Thunderbolt vs Mustang

[drgondog]

Everyone likes to compare losses per enemy AC destroyed, but the Jug was blowing up bridges, strafing trains, trucks, river barges, etc.

True - but still relevant when comparing the 'mission' by which you judge losses. All 8th AF fighters were tasked similarly in that for a Fighter bomber sweep - bombs and rockets were hung from 51s just like Jugs and 38's.

None of the 8th AF fighter were really tasked to blow bridges per se - simply because reading up to date maps and ground support/tactical mission wasn't what they were trained for - but ALL attacked rail and river traffic.

I don't really count the Fw-190 as a great fighter-bomber except for the dedicated Fw-190 F version. In that case I think it suffered as a fighter because of the extra armor, bomb racks, and rockets hung all over it.

Arguably it still was a better low to medium altitude fighter than the Jug

I don't know what the F4U might have done in the ETO if given the chance. I'll admit that it was indeed better on the deck than the Bolt.

Clay - At the end of the day, the 8th AF 51's were probably (Idon't have access to statistics to prove this) doing a lot more strafing than 47's simply because they had fuel to burn on the deck after turning over escort duties... and they gradually had more 51's than 47's following D-Day so there were more opportunities based on sheer numbers after June 44.

9th AF and MTO ops were a different mix of missions. There were far more TacAir sorties by 12th and 15th AF, proportionately, than 8th becuase there was no "9th AF TAC" equivalent.

 

[Sweb]

My Pop flew both of these aircraft. He preferred the P-51 as an all-around fighter pilot's airplane and considered it the premier piston engined airplane of his time. He never referred to the P-47 as a fighter plane. He spoke more about it as a fighter bomber. To some of you this might be just so much semantics from one individual. Maybe it is. All I know is he never spoke of the Jug in a favorable manner though he respected it for what it was. One of these days I'll read through his logbooks. I'm sure there's more there than he ever told me.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Clay - At the end of the day, the 8th AF 51's were probably (Idon't have access to statistics to prove this) doing a lot more strafing than 47's simply because they had fuel to burn on the deck after turning over escort duties... and they gradually had more 51's than 47's following D-Day so there were more opportunities based on sheer numbers after June 44.

9th AF and MTO ops were a different mix of missions. There were far more TacAir sorties by 12th and 15th AF, proportionately, than 8th becuase there was no "9th AF TAC" equivalent.

Remember I started by saying that the P-51 was better, I was just giving the Jug some love. In any case it was available and effective when every fighter was needed and the P-38 and P-51 were sometimes in more demand than supply.

 

[Magister]

The USN did a study of similar missions flown off of carriers between Hellcats and Corsairs and it was found that while 26% of Hellcats became casualties from AA fire, 41% of Corsairs did.

The reason appears to have been the Corsair's oil cooling layout. The Hellcat's design was the same as the P-47. For this reason, I don't think the Corsair could take the pounding that a Thunderbolt could.

This thread has an interesting discussion regarding this: (see Post #189)
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hardest-plane-take-down-ww2-3114-13.html

 

[Clay_Allison]

The USN did a study of similar missions flown off of carriers between Hellcats and Corsairs and it was found that while 26% of Hellcats became casualties from AA fire, 41% of Corsairs did.

The culprit appears to have been the Corsair's oil cooling layout. The Hellcat's design was the same as the P-47. For this reason, I don't think the Corsair could take the pounding that a Thunderbolt could.

This thread has an interesting discussion regarding this:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hardest-plane-take-down-ww2-3114-13.html

I didn't know this, interesting.

 

[Magister]

The discussion gets going at post #189. The Corsair was 57% more likely not to come back after suffering ground fire than the Hellcat in similar missions flown off of carriers. That is more than significant and the sort of statistic that one would expect between a Mustang and Hellcat.

 

[Colin1]

The reason appears to have been the Corsair's oil cooling layout. The Hellcat's design was the same as the P-47. For this reason, I don't think the Corsair could take the pounding that a Thunderbolt could

The F4U was tough in other directions
I read an account of a Japanese ace who taught his mentees not to try and take out the F4U from directly astern, you would simply see your slugs bouncing off the F4U's thick hide.
I'd still say the F4U was genuinely multi-role, even if the P-47 shaded it in ground attack but it sounds like it was at its best taking on enemy aircraft.

 

[davebender]

Not quite. The P-47 had that massive turbocharger and associated duct work running through the fuselage. That's a pretty large target area. Shooting up the turbo may not bring down a P-47 per se but it will degrade performance making the aircraft more vulnerable to additional attacks.

 

[Magister]

Dave, I was referring to the oil cooling design. The Hellcat and Thunderbolt had the same oil cooling layout which was different from he Corsair's. The vulnerability of the Corsair in both WWII and Korea to ground fire has been attributed to this design.

Damage to the turbo-supercharger would have no effect on performance in ground attack operations. It is designed to maintain power at higher altitudes where the air is thinner.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Dave, I was referring to the oil cooling design. The Hellcat and Thunderbolt had the same oil cooling layout which was different from he Corsair's. The vulnerability of the Corsair in both WWII and Korea to ground fire has been attributed to this design.

Damage to the turbo-supercharger would have no effect on performance in ground attack operations. It is designed to maintain power at higher altitudes where the air is thinner.

Exactly, there's no comparison between the two, losing your oil cooler and thus your oil would make the engine overheat almost immediately.

 

[Colin1]

...losing your oil cooler and thus your oil would make the engine overheat almost immediately.

More likely
seize almost immediately

 

[Clay_Allison]

More likely
seize almost immediately

I usually think of one as a consequence of the other but, yeah.

 

[davebender]

Damage to the turbo-supercharger would have no effect on performance in ground attack operations.

Are you saying that air going to the P-47 engine intake manifold completely bypassed the turbo and associated ductwork at low altitude?

 

[Clay_Allison]

Are you saying that air going to the P-47 engine intake manifold completely bypassed the turbo and associated ductwork at low altitude?

No, but it could breathe even if that duct work had holes in it.

 

[Sweb]

Dave, I was referring to the oil cooling design. The Hellcat and Thunderbolt had the same oil cooling layout which was different from he Corsair's. The vulnerability of the Corsair in both WWII and Korea to ground fire has been attributed to this design.

Damage to the turbo-supercharger would have no effect on performance in ground attack operations. It is designed to maintain power at higher altitudes where the air is thinner.

Didn't the later model Corsairs (F4U-5, AU-1 and F4U-7) have the oil coolers removed from their original wing stub locations and relocated within the fuselage? The AU-1 (F4U-6) had the original locations sheet-metaled off and I think the last version (F4U-7) actually had the size of the wing stub inlet reduced in size adequate to feed the supercharger.

 

[Magister]

I know that the problem was significant enough to warrant a redesign with some sort of shut off valve and switchover system that helped to retain oil and cooling ability when the apparatus on one side was breached.

I'm sure someone else more knowledgable can elaborate.

 

[Watanbe]

No argument there. The Tempest was a fine fighter-bomber.

An excellent fighter and a devastating ground attack aircraft, rarely gets the credit it deserves as a fighter!

 

[davebender]

Because it entered operations during the last year of the war after Germany was already beaten. I imagine a lot of RAF Hurricane pilots flying ground support during 1941 and 1942 would have given a lot to be flying a Tempest instead.

 

[drgondog]

Because it entered operations during the last year of the war after Germany was already beaten. I imagine a lot of RAF Hurricane pilots flying ground support during 1941 and 1942 would have given a lot to be flying a Tempest instead.

I suspect a lot of LW and USAAF pilots would have loved the Tempest V.

 

[davebender]

Fw-190F3
Bomb load up to 2,205 lbs
394 mph
2,106 climb

Tempest V
Bomb load up to 2,000 lbs (2 x 1,000 lb)
432 mph
4,700 climb

The Tempest has great air combat performance. What do we know about durability vs ground fire and ability to put bombs on a ground target?