Wasn't the P-51 the best escort fighter of the war?

[grampi]

Resp:
I, obviously disagree.

Disagree all you want, but you have nothing to base your disagreement on...

 

[Shortround6]

It was no more theoretical than the guy who compared a later version of the P-38 to a P-51D

Hmmm, P-38Js start delivery (at factory) in Sept 1943
P-38Ls start delivery (at factory) in June 1944.

P-51Ds start delivery (at factory) in Jan 1944.
P-51Hs start delivery (at factory) in Feb 1945.

So what are the proper P-38s and P-51s to compare?

It can take 2-6 months for a plane to go from factory to combat.
While the P-51D first shows up in England in March 1944 they don't arrive in large quantities until June 1944.

 

[Navalwarrior]

Hmmm, P-38Js start delivery (at factory) in Sept 1943
P-38Ls start delivery (at factory) in June 1944.

P-51Ds start delivery (at factory) in Jan 1944.
P-51Hs start delivery (at factory) in Feb 1945.

So what are the proper P-38s and P-51s to compare?

It can take 2-6 months for a plane to go from factory to combat.
While the P-51D first shows up in England in March 1944 they don't arrive in large quantities until June 1944.

Resp:
To me, the only way to compare them is when they first became operational in Theater. I read somewhere that all Merlin Mustangs required a certain number of hours (for some reason 10 hrs, comes to mind) in flight on the engine . . . before it could be scheduled to shipment. The test pilot telling the story, would fly one Mustang after another . . . all day long. Take off, land . . . and fly another . . . all day long. I have no idea what Lockheed, Republic and others required.
Cont:
I failed to mention that the pilot in question usually put 1 hr of flight time on a Mustang, before landing and checking out another. Each Mustang had a flight time card in the cockpit, that each pilot signed off on.

 

[pbehn]

Resp:
To me, the only way to compare them is when they first became operational in Theater. I read somewhere that all Merlin Mustangs required a certain number of hours (for some reason 10 hrs, comes to mind) in flight on the engine . . . before it could be scheduled to shipment. The test pilot telling the story, would fly one Mustang after another . . . all day long. Take off, land . . . and fly another . . . all day long. I have no idea what Lockheed, Republic and others required.

Its running in an engine, Bill Runnels recalled doing a flight to bed in a new engine on a B-17. I presume they wanted all planes that arrived in UK to be usable straight from the crate, pilots in UK then could be solely concerned with combat and combat training. If every plane needs 10 hours running, 1,000 planes need at least 50,000 gallons of fuel and about 120 pilot/ days minimum to achieve it.

 

[drgondog]

Its running in an engine, Bill Runnels recalled doing a flight to bed in a new engine on a B-17. I presume they wanted all planes that arrived in UK to be usable straight from the crate, pilots in UK then could be solely concerned with combat and combat training. If every plane needs 10 hours running, 1,000 planes need at least 50,000 gallons of fuel and about 120 pilot/ days minimum to achieve it.

For ETO bound Mustang, 1.) acceptance flight by AAC (20min) after flight by NAA (20min); 2.) fly to point of Embarkation for float prep (Newark) 8 hours+, 3.) Float and tow from Liverpool to Speke, 4.) Assemble, clean, check out, run up and fly to BAD2 Warton for ETO mods, 5.) run up ground test and then fly to assigned Base for delivery, 6.) run up and maybe do some touch and go's - maybe not to checkout external tank feed and pressurization and guns. Combat.

Virtually less than 2-3 hours in-country ETO before combat.

 

[Navalwarrior]

As far as endurance is concerned you must be referring to early Thunderbolts without adequate external tanks, to which I mostly agree. Same with climb but that increased markedly with water injection and improved propellers. Maneuverability low down was never the T-bolt's strong point but way up high in the thinning air it's turbo allowed it to maintain handling where most other fighters of the time became sluggish and unresponsive.

Resp:
Speaking of P-47s with external tanks, does anyone know when the 'wing pylon' P-47D-15 began to arrive in the ETO? Also,
1. When did they first become operational?
2. Did they simply use them as trickling in replacements to various Units or did a single FS of 25 or so quickly form to began their own 'shuttle' assignment?
3. What FG and/or FS received them first?

 

[Shortround6]

Resp:
To me, the only way to compare them is when they first became operational in Theater.

That is a good rule of thumb but for the P-51 and P-38 it gets a bit tricky as certain theaters had priority.
Merlin P-51s tended to go to Europe (NE Europe specifically) first.
P-51Bs start to show up in Italy and in the India/Burma/China theaters in April through June/July of 1944.
In the Pacific only 8 Merlin P-51s show up by Nov of 1944.

 

[drgondog]

Resp:
Speaking of P-47s with external tanks, does anyone know when the 'wing pylon' P-47D-15 began to arrive in the ETO? Also,
1. When did they first become operational?
2. Did they simply use them as trickling in replacements to various Units or did a single FS of 25 or so quickly form to began their own 'shuttle' assignment?
3. What FG and/or FS received them first?

The P-47D-15/-16 was equipped at factory for pylons and plumbing and began arriving in late February in small numbers.. The first missions with 150gal tanks ~ April 1944. The previous models, primarily D-6 through D-11 were Depot modified with plumbing and racks but combat cleared with only 110s beginning in January.

The D-15/-16s in sub squadron deployment carried 110s only - no point in a few stragglers with higher drag and longer potential range - but no place to go.

The 56th, 78th Probably got the first but there is no record of en-bloc assignment to either to ramp them up. What I believe to be true is that the 78th made Penetration Support to Leipzig with the first Group level task force of P-47D-25s with extra fuse fuel and 2x150gal externals... which was longest ETO escort of the war until spring 1945.

 

[Peter Gunn]

*SNIP*

which was longest ETO escort of the war until spring 1945.

Longest of the war for the Thunderbolt or all ETO types until spring '45?

 

[Darnold]

I'm a little puzzled. Off the top of my head I cant think of a single regular here, even those who may feel the p51 is over rated( by some) even beyond its impressive capabilities, that doesn't think the Mustang is a great plane and in most cases probably indeed the best overall escort of the war.
Yes some may feel that the well deserved stellar reputation of the p51 unfairly overshadows other deserving types in the minds of too much of the public but that does not make them anti p51.
All data, unless one posts every piece of such that pertains to a specific type or types and multiple practical examples of how it affected combat situations(basically a long book) in a post, will be selective by definition.
Not sure where this nauseating bias to which you refer is. I've been here for several years now and haven't seen it.
Is it possibly you could have read stuff on another site and got it confused?

Just saw this. Great question.
While I've seen this take place on other sites, I was writing about this site (forum). And although I was not referencing member activity or tenure as it related to the points I wrote of, I would not draw any strong relationships between those two variables and any lack or proclivity thereof; especially since I've never paid attention to those aspects.

When I referenced the "Sage" ones, I was writing about the contributors who typically offer data from multiple archives that do not always agree, and their rich and balanced analysis as it pertains to the OP's original point(s) and/or question(s). They also help to refocus the sprawling "mini-debates" that may erupt from an increasing number of fighters and comparisons being pulled into the OP's topic. They tend to do this while also delving into needed topics such as aerodynamics, BFM, interviews, old stories from family and friends that were there, etc, all of which give needed context to understand the many elements and systems in place that affect the analyst being looked at. As a result they are often referenced and their opinion, data, and insightful post hoped/asked for.

These contributors do not need to be long time members, and I don't even know if they are, but they are wonderful to read. This in no way means that other posters have not offered great depth, data from diverse literature, and content expertise in engineering, fighter tactics and training (shout out to flyboy and others on that one), and aerodynamics.
As far as the bias and other topic references, they pertained to numerous threads that have come up over the years; whether it's Corsair vs Mustang (recent), the older Bf 109 thread(s), or threads about 'how would xx fighter have done if it had been in this theater', etc, etc. Such threads had wonderful premises and great content so I enjoyed those aspects. However these were also examples of what I write about that necessitated more and more sifting.

At times even a thread about a fighter's engineering specs, design features, or mission profile will devolve into numerous fighter comparisons where the topic seems to stray into proving what fighter was the best. lol.
In the end, there are a lot of great people here, and my intent was not to speak to anyone's character. Again, we all have biases; so there's nothing wrong with that. I was merely pointing out my frustration with how bias can and does taint the content, and for me, make it less enjoyable than it used to be to read.

 

[pbehn]

Just saw this. Great question.
While I've seen this take place on other sites, I was writing about this site (forum). And although I was not referencing member activity or tenure as it related to the points I wrote of, I would not draw any strong relationships between those two variables and any lack or proclivity thereof; especially since I've never paid attention to those aspects.

When I referenced the "Sage" ones, I was writing about the contributors who typically offer data from multiple archives that do not always agree, and their rich and balanced analysis as it pertains to the OP's original point(s) and/or question(s). They also help to refocus the sprawling "mini-debates" that may erupt from an increasing number of fighters and comparisons being pulled into the OP's topic. They tend to do this while also delving into needed topics such as aerodynamics, BFM, interviews, old stories from family and friends that were there, etc, all of which give needed context to understand the many elements and systems in place that affect the analyst being looked at. As a result they are often referenced and their opinion, data, and insightful post hoped/asked for.

These contributors do not need to be long time members, and I don't even know if they are, but they are wonderful to read. This in no way means that other posters have not offered great depth, data from diverse literature, and content expertise in engineering, fighter tactics and training (shout out to flyboy and others on that one), and aerodynamics.
As far as the bias and other topic references, they pertained to numerous threads that have come up over the years; whether it's Corsair vs Mustang (recent), the older Bf 109 thread(s), or threads about 'how would xx fighter have done if it had been in this theater', etc, etc. Such threads had wonderful premises and great content do I enjoyed those aspects. However these were also examples of what I write about that necessitated more and more sifting.

At times even a thread about a fighter's engineering specs, design features, or mission profile will devolve into numerous fighter comparisons were the topic seems to stray into proving what fighter was the best. lol.
In the end, there are a lot of great people here, and my intent was not to speak to anyone's character. Again, we all have biases; so there's nothing wrong with that. I was merely pointing out my frustration with how bias can and does taint the content, and for me, make it less enjoyable than it used to be to read.

It is always interesting to weigh up the pros and cons, some people have some novel ideas as to why the Hurricane wasn't the best fighter, always fun to set them on the right path.

 

[grampi]

So what are the proper P-38s and P-51s to compare?

The best performing version of each...

 

[P-39 Expert]

And in hindsight, the P-38 was the only aircraft available in numbers and on a rolling production line to fulfill a mission that the P-40 AND (drumroll) the P-39 couldn't. For a huge plane with "no endurance, climb or maneuverability" it sure made an impact (same with the P-47).

All I'm saying is we have benefit of hindsight. Looking back on all the P-38 development problems, delays, low Mach number etc., the Army would have been well served making a small number of P-38s and a much larger number of P-51s.

 

[Kevin J]

All I'm saying is we have benefit of hindsight. Looking back on all the P-38 development problems, delays, low Mach number etc., the Army would have been well served making a small number of P-38s and a much larger number of P-51s.

IMO the Mustang wasn't ready for deployment as an air superiority fighter until the Merlin engined variants came along.

 

[pbehn]

IMO the Mustang wasn't ready for deployment as an air superiority fighter until the Merlin engined variants came along.

Oh and there is the issue of actually producing the additional two stage Merlins and building another factory for P-51s plus another factory to replace the P-38 and P-47s. It would be a good topic for a book in my opinion.

 

[pbehn]

Well I have a question, how do you think the P51 P38 and P47 would stack up against the Spitfire MkXIV and Tempest II/V in a hypothetical British V American BoB with Dowding and Park still in charge?. I'm thinking Park would still use his stripping away the enemy tactic with Spits up high and Tempests low and mozzies with 8 or 10 hispano's in the nose to handle the bombers or even a pair of bofors with drum magazines armed with mine shells in the bomb bay, it would be nasty in every sense of the word that's no doubt.

That would be dependent on the numbers involved on both sides. The BoB was based on the range of the Bf 109 being only far enough to reach London. With P-51s as escorts and B-17s as bombers raids could be mounted on any coast of Great Britain. For example from France up the Bristol Channel into London or from Netherlands across Lincolnshire into the Midlands. Park knew what he was doing but Leigh Mallory was clueless. To inflict significant losses the RAF would probably need 5,000 aircraft and pilots not the 500 they had at the start of the BoB.

 

[Navalwarrior]

IMO the Mustang wasn't ready for deployment as an air superiority fighter until the Merlin engined variants came along.

Resp:
When these Merlin Mustangs began to appear in the ETO, with their first mission in Dec 1943. So the USAAF had to use something else in the mean time. So if the P-38 was not used, what would have taken its place? One cannot build more if none existed. The British were the 1st to substitute their Merlin designed/built engine in an earlier Allison Mustang that the British acquired from a contract w/ NAA. Shortly after this move, NAA tested a Packard built Merlin engine in one of their Mustangs, I believe an Allison engined P-51A. This was in mid 1943. So the gap of non-Merlin Mustangs for the USAAF was from the Pearl Harbor of Dec 1941 to mid 1943. One cannot build them if they weren't even designed yet.

 

[Kevin J]

That would be dependent on the numbers involved on both sides. The BoB was based on the range of the Bf 109 being only far enough to reach London. With P-51s as escorts and B-17s as bombers raids could be mounted on any coast of Great Britain. For example from France up the Bristol Channel into London or from Netherlands across Lincolnshire into the Midlands. Park knew what he was doing but Leigh Mallory was clueless. To inflict significant losses the RAF would probably need 5,000 aircraft and pilots not the 500 they had at the start of the BoB.

With such a large population of Irish descent, perhaps the USA would have been invited into the Republic of Ireland to defend it against German aggression in the event of a German invasion of England. I don't foresee UK vs USA clash but maybe earlier American involvement in WW2.

 

[pbehn]

With such a large population of Irish descent, perhaps the USA would have been invited into the Republic of Ireland to defend it against German aggression in the event of a German invasion of England. I don't foresee UK vs USA clash but maybe earlier American involvement in WW2.

I just saw the question as the Battle of Britain with different types, that's what it said.

 

[Navalwarrior]

With such a large population of Irish descent, perhaps the USA would have been invited into the Republic of Ireland to defend it against German aggression in the event of a German invasion of England. I don't foresee UK vs USA clash but maybe earlier American involvement in WW2.

Resp:
Until Pearl Harbor, it would have been political suicide for the US Govt to enter into a second WW. Yes, the US had plenty of Irish, but there were English (my family), German, Italian, French, etc.. I can only speculate how the US could have entered the European war if Hitler had not first declared war on the US on 11 January 1942. Too much at play.