the p-51

comes from (probably due to the spifire) but the only thing the eliptical shape does is increase lift to drag ratio, in a full eliptical wing (like the Spit) this also makes for violent stalls, but the straight leading edge of the P-47 mitigates this iirc. (fairly gentle stalls, moreso than the P-51 as well)

forgot to say that it had a much much more powerful engine, the Pratt and whitney could get about 2750 hp.

Power doesn't mean much on is own. I's when you put weight into the equation that you can get a comparable figure. Hell the P-38L had over 3500 hp in WEP! Plus the P-47M/N had the R-2800-57C capable of 2,800 hp in WEP up to 32,000 ft. The R-2800-59/63 of the P-47D was cleared for 2,600 hp with 100/150 avgas at 70" HG. (but 70" was only good up to ~23,500 ft) with this a late model P-47D could manage 444 mph at critical altitude. Some may have been tuned up to 2,700+ hp as well.

But bact to power-loading (weight/power) or (what I prefer) power/weight: the late P-47D weighed 14,600 lbs (clean, full internal fuel), the P-51D in the same configuration was 10,100 lbs. The P-47D had 2,600 hp, the P-51 had ~1,700 hp. So: P-47D: .178 hp/lb P-51D: .168 hp/lb. P-47 is ~6% better. But this is just one simplified comparison.

 

[I love Jugs]

Go easy on me fellas,my first post........
Just to add to the p51/p47 debate,here's 2 Mustang pilots with different, personal,opinions to Clayton Kelly Gross when he remarks on how good the 'stang' was:-

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuJSH3QkMZ4 ???

 

[otftch]

I think in generic terms the P 51 was more maneuverable but I'd sure not want a P-47 on my tail.
Ed

 

[KrazyKraut]

P-51 D, no contest.

 

[blkstne]

Up in the thin air P-47

Low level fighting P-51

 

[renrich]

These kind of debates are fun and interesting and educational but one has to determine what the conditions under which the comparison will be made are. Average pilots or not, altitude, air to ground or air to air, how far from base, etc. A bit like comparing a tiger and a tiger shark. In the water or on land?