Putting the P-47 back into production?

[GrauGeist]

If you're looking for a flying dumptruck, then you just can't beat the Skyraider...that machine could create a tremendous amount of hurt...

Personally, I think they should stick with the A-10.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The P-51 was faster becuase it was lighter and not as good of quality.

Please prove where it is not good quality.

CHEAP PEICE OF JUNK!

You have no clue about aircraft design. Your posts make that very evident...

Why do you think teh P-47 was like 40,000 dollars more expensieve?

And dont give me teh answer "Becuase it was 3,000 pounds heviar!

See my answer above.

Because I study it all friggen day long for the past 6 years!

6 years of research is not showing up very well here...

The P-47 did make a difference and was and is far better then the P-51!


It didnt need mods becuasei t was so freaking great!

What? Please explain. If you actually did research you would see the P-47 was modded and their were different versions because it had to be made better.

It was kinda junk.

It wasnt totaly hopless but it was junk.

It was only designed in 120 days!

You are an idiot...

Please go someplace else.

I really do not want to resort to calling you such a thing, but I am tired of your trolling on this forum. If your opinion is that the P-47 was a better aircraft that is fine, but don't call it fact, and then not back it up with facts. You do not present a good argument as well, as it is not made up with facts.

In my opinion the P-47 was a better aircraft, but that is because I like its role better and its design better. However:

1. The P-51 was a marvelous aircraft. Your arguments will never prove that.
2. You are a troll...

So please go find someplace else to troll.

I joined that forum with the username'Moderater' and they never let me on.

They were smart, you are a troll. Either you quit your BS, or I will remove you from this forum faster that you can go and cry to your mother!

Until then, I present you with your diploma:

 

[Njaco]

He will probably actually print that out and put it on his wall. Jeez!

 

[evangilder]

Bud Anderson, who actually flew the P-51 in combat said:

The P-51 was pleasant and forgiving to fly. Best of all, it went like Hell. The Merlin had great gobs of power, and was equally at home high or low, thanks to a two-stage, two-speed supercharger. The Mustang carried fuel enough to pursue and destroy the enemy once you'd flown to the target, and it could turn on a dime. It was crucial to keep it it trim but, as we gained experience with the plane, that became automatic. We sensed it was special, even before we measured it against what the enemy pilots were flying.

I will take a statement like that from an experienced combat pilot over someone who claims to have "studied aircraft for 7 years".

Anyone who calls the P-51 a "piece of junk" clearly has a lot more reading to do.

 

[Dark Matter]

The P-47 is superior when youi think about it.

I'd choose the P-47 anyday.


Just do some research and you will soon find out...

 

[evangilder]

Do some research?!?! You have provided no facts that make up your opinion, yet you want ME to research this? I have been giving aircraft presentations to the public and writing articles about aircraft since before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye.

You have given nothing but your own opinion, with no facts to back it up.

 

[B-17engineer]

The P-47 is superior when youi think about it.

I'd choose the P-47 anyday.


Just do some research and you will soon find out...

And your telling Evan this?

 

[Dark Matter]

His name is Eric.

 

[B-17engineer]

Ok, if that's even true, I didn't know that.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The P-47 is superior when youi think about it.

I'd choose the P-47 anyday.


Just do some research and you will soon find out...

Prove it! Come one please put some facts where your mouth is!

 

[Dark Matter]

I already showed you guys.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-world-war-ii-aircraft-3541-78.html[/QUOTE]

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No you did not show us ****!

4 more minutes...

 

[Dark Matter]

You know what?

Screw you.

I'm leaving.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Goodbye....

 

[Gnomey]

Ooowwwhhhh, the poor little kiddy can't deal with the big bad men and their facts

 

[B-17engineer]

Dark Matter, that's is from the website I posted. That was all what someone else thought! Plus the one about the landing gear being wide is irrelevant because the P-51 had exceptionally wide landing gear!

 

[vikingBerserker]

What a fricken idiot.

 

[B-17engineer]

Thinking the exact same thing right now.

 

[Doughboy]

Just another spammer/Troll.

 

[Airframes]

What the *$* the point of digging up a design that's well over 65 years old, complex and costly to build, big, heavy, very inefficient by today's standards, noisy, and needs lots of room for take offs and landings. And that's before mentioning the servicing requirements and time. And 500 mph - at low level??
This was tried, as someone mentioned, with the P51, as a COIN aircraft which, although capable and successful for it's intended role, was too expensive, in relation to a new, modern design, and not as efficient in it's use of current materials. If an air force or army wanted such an aircraft as you envisage, I don't think they'd be looking at such an old design, just the same as they wouldn't regurgitate a 'modernised' King Tiger, just because it looks 'cool'!
Those air forces who still had P47's until the 1960's changed, not because the P47 was not a good aircraft, but because it was old, outdated and not as efficeient in it's required role in a modern world, as newer designs.
And by the way, the P51 wasn't a 'Cheap piece of junk', it was one of the most technologically advanced and efficeient aircraft of it's day, to which a lot of modern designs owe much. Or did the USAAF get something wrong??!!!