Thunderbolt vs Mustang

[Colin1]

Resolving size issues - be right back

 

[Njaco]

Men do that all their life.

 

[evangilder]

 

[Amsel]

Resolving size issues - be right back

What? Are you at the gym?

 

[evangilder]

Or perhaps taking one of those little blue pills?

 

[davebender]

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.

 

[Sweb]

Resolving size issues - be right back

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.

 

[drgondog]

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.

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.

 

[Colin1]

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

 

[Colin1]

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

 

[Colin1]

A quick test

 

[Njaco]

Colin, if you scan the pics you can email me them and I can put them together if needed.

I can't leave you alone with a thread for a minute...

You don't know that by now?

 

[Colin1]

Colin, if you scan the pics you can email me them and I can put them together if needed

Thanks nj
could well end up doing that, I'll let you know

 

[davebender]

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.

 

[TheMustangRider]

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.

 

[davebender]

Price in my opinion is not justification enough to leave it out production

It is if a less expensive aircraft is just as good or better.

 

[Sweb]

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.

 

[timshatz]

It is if a less expensive aircraft is just as good or better.

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.

 

[davebender]

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.

 

[fly boy]

only thing that i know is price and how many aircraft shot down