"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War " (1 Viewer)

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

Also, the Spitfire took on roles, like long-range, high-altitude PR, that the Mustang never fulfilled.
A lot of what you say is true, however.

Just US service
F-6A...........................55 converted...................................................1942 modified P-51-1
F-6B...........................35 converted...................................................1943 modified P-51A
F-5C...........................91 converted...................................................1943 modified P-51B & C
F-6D..........................136........................................................................Nov 1944 Recon P-51D
F-6E...........................161........................................................................April 1945 Recon P-51K


Early planes carried two K-24 cameras.
Merlin powered versions carried one K-17, one K-22 and one K-24.
I expect a few variations from that ;)

p-51e-camera-jpg.jpg

One camera port oblique behind the pilots seat and the other one was vertical in the underside.

The K-24 Cameras may not have given the definition wanted at high altitude,
The K-17 and K-22 cameras were larger, used bigger film and had longer lenses.

Mustangs may have been late or in small numbers but they could perform the role.
 
I think if the P-47D pilot was aware that a turn would nullify the inherent advantages of high speed/energy, the Jug would extend. For the same two a/c the P-47M would be ata decided advantage >28K. The Ta 152 is somewhat meaningless in a discussion of contribution, but it would certainly be able to get altitude on a P-47 but would the Spit XIV with Griffon not be running out of top speed (and Hp avail to Hp required beginning at 22K?
It's a pleasure reading a comparison of these aircraft, without heat, by someone who actually knows what he's talking about.
 
A lot of what you say is true, however.

Just US service
F-6A...........................55 converted...................................................1942 modified P-51-1
F-6B...........................35 converted...................................................1943 modified P-51A
F-5C...........................91 converted...................................................1943 modified P-51B & C
F-6D..........................136........................................................................Nov 1944 Recon P-51D
F-6E...........................161........................................................................April 1945 Recon P-51K


Early planes carried two K-24 cameras.
Merlin powered versions carried one K-17, one K-22 and one K-24.
I expect a few variations from that ;)

View attachment 714617
One camera port oblique behind the pilots seat and the other one was vertical in the underside.

The K-24 Cameras may not have given the definition wanted at high altitude,
The K-17 and K-22 cameras were larger, used bigger film and had longer lenses.

Mustangs may have been late or in small numbers but they could perform the role.

I never said the P-51 didn't do PR. I said it did t do high altitude, long range PR. I was deliberately specific. The P-51 was used for TacR with the oblique camera but what focal length lenses were used for the vertical cameras? Could they deliver stereo imagery both along and across track? Happy to be told they could…I've just never heard of it.
 
Okay I'm changing my vote again, the P47D and P51D are the best fighters of the war by ignoring everything that happened before 1944.
 
Spit XIV with Griffon not be running out of top speed (and Hp avail to Hp required beginning at 22K?
Spitfire performance has the P47D with water injection doing 440MPH and the Spit XIV doing 446mmph between 25-26,000ft, how is the Jug going to get seperation?
 
Last edited:
Of course they could have flown the same missions but there would been more bomber losses as LW contollers vectored fighters to unescorted boxes. What do you mean 'clear run'?
Do you also think the Luftwaffe would have had fighter bases in the best possible positions to intercept the escorts forcing them to drop their tanks earlier if they had no opposition?, they weren't given that opportunity because 2nd TAF Spitfires Typhoons Tempests and Mustangs as well as P47's from the USAF didn't allow it to happen. The bombing campaign against Germany was a joint effort by all the forces involved.
 
In retrospect, my earlier post may be misunderstood. When I wrote "someone who knows what he's talking about", I'm talking about the people here. Not the conversations I've had in my youth with schoolmates.
 
Do you also think the Luftwaffe would have had fighter bases in the best possible positions to intercept the escorts forcing them to drop their tanks earlier if they had no opposition?, they weren't given that opportunity because 2nd TAF Spitfires Typhoons Tempests and Mustangs as well as P47's from the USAF didn't allow it to happen. The bombing campaign against Germany was a joint effort by all the forces involved.
The whole point of Argument was to draw the LW INTO combat with fighter escort. The directive from Goering was to Avoid fighters and focus entirely on the bombers. I agree it was a joint effort, but the point you were trying to make is that the bombing campaign had to have the P-47 to do the intermediate escort so that the Mustang could achieve LR escort objectives.

That is incorrect, same for 2nd TAF Spitfires, Tempests - and P-51s/47s and P-38s of 9th AF. Leigh Mallory and Brereton quit serving Spaatz in May 1944. They weren't 'involved'.

Tell me again about Spitfires, Tempests and Typhoons co-ordinating with 8th AF operations? (after early 1943)

Tell me again how the P-51B/D could not do 'escort as sole airfame' as 8th AF reduced from 11 P-47D FGs to 1 during 1944?
 
Last edited:
Spitfire performance has the P47D with water injection doing 440MPH and the Spit XIV doing 446mmph between 25-26,000ft, how is the Jug going to get seperation?
You seem to have lost track of the comment I made.

"For the same two a/c the P-47M would be at a decided advantage >28K."

Care to revisit Spitfore Performance again - or any other source - to compare available HP to HP required - as you move up in altitude from 25K to 40K - Wait, the Tempest operational ceiling was far below that. Even the P-47D had an advantage at 30K as it was delivering full rated HP.
 
Well, let's compare apples to apples if we're discussing the Spitfire and the Mustang. The latter never received the Griffon engine operationally, so using the fact that the Spitfire needed mods to accommodate it is tilting the analysis, IMHO.
I wasn't clear regarding my difference of opinion regarding the definition of 'growth potential'. The Spitfire morphed into the changes requred for mission/role expansion because the aerodynamics of the airframe lines were basically unaltered - not because the Spitfire chnaged capability and missions with little incremental changes.
The Mustang design moved the wing 2in forward just to accommodate the Merlin and its heavier prop. The Spitfire, meanwhile, used exactly the same main fuselage (aft of the firewall) and same wing mounting position for every variant from MkI thru MkIX. Even after the Griffon was introduced, the wing mounting position remained unchanged, as did the basic planform of the wing.
In truth, significant changes were made to accomodate bubble canopy for both airframes. In addition IIRC the empennage design changed for the Griffon variations. Aft upper deck changed for the P-51D, but not the empennage - same basic tail as the Mustang I. Same basic frame structure aft of the firewall. Same basic wing design. NAA didn't strive to maintain same structural limits as growth might have otherwise dictated. So internal changes were of the variety of cap thickness, shear panel increases which were easily accomodated without changing dies and tooling.
Regarding the wing itself, most changes were driven by evolving requirements for heavier weapons (see acquisition context below). Similarly, the Mustang Mk1a was often fitted with 4x20mm cannon which clearly drove internal changes compared to the initial wing armament of 4x30 cals or the later, 4x50 cals and then 6x50cals. The early Mustangs were also not plumbed for drop tanks whereas later ones were.
The Mustang IA/P-51-NA lifted the Proposed aramament configuration for the Mustang I, as well as propsed armament for the A-36 in original specification. The genesis of the slanted mount that plagued the follow on P-51A/B was the 20mm mount scheme for belt fed Hispano II. Nothing changed with respect jigs and tooling for the wing - save for leading edge planform at root for P-51D - which did not require complex change for anything other than the LE structure from WS 30 to 65. The A-36 changes to install the dive brakes, which included rib and panel changes as well as slightly different gun bay/ammo feed scheme.

The internal wing changes for feed from external racks were built into the A-36, introduced in production, moved unchanged to P-51A/B/D. Pressurization was added as incremental production articles and retro-fitted by kits without slowing production

I don't have any single factory production rates for the Spitfire but I Speculate that when sgnificant changes were made to wing etc,, they were not inserted as production articles in all Spitfire plants. Those changes were instituted equally at Inglewood and Dallas and did not disrupt assembly & delivery pace.


The changes from Mustang I through P-51A were minimal in comparison to the Spitfire. I mentioned that the lower cowl, lower cooling system fairing and wing were dropped to accomodate Merlin system. The basic lines and planform and empennage size and wing size remained the same until the XF serires and P-51H. Those were different airframes, comletely different parts and assemblies and tooling. That said they weren't 'growth' examples but examples of 'shrink' weight to achieve better performance.
Also, the Spitfire took on roles, like long-range, high-altitude PR, that the Mustang never fulfilled.
Piece of cake had the necessity dictated the need. There is no role that the Spitfire accomplished that was not 'easily' accomodated by the P-51B/D airframe. The converse is not true. Size matters. Even installing 20mm in the B/D was easily accomodated without a wing change other than the gun bay interior. Those designs andassociated analysis already existed from P-509 to NA-73 to A-36. The external bomb and fuel tank loads dictated the structural examinations - not recoil. The Australian contract dictated such but were persuaded by AAF to accept P-51D-5 config to maintain commonality to achieve prodution objectives.
The Mustang also benefitted from 4 years' worth of lessons learned and technology development that Mitchell and his team didn't have when they first designed the Spitfire.
While true, the only features I can recall as 'similar' were powerful in-line engine and attempt at Merdedith cooling systems. The 'lessons' learned were combat ready features such as organized cockpit, and growth of wing tankage based on operations experience of RAF. The RAF also insisted on 20mm, but AAF/USN retained priority until 1942. There was no elliptical wing planform, the wing section design was radically different, the cooling system arrangement was totally different, no malcolm hood. No Merlin, although NAA desperately wanted Merlin to replace Allison in 1941. What did you have in mind?
The Mustang remains a tremendous design. It was clearly much better suited to mass production, and the NA team did an amazing job creating a truly world-beating design. However, I think you're underplaying the changes that took place during its WW2 production, and overstating changes wrought upon the Spitfire. We also can't ignore the very different acquisition conditions. The Spitfire was procured at a time when it was hoped war could be avoided, whereas the Mustang was acquired when it was clear we were going to be in a war for a number of years.
The debate is not about the greatness of the Spitfire - IIRC I was the first in this thread re "P-47 Greatness" to demur, mentioning the Spitfire prominantly as important to the discussion. The debate (for me) was definition of growth potential - not growth in fact. Much can be accomplished if the airframe is sound and the changes desired can be accomplished - but at what cost to production, field service complexity and delvery schedules.
Your argument that the Spitfire didn't have "growth potential" doesn't stack up against its proven ability to remain at the forefront of air combat for a decade. Both the Spitfire and the Mustang were phenomenal designs and both evolved. I'm not sure playing a game of "my cat's blacker than your cat" achieves much.
Ditto the Bf 109 by the same definition and similar - not always same examples - but the Bf 109 desn't fit my mission to manufacturabilty definition of growth potential. That by coincidence, also implies not enough urgency to morph to another possible 'need' - like LR escort or efficient fighter bomber operations.
 
I never said the P-51 didn't do PR. I said it did t do high altitude, long range PR. I was deliberately specific. The P-51 was used for TacR with the oblique camera but what focal length lenses were used for the vertical cameras? Could they deliver stereo imagery both along and across track? Happy to be told they could…I've just never heard of it.
Well the Allison engine Mustangs weren't doing high altitude ;)
However the Merlin versions could.
Now did they?
Then we get into the cameras used different installations. Which a bit different than airframes and engines.
Saying the Mustang could not do a certain type of photography because of the camera installation is not a fair criticism of the airframe.

Both the British and US used cameras that used a 5in X 5in negative with different length lenses.
The British were using an F24 camera and the US a K-24.
However some Spitfires used an F8 camera with an 8in X 7.5in negative and different length lenses and some used the more modern F52 camera with 8.5in X 7in negative and variety of lenses. Lenses may have been chosen to suit the intended altitude? or coverage?

US also used larger cameras. The K-17 used 9in X 9in negatives and several different lenses. The K-18 used a 9in X 18in negative and the K-22 went back to the 9in X 9in negative.

How many of the Merlin Mustangs got the big K-18 cameras I don't know or if they could be swapped out for specific missions. Now with the cameras you need the associated film processing equipment.

It is certainly possible to stitch together a bunch of 5 X 5 negatives taken with a certain length lens to equal a smaller number of 9 x 9 negatives to get equal detail/resolution.
But now we are discussing the camera/film/lens capability and not the adaptability of the aircraft airframe.
A K-17 camera, film magazine and lens could go 75lbs and went behind the radiator fairing on the F-6,
Granted they seemed to point out the bottom left corner rather than straight down.
Maybe there was a problem between the fuselage framing, the control runs, the actuators for the rear radiator flap and the tail wheel bay? I don't know but it seems the Merlin Mustangs could do the job if wanted. Maybe it was the radiator exit air disturbed the pictures? (fogging?)
 
Last edited:
While true, the only features I can recall as 'similar' were powerful in-line engine and attempt at Merdedith cooling systems. The 'lessons' learned were combat ready features such as organized cockpit, and growth of wing tankage based on operations experience of RAF. The RAF also insisted on 20mm, but AAF/USN retained priority until 1942. There was no elliptical wing planform, the wing section design was radically different, the cooling system arrangement was totally different, no malcolm hood. No Merlin, although NAA desperately wanted Merlin to replace Allison in 1941. What did you have in mind?
In my opinion the biggest differences to occur in those four years were the 1] power output of the PV-12 Merlin and Alisson When the Hurricane first flew the "Merlin" was still a private venture. 2) war was declared. Without a war, no matter how good the Spitfire was there would probably never have been more than 1000 made. With a war declared a design could be an absolute pup and be made by the thousand because its better than nothing or a use could be found for it. Supermarine were designing around a projected power output of 1000BHP but had to win the contract with a fixed pitch prop for a plane to be used in a war people were just talking about. NAA were designing around a known 1300-1400 HP for a plane in a war that was ongoing.

US fighters were optimised for the US part of the combined offensive. Unusually for a US force they didnt have to worry about a "home front". The USAAF could send all its fighters to Germany and still have its assets defended. If the RAF and Spitfire didnt exist the USA would have to make one or at least set aside some to defend its own airfields and aircraft returning to base. Historically the LW couldnt make massed attacks on UK in 1943/4 but no one would bet the farm on that in 1941/42 I have no doubt the P-51 could be made as a point defence fighter as good or better than the Spitfire, but that is the epitome of sending "coal to Newcastle". Operation Argument and destroying or severely weakening the LW was of huge importance but it wasnt the only thing of importance, other niches still had to be filled. The allies had a huge array of different planes and used them to their strengths. To take on the V1 you use a Tempest you dont sit puzzling what you must do to a Hurricane or P-38 to catch a V1.
 
Saying the Mustang could not do a certain type of photography because of the camera installation is not a fair criticism of the airframe.

Only if the Mustang could accommodate the camera and lens combination that's suitable for the role. Just because an aircraft can fly at high altitude does not make it a good PR platform at those altitudes. The airframe MUST carry a camera and lens combination that's suitable for the role....so, yes, it is a fair criticism.

It's well established that the Spitfire PR Mk XI could carry a pair of F52 cameras with 36in lenses (the PR Mk IV had one F52 with the long lens). These provided overlapping coverage across and along track. The across-track dimension is important given the limits of navigation at the time because it increased the odds of getting the target on at least one image. The problem with long focal-length lenses is that your coverage area gets smaller, hence having overlapping coverage across track is a good thing for a high-altitude PR airframe.

I've yet to see specifics on what camera and lens combinations could actually be installed in the various types of F-6 airframe. It's pretty clear that the F-6A and F-6B were TacR platforms. The F-6C and D may have been different animals but, despite reference to the K22 camera using multiple lenses, including one of 40in focal length, I've yet to see a clear description of what combinations of cameras and lenses the F-6C and D actually could carry.
 
In my opinion the biggest differences to occur in those four years were the 1] power output of the PV-12 Merlin and Alisson When the Hurricane first flew the "Merlin" was still a private venture. 2) war was declared. Without a war, no matter how good the Spitfire was there would probably never have been more than 1000 made. With a war declared a design could be an absolute pup and be made by the thousand because its better than nothing or a use could be found for it. Supermarine were designing around a projected power output of 1000BHP but had to win the contract with a fixed pitch prop for a plane to be used in a war people were just talking about. NAA were designing around a known 1300-1400 HP for a plane in a war that was ongoing.

US fighters were optimised for the US part of the combined offensive. Unusually for a US force they didnt have to worry about a "home front". The USAAF could send all its fighters to Germany and still have its assets defended. If the RAF and Spitfire didnt exist the USA would have to make one or at least set aside some to defend its own airfields and aircraft returning to base. Historically the LW couldnt make massed attacks on UK in 1943/4 but no one would bet the farm on that in 1941/42 I have no doubt the P-51 could be made as a point defence fighter as good or better than the Spitfire, but that is the epitome of sending "coal to Newcastle". Operation Argument and destroying or severely weakening the LW was of huge importance but it wasnt the only thing of importance, other niches still had to be filled. The allies had a huge array of different planes and used them to their strengths.

To take on the V1 you use a Tempest you dont sit puzzling what you must do to a Hurricane or P-38 to catch a V1.
Kinda what the P-47M design had in mind - or P-51B/D wth 150/130 octane fuel and no wing racks.

While I generally your points, it might be interesting to point out that both the P-38 and P-47 were purpose built as interceptors and ordered into production before US entered War - Ditto P-51 but it was ordered to solve RAF mission requirements and imported Allison limitations into the specifications. The Mustang was designed specifically for 1000 Hp Allison.

Second, Germany was zero capable of threatening the US, save U-Boat menace. the deployment and constant improvements to the P-47 and P-38 and then P-51 was to meet unanticipated mission requirements or 1940. Ergo, War Department not concerned about asset availability as many airframes identical to those deployed were assigned to Training Command - and pretty easily re-assigned to Air Defense and placed on operations as pilot availability and priorities. Commonwealth took on US designs and applied them to missions RAF deemed suiteable to fill an unfilled niche in their own ops. In reverse, the US desparately desired Mosquito for multiple uses, but at the top was recon - and early NF capability replace A-20.

Your point about an interceptor that might have been as good as Spitfire? Speculatively the P-51F was cancelled for production consideration in November 1943 and the lessons learned from XF/G were incorporated into the P-51H. Which probably would have been as good as the Spitfire in point defense - but realistically shooting down heavy bombers suggested replacing 50 cal with 20mm, as USAF learned was much more effective at high altitude where API not very productive.

The ideal 'better than Spitfire' scenario for P-51 Interceptor was long range interception directed by radar in the nuclear age - which was filled by P-51H.
 
I've yet to see specifics on what camera and lens combinations could actually be installed in the various types of F-6 airframe. It's pretty clear that the F-6A and F-6B were TacR platforms. The F-6C and D may have been different animals but, despite reference to the K22 camera using multiple lenses, including one of 40in focal length, I've yet to see a clear description of what combinations of cameras and lenses the F-6C and D actually could carry.
AHT says one each of the K-24, K-17 and K-22 with out saying what lenses.
However

says "These were similar to the P-51Bs and P-51Cs except for their two K-24 cameras and provisions for two K-17 or two K-22 cameras."
and later.
" These included the K-17, K-18, K-22 and K-24 aerial cameras." with short descriptions of each type of camera with a few contradictions. Like calling lens 25 in in spot and 24 in another or 24 inches in spot and 40 inches in another.
It doesn't seem like US cameras used much over 24 in lenses but then they don't need quite the length on the big cameras as the small ones do. They may have needed more than they were using however to equal the 32 in lens on the Spit.

A number of the Mustangs used 2nd port in the middle of the fuselage on the left side which was defiantly oblique but I don't know when it showed up.
Nd9GcSLsrJlqAFlBVp1_ieVl5fSQw9sJDAMly70Ow&usqp=CAU.jpg

They seem to be on the F-6D & K but not all. The F-6s were also used post war.
Perhaps they were never tasked with high altitude but the Lockheed F-5s were getting a bit long in the tooth in late 1944 let alone 1945.

The US seemed to use the cross aimed camera set up, even on the P-38s with 5 cameras. They certainly used over lapping though. But I think they stopped building F-5s in 1943?
 
AHT says one each of the K-24, K-17 and K-22 with out saying what lenses.
However

says "These were similar to the P-51Bs and P-51Cs except for their two K-24 cameras and provisions for two K-17 or two K-22 cameras."
and later.
" These included the K-17, K-18, K-22 and K-24 aerial cameras." with short descriptions of each type of camera with a few contradictions. Like calling lens 25 in in spot and 24 in another or 24 inches in spot and 40 inches in another.
It doesn't seem like US cameras used much over 24 in lenses but then they don't need quite the length on the big cameras as the small ones do. They may have needed more than they were using however to equal the 32 in lens on the Spit.

A number of the Mustangs used 2nd port in the middle of the fuselage on the left side which was defiantly oblique but I don't know when it showed up.
View attachment 714719
They seem to be on the F-6D & K but not all. The F-6s were also used post war.
Perhaps they were never tasked with high altitude but the Lockheed F-5s were getting a bit long in the tooth in late 1944 let alone 1945.

The US seemed to use the cross aimed camera set up, even on the P-38s with 5 cameras. They certainly used over lapping though. But I think they stopped building F-5s in 1943?

We're clearly reading the same material...hence my frustration at the lack of details regarding the actual camera and lens set-ups.

Bigger format cameras don't gain you anything if you lack the ability to discern details in the image due to the lens being inadequate. The RAF made extensive use of 24in focal length lenses so that was probably good enough for many tasks. However, the paired F52 cameras with the 36in lenses was a fit for the most numerous PR Spitfire mark which suggests there was a need for the longer focal length.

The oblique camera gets you nothing at high altitude because the lens is so short and the grazing angle so shallow that you can't get sufficient detail onto the film. We had the same problem in the 1990s flying Harriers over northern Iraq.
 
Last edited:
AHT says one each of the K-24, K-17 and K-22 with out saying what lenses.
However

says "These were similar to the P-51Bs and P-51Cs except for their two K-24 cameras and provisions for two K-17 or two K-22 cameras."
and later.
" These included the K-17, K-18, K-22 and K-24 aerial cameras." with short descriptions of each type of camera with a few contradictions. Like calling lens 25 in in spot and 24 in another or 24 inches in spot and 40 inches in another.
It doesn't seem like US cameras used much over 24 in lenses but then they don't need quite the length on the big cameras as the small ones do. They may have needed more than they were using however to equal the 32 in lens on the Spit.

A number of the Mustangs used 2nd port in the middle of the fuselage on the left side which was defiantly oblique but I don't know when it showed up.
View attachment 714719
They seem to be on the F-6D & K but not all. The F-6s were also used post war.
Perhaps they were never tasked with high altitude but the Lockheed F-5s were getting a bit long in the tooth in late 1944 let alone 1945.

The US seemed to use the cross aimed camera set up, even on the P-38s with 5 cameras. They certainly used over lapping though. But I think they stopped building F-5s in 1943?
The last F-5 models built as such on the production line was the F-5B modelled on the P-38J airframe & engines. Subsequent F-5 models were conversions of fighter airframes made at the Dallas Modification Centre.

F-5C & E based on P-38J airframe
F-5F & F-5G based on the P-38L airframe.
 
There is no role that the Spitfire accomplished that was not 'easily' accomodated by the P-51B/D airframe.
Shooting down German aircraft for the first 4 years of the war could not have been accommodated by the P-51B/D airframe.
Spitfire Marks I through XII accomplished it quite well, prior to the introduction of the P-51B/D
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back