FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The P-47 served in national guard units till 1953.
p51 vs p47
- Thread starter brad
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The P-47's days were numbered as the war drew to a close.
It was the right aircraft in the right place at the right time and it delivered tremendous hurt to the enemy, butnthere were other aircraft that were being developed during the P-47's service life that would eclipse it. Therefore, it remained in active service with the Air Force until 1949 and as Joe mentioned, in service with National Guard units until 1953.
What replaced thet P-47?
The Douglas A-1D, which was being developed latewar and may have even seen combat if the Pacific war continued longer than it did. But the fact of the matter is, the A-1 was far better suited to the ground attack role than the P-47. It had decent speed, excellent range and it's bombload was the same as a B-17's max. - 8,000 pounds, which was 5,500 more than the P-47.
While the A-1D may not have had the 8 .50 cal. MGs, it did have 4 20mm cannon, which is a considerable amount of damage to anything on the receiving end.
So really, by the time the Korean war started, the P-47 was simply not needed.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
... and it was costly
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
The P-47D-25, in service at the end of WW2 had a max weight to empty weight of 9400 lbs compared to the AD-1, under development at the end of the war, which had a max weight to empty weight of about 7500 lbs (according to Wagner's "American Combat Planes"). The AD-1, did seem to have a significant range advantage. The P-47N, also in service at the end of the war would have been comparable to the later model ADs, including power. Range always seemed to be a strong point for the ADs.
My opinion has always been that the P-47 would have been a better aircraft than the P-51 for the AF in the Korean War due to the fact that both aircraft had poor air-to-air capability and were used primarily for air-to-gnd attack where the P-47 was definitely superior.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
In what part of the country?
Ah, good point. I remember the east coast (P-47, Republic Aviation, Farmingdale, Long Island, New York) vs west coast (P-51, North American Aviation, Los Angeles, California) point came up in other threads.
I forget, but were P-51's stationed post war on the west coast and P-47's in the east?
The A-1 didn't replace the P-47, it was a Navy aircraft. The USAF didn't use the A-1 until Vietnam. The P-47 was replaced in the fighter-bomber role by the F-51, F-80, and F-84. The F-47 would have been useful in Korea, it just wasn't available. Also the range of the Mustang was needed early on when mission were flown from Japan.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Skyraider did indeed replace the P-47 with it's mission profile in a direct/indirect way.
As for the P-51D, it's max. bombload was 1,000 pounds (divided by one hardpoint on each wing), the P-47D could carry up to 2,500 pounds of bombs max. The F-82 carried a max. Bombload of 4,000 pounds.
The Skyraider could carry up to 8,000 pounds - this also happened to be the max. load/short range rating for the B-17G!
Yes, it was requested by the USN, but it ended up service with the USN, USMC and USAF.
In addition to it's warload and tremendous survivability from ground defenses, it had good range and exceptional loiter time.
And to compare it to the first and second generation jets is apples and oranges.
By the way, the P-80 could carry up to 1,000 pounds of bombs, the F-84 could cary just over 4,400 pounds of bombs and the F-86 could carry a max. bombload of 5,300 pounds, but that would eliminate it's droptanks, cutting into it's range quite a bit.
On the Navy side, the F9F could carry a max. of 2,000 pounds, the F2H could carry up to 3,000 pounds of bombs.
So yes, the USAF may not have "replaced" the P-47 directly with the Skyraider, but in Korea, the Skyraider performed in the exact capacity as the P-47 had done in WWII and again, in Vietnam.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Well, the USAF used a blend of all the fighter types for close air support. The F-84 actually performed two impressive strikes, taking out both the Toksan Dam and the Chasan Dam, both near Pyongyang.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Yes, at Hwachon dam.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I'm not aware of any footage ever taken, although it would be impressive to see.
There were, however, realtime strike assesment photos taken during the mission.
A good overview of the mission, including some actual photos of the dam being hit, can be found here: Skyraiders Torpedo the Hwachon Dam | Defense Media Network
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The pilots were certainly skilled, no doubt.
Though I haven't heard of any mock dogfights, they did score aerial victories in Vietnam.
20 June 1965, two Skyraiders of VF-25 (USS Midway) were flying top cover for a Sandy mission to recover a downed Air Force pilot, when they were bounced by two NVAF MiG-17s. The MiGs launched missiles and a burst of cannon fire at Lt. Hartman III, "Canasta 573" (A-1H BuNo 137523) and Lt. Johnson, "Canasta 577" (A1-H BuNo 139768) who immediately went evasive and manouvered to engage. Lt. johnson fired a short bust of the Syraider's M3 20mm cannon, missing the MiG which then made a turn and approached the two Skyraiders head on. As the MiG approached, both Skyraiders opened fire, the cannon rounds landing around the MiG's intake, fuselage, wing root and canopy. Instead of returning fire, the MiG rolled over on it's back, went into a shallow dive and impacted a low hill. The other MiG immediately retreated.
Lt. Hartman and Lt. Johnson shared the victory.
9 October 1966, four A-1Hs of Va-176 (USS Intrepid) were on a RESCAP mission (loitering on station in case of a downed airman) when they were jumped by 4 NVAF MiG-17s. The Skyraiders went defensive and engaged, with Lt. Patton "Papoose 409" (A-1H BuNo 137453) landing cannon hits to the lead MiG's tail structure, causing it to dive violently into cloud cover below. Lt. Patton dove after it and as he emerged from the clouds, he saw the NVAF pilot's parachute, the MiG tumbling away below.
The other Skyraiders also scored hits on the remaining MiGs and in the end, the talley was one confirmed MiG, one probable downed and one severely damaged.
Other notable incident would be in 1954, when two Slyraiders shot down two Chinese La-9 fighters over the South China Sea.
By the way, while on the subject of the last piston fighters downing jets, I think the engagement on 8 August 1952 between a Sea Fury from the HMS Ocean and a North Korean MiG-15 in which the MiG-15 was downed. While there is some controversy as to whom actually downed it, the fact remains that a MiG-15 was killed by a Hawker.
fubar57
General
Lt. Peter "Hoagy" Carmichael (2nd from the right) and his MiG killing Sea Fury
Michael Paquette
Recruit
- 3
- Aug 4, 2016
Tight race. I choose Thunderbolt as an all around combat aircraft but in if it's a plane vs plane much, I'd give it to the Mustang, but he'd have to be a good pilot. I could see a Mustang using all it's rounds and if not well placed, could leave the Thunderbolt flying.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
There is, somewhere on the Web, an essay by a USAAF pilot who flew both in combat.
My suspicion, after all the hype and bother, is that the answer to which was better is dependent on time and place.
My suspicion, after all the hype and bother, is that the answer to which was better is dependent on time and place.
The Mustang was a far better aircraft than the Thunderbolt.
Was a better dogfighter, excellent ground operations as demonstrated in Korea.
Far less expensive to build, maintain, service, used a lot less fuel for long range missions.
The Thunderbolt would not have been effective in Korea.
It could not use the Japanese bases as it would not get off the ground, Even without a bomb load.
It would have same issues that the Corsair and other Recips had with large oil tank, cooler and turbo.
If hit would burst into flames.
It's only advantage was in high altitude top coverage and diving speed.
One good attribute was that the Thunderbolt came with far less reliability issues.
One of the unreported attribute of the Mustang that they remained on station longer because of its range.
They were very effective in ground attack.
Was a better dogfighter, excellent ground operations as demonstrated in Korea.
Far less expensive to build, maintain, service, used a lot less fuel for long range missions.
The Thunderbolt would not have been effective in Korea.
It could not use the Japanese bases as it would not get off the ground, Even without a bomb load.
It would have same issues that the Corsair and other Recips had with large oil tank, cooler and turbo.
If hit would burst into flames.
It's only advantage was in high altitude top coverage and diving speed.
One good attribute was that the Thunderbolt came with far less reliability issues.
One of the unreported attribute of the Mustang that they remained on station longer because of its range.
They were very effective in ground attack.
lonestarman63
Airman
seems folks forget about jets that take longer runways and they were there ? and yes 51 they could ground strike but why use them for that unless you just wish to find what a bullet does to the cooling system .fact is the mustang was a bad turn fighter. just there were so many of them ,so the best thing about the 51 was the range . and yes they were cheap and you get what you pay for ,
