Thunderbolt vs Mustang

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Colin1, Mar 13, 2009.

  1. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Resolving size issues - be right back
     
  2. Njaco

    Njaco The Pop-Tart Whisperer
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,053
    Likes Received:
    994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Animal Control Officer
    Location:
    Southern New Jersey
    Men do that all their life. :(
     
  3. evangilder

    evangilder "Shooter"
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    19,419
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer/Photographer
    Location:
    Moorpark, CA
    Home Page:
  4. Amsel

    Amsel Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,857
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Texas
    What? Are you at the gym?
     
  5. evangilder

    evangilder "Shooter"
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    19,419
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer/Photographer
    Location:
    Moorpark, CA
    Home Page:
    Or perhaps taking one of those little blue pills?
     
  6. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t082.pdf
    $85,578. P-47 fighter.
    $51,572. P-51 fighter.

    In addition to costing considerably less, the P-51 consumed about half as much fuel per flight hour. That adds up when you consider the USA produced over 24,000 fighter aircraft during 1944.
     
  7. Sweb

    Sweb Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Mechanic
    Location:
    Florida
    Hello, hello...:?: Had a Twinky breakfast and couldn't fit back through the door?

    These aircraft were built by folks divided up into two groups. P-47 folks were on a Twinky diet. They needed to incorporate a turbo in their bowels. Hence the larger, heavier airframes. P-51 folks were on a Granola bar diet. Two stage superchargers were enough for them. Not a lot of people know that.
     
  8. drgondog

    drgondog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Executive, Consulting
    Location:
    Scurry, Texas
    But the F6F and F4U which did not have a turbo in bowels, but did have the same engine, were nearly equal in twinky diet comparison. Big engine, big frontal area, lot of metal.

    The 51 was a simple airplane, relatively speaking, to build and they had reduced the unit labor cost from 12,000 to 2000 hours by the time the 51D line shut down.
     
  9. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    :lol: :lol: :lol:

    You guys...
    I can't leave you alone with a thread for a minute...
     
  10. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Does anyone know how to join two pics together in a scanning application? It shouldn't be this hard...

    I'm using arcsoft if that's any help
     
  11. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    A quick test
     
  12. Njaco

    Njaco The Pop-Tart Whisperer
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,053
    Likes Received:
    994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Animal Control Officer
    Location:
    Southern New Jersey
    Colin, if you scan the pics you can email me them and I can put them together if needed.

    You don't know that by now? :)
     
  13. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Thanks nj
    could well end up doing that, I'll let you know
     
  14. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Simpler is better provided you don't compromise performance. The American P-51 and German Me-109 are proof that you can build aircraft that are inexpensive and yet highly effective.
     
  15. TheMustangRider

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    United States
    The price tag when considering a fighter is important indeed, but in the scenario of a total war and when the fighter itself has proved to be an excellent design and very effective in the battlefield; the price in my opinion is not justification enough to leave it out production in the case of the US economy which was committed to the war and gearing up to full scale production.
     
  16. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    It is if a less expensive aircraft is just as good or better.
     
  17. Sweb

    Sweb Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Mechanic
    Location:
    Florida
    The two USAAF premier fighter planes were the P-51 and the P-47. They complemented each other in their roles. The Jug could carry on in the ground attack role when its bomber escort role was handed to the Mustang. The Mustang could also perform in the ground attack role but the Jug was defensively the better machine with its ability to absorb more punishment, and its air cooled engine had a better chance of surviving small arms fire by contrast to the Mustang's vulnerable water cooling system. (The Mustang was used exclusively in low level attack and reconnaissance in Korea 6 years later and suffered heavily. The average life expectancy for a "recce" pilot was 6 weeks and his tour was a 100 mission requirement.) And, the Jug was a harder hitting machine with a heavier ordinance load-out.

    Precision ground attack was a key factor in cutting supply lines and hindering troop movements in WWII. No medium or heavy bomber could do that from altitude as well as the Jug could at treetop level. The P-38 was even more vulnerable than the Mustang with its twin engine platform sporting two liquid cooling systems. That left the USAAF with the Jug and it performed admirably. In the high altitude escort and air superiority role the Mustang was unequalled. So, cost evaluations per type vs returns on investment [damage inflicted both real and imagined (enemy demoralization)] on two aircraft performing different yet complementary roles (air and ground) isn't a set of numbers that should be quantified for production justification. Their roles and performance in them were immeasurable substantiations of their respective costs.
     
  18. timshatz

    timshatz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    MGR
    Location:
    Phila, Pa
    Yeah, good point Dave. Bang for the buck is huge when it comes to mechanized warfare. Not only does it have to work well, it has to be cost effective to make. Both the 109 and Mustang were great, bang for the buck airplanes.

    However, if I had to fly one over Europe in 1944, I'd go with the P47. Better chance of coming home.
     
  19. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Do we have casualty rates for the P-47 and P-51 during 1944?

    Personally I think the F4U Corsair to be superior to the P-47 as a fighter-bomber. And it entered production just as early. Of course the U.S. Army Air Corps would need to admit that the USN produced a superior aircraft before adopting a version of their own. :oops:
     
  20. fly boy

    fly boy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    862
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    only thing that i know is price and how many aircraft shot down
     
Loading...

Share This Page