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

[wmaxt]

go interview some ETO vets of the 8th AF smart guy. The K variant was excellent. As I said this all is wrapped in what theater. First thing you cannot even compare the two on the ETO front anyway.

We can come up with scales as some posters like to do but until you can interview a vet first hand and get his views on flying both Jug and Mustang variants you will all have your own personal opinions.

v/r E

I go with the late P-38s which were flying the longest fighter missions in the war. There is a large number that prefered their P-38s to the others. Preddy's logbook had these comments "P-38 wonderful flying ship, P-47 excelent flying ship...later... sure getting dissappointed in the Jug, P-51 is a good flying ship", the 474th group fought for and kept their P-38 through the war.

The P-51H and P-47M/N had potential but didn't get to show if they were or not.

 

[Erich]

ah but the 474th the only 9th AF fighter unit to keep the P-38 till war's end flew ground attack missions for most of the 1945 year. the 354th fg on the other hand started out with the P-51 and then changed over to the Jug which they hated and then back to the P-51 in December of 44 till wars end thus being the highest scoring fighter group in the ETO.

Again I point out this question could be really about operational theaters.

the only 8th AF to keep the P-47 which they did till wars end was the 56th when everyone else had traded in the P-38/P-47 for the P-51.

 

[Jank]

Thanks Davidicus and gents. Got my answer.

 

[Jank]

Really gents the question was wich plane of the entire war was trhe best escort fighter. The fastest, longest range, best of everything. I gather she was the P-47 N.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

wmaxt said, "The P-51H and P-47M/N had potential but didn't get to show if they were or not."

I beg to differ with respect to the P-47N. It proved it's potential well. RG_Lunatic was right about the P-47N's entering combat service in the PTO on Le Shima in May of 1945. By June 8th, their record was 79 Japanese air to air kills for one loss of their own. (Yes, I know that by this time most all the Japanese pilots were inexperienced.) In all, about 30,000 sorties were flown with P-47N's.

For an interesting account (brought to my attention by RG_Lunatic) of the 318th's P-47N's on Le Shima, read:

http://home.earthlink.net/~atdouble/~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html

Here are some points of interest. The P-47N was the first to drop napalm in combat, a P-47N was the first aircraft to destroy another, air to air, with a rocket and the very last hostile aircraft shot down in WWII fell to two P-47N's when they splashed two "renegades" on the night of August 14th, after the cease fire.

 

[KraziKanuK]

Here are some points of interest. The P-47N was the first to drop napalm in combat, a P-47N was the first aircraft to destroy another, air to air, with a rocket and the very last hostile aircraft shot down in WWII fell to two P-47N's when they splashed two "renegades" on the night of August 14th, after the cease fire.

Was not napalm used in Europe?

The Germans had been using a2a rockets since 43 to shoot down e/as. The Russians before that iirc.

Asking for clarification.

 

[evangilder]

I have seen video of a P-47 dropping napalm, but it wasn't an N model. I am sure that the P-47N was NOT the first to drop napalm in combat. They used napalm on several Pacific islands before the N ever entered service. I am with KK on the rockets.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

KraziKanuk: It was not a rocket designed for air to air but an air to ground rocket. I should have been clearer. See the link I posted.

Evanglider: The 318th was the first to drop napalm. Perhaps they were using "D" models before they received "N" models for that. My mistake again.

 

[Anonymous]

Roving Guns:

Please, call me Lunatic - Roving Guns is my FA squadron

I don't see the conflict in what I wrote. (Was I self contradictory?) The information I read says that the P-47N entered service in the PTO in September of 1944 and thus:

"began service in the PTO in September of 1944."

"The first P-47N-1-RE appeared in September of 1944, and 24 were delivered by year's end."

You have indicated that they didn't actually see service until May of 1945. I didn't know this. Where does this information come from? At any rate, it did definitely see combat, shot down a lot of Jap planes and even made a number of pilots aces.

The first production unit was delivered in Sept. 1944, and 24 were indeed delvivered by years end. But that is not the same thing as seeing service. The first to see service in the PTO were with the 318th FG in May 1945. I don't know when the first was delivered to the 456 FG in the ETO, but I believe it was in late Jan/Feb. of 1945 (very hard to tell, but this is when the M's stopped flying anti-V1 missions), though a few might have been deployed earlier.

IIRC 106 Japanese planes were shot down in aerial combat by the 301 Fighter Wing (318, 414, and 507 FG's), for one combat loss - you can check at one of the sites listed in my other post.

Please see my post at:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61632#61632

My information on the P-38J came from the source I cited. At any rate, what was the roll rate of the P-38J? I thought it was about 80 degrees/second. The P-47D could do 85 and the P-47N did better than 100. Do you have reliable figures for these three aircraft that say different?

The following is from Lockheed:

That chart you posted lists the P-47D-10. Out of curiosity, do you have any climb figures for P-47D's with paddle blades?

Unfortunately, thus far I've not been able to find figures for the paddle prop climb. If you find them, please send them to me!

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DAVIDICUS]

The chart indicates a roll rate of less than 100 degrees a second for the P-38 with boosted ailerons. I believe the P-47N exceeded 100 degrees per second.

From: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html

The XP-47N took to the air for the first time on July 22, 1944. Test comparisons were made with a P-47D-30-RE throughout the early portion of the evaluation period. Much to everyone's surprise, the XP-47N, with its greater wingspan and higher weight actually proved to have better roll performance than the D model. At 250 mph TAS, the N attained a maximum roll rate just over 100 degrees/second. The P-47D-30-RE could manage but 85 degrees/second at the same speed. At higher speeds, the N widened the gap further.

**********

I've always been curious how much of an improvement the paddle blade props were for the P-47. Maybe someone else will know.

 

[Anonymous]

The chart indicates a roll rate of less than 100 degrees a second for the P-38 with boosted ailerons. I believe the P-47N exceeded 100 degrees per second.

From: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html

The XP-47N took to the air for the first time on July 22, 1944. Test comparisons were made with a P-47D-30-RE throughout the early portion of the evaluation period. Much to everyone's surprise, the XP-47N, with its greater wingspan and higher weight actually proved to have better roll performance than the D model. At 250 mph TAS, the N attained a maximum roll rate just over 100 degrees/second. The P-47D-30-RE could manage but 85 degrees/second at the same speed. At higher speeds, the N widened the gap further.

Yes, but the P-38 with boosted ailerons rolled better at high speeds. I forgot to say "high speeds" in my post above. Also, it was easier to work the ailerons quickly, a huge factor in actual combat.

**********

I've always been curious how much of an improvement the paddle blade props were for the P-47. Maybe someone else will know.

I would like to know too. All I've ever seen is that it was much better after the paddle prop and ADI was added (supposedly it rivaled the Spit IX according to some pilots).

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Somehow, I'm not following you.

"Yes, but the P-38 with boosted ailerons rolled better at high speeds. I forgot to say "high speeds" in my post above. Also, it was easier to work the ailerons quickly, a huge factor in actual combat."

Are you saying that the P-38 with boosted ailerons rolled faster than the P-47N?

The chart indicates that at 450mph (I don't think the J could go that fast), the roll rate was less than 100 degrees/second.

 

[wmaxt]

Planes and Pilots of WWII (web Page) has some other charts on speed and climb of P-38L models Climb clean WEP 4.9min to 20,000ft this is also stated in the web page p38(CCJordon). They also show the top speed of the P-38L again clean half load of fuel and full ammo/gun ballast of 443 @ WEP (the 414 often shown is METO power as are all other P-38 specs.) and no I never ment the P-38 was in the leauge of the P-51H or P-47N in the 470 region.

I never mentioned the K model as it was never produced though it's top speed was est to be over 450mph.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

I understand that the top speed of the "K" model was below 450mph, and that in terms of general performance, was inferior to the "D" model.

Perhaps someone who knows can put this issue to rest once and for all.

 

[Erich]

OT but the Bf 109G-10 could hit well over 460 mph.......

 

[KraziKanuK]

OT but the Bf 109G-10 could hit well over 460 mph.......

At what boost, Erich?

The claim for the K-4's top speed required C3 and MW50 at 1.98ata. C3 was rather scarce for 109 units, was it not?

On the K-4 and 1.98

'Die angegabenen Leistungen werden mit gut gebauten Serienmachinen sicher erreicht.',

or

'The above given performances are certainly going to be reached with well-built serial production machines.'

translation of a German doc

1.)Boost 1,8ata with B4 fuel
Reason for the meeting were the problems in "field" and at the serial production facility "Genshagen" because of the "white flame" effect during the use of the
Higher output. First it is shown by Hr. Dr. Scherenberg how the "white flame"
followed by burned pistons, develop. Because of the results of the engine knocking test the lower quality of the fuel is the main reason for the problems.
DB has allready solved the problem with adjusting the ignition timing by 5°(???) .
This allowes the use of "Sondernotleistung" and the 1.45 and 1.80ata settings.
But because of later ignition , 50PS are lost during the "Sondernotleistung",
Where the 1,45 ata setting doesn't lose power.
DB although mentions the problems with the bad fit of the valvesitrings or
the plug thread , that where reasons for the glow-ignition too. But because
of improovments in the production these failurs are said to be canceled.
All agreed and the decision was done, that all engines should get the new ignition time. The lose of power is not so critical. But, because of hints from DB (DaimlerBenz), there should be test flight with 5 planes within all alts, but especially above rated alt, to get knowledge about the power loose above rated alt.
END SHEET ONE
This will be done at II/JG11. It is asked, if the ignition timing can be set on old value
if better fuel quality is back. Answer is delayed till it is for sure that only better fuel is used, and if it is shown, that later ignition does have no influence on the planes perfromance. DB mentions that the later ignition point although is better for the plugs that have a thermal problem at all.
It is mentioned too, that the performance lose will be decrease with increasing engine run time , means with less oil lose. It indicates too, that new engines with less oil usage are better in performance than the ones with at first high usage and the lower usage of oil. From the troop should be taken 1 engine with 15-20h for oil consumption and performance tests to be done in Genshagen. Because the b4 fuel is mostly used in the east, the order for the new ignition point/time should get out asap by…

2.)1.98 boost with c3 fuel
the first report shows, that the test with the 1.9, and 1.98 boost had negative results.
Then a telegram from Rechlin was shown (they tested 4 engines) that criticized the
clearing of the Sondernotleistung by Gen. Ing. Paul direct from the company to A.Galland bevor sufficient tests were done. Rechlin although defend themselves, that
they did NOT give the new boost free for the Troop. (looks like some thought they did). DB on the other hand shows their positive test results for the 1.9 , 1.98 usage.
They say, that the clearance for the 1.98 boost was given with the same TAGL (?)
(think a kind of order) as the 1.8 ata boost was cleared..both on the same day!.
SHEET THREE

It was then decided (after hearing all the reports) than currently only II/JG11 should test the 1.98 boost and that the 1.9ata engine test should be finished when the engines failed. (so no more test after them). The JG should then only get 1.8 ata engine supplies. Heavy punnishment is threaten when this order is not followed. The 1.98 clearance decission may only come from department 4 of general staff.
It is suggested that some recon planes should be equiped with 1.98 boost. Decission was not done. To disburden the current 1.98 and 1.9 engines it is suggested to give them the new ignition time too. So, all engines flowen with the sondernotleistung will
Be set to the new ignition point/time.

The JG's in field complain about the plug failurs. Especially in the last time the number of failurs increased. DB reports about improoved plug modells and better
quality control e.g. with x-ray controlling. Again DB points out that the cooling of the
109 is insufficient and wishes that the LW will solve this problem asap. This was mentioned by Gen.-Ing Paul and arrangements where done instandly.
DB points out that the performance of the "cell" (fuselage/wings) is extremely bad,
and even worser J. It makes no sense to increase the power output of the engine when on the other side the plane quality is decreasing dramatically. Is is reported that a coparison of a 109 with a mustang was arranged for Mr. Sauer, but he failed to come.
The result of the comparison was, spoken of produktion quality only, shocking for the 109.

SHEET FOUR
At the end of the meeting, from Mr. Dr. Scherenberg points out that DB allready is testing a boost up to 2.3ata (J). But it can be not juged in any way because of only a low test base at the moment.

After all that, it is said the G-10 was a better performer overall compared to the K-4.

Note my underlined sentances.

 

[Erich]

KK:

The G-10 had the MW 50 as standard equipment, one reason why there is a diversity in opions whether there was a G-10/AS or not............there wasn't. the G-10 variant was the fastest 109 in existance during the war

 

[KraziKanuK]

KK:

The G-10 had the MW 50 as standard equipment, one reason why there is a diversity in opions whether there was a G-10/AS or not............there wasn't. the G-10 variant was the fastest 109 in existance during the war

I guess I should have bolded this as it seems to have got lost.

"After all that, it is said the G-10 was a better performer overall compared to the K-4. "

Was the G-10 restricted to 1.8ata?

 

[Anonymous]

Somehow, I'm not following you.

"Yes, but the P-38 with boosted ailerons rolled better at high speeds. I forgot to say "high speeds" in my post above. Also, it was easier to work the ailerons quickly, a huge factor in actual combat."

Are you saying that the P-38 with boosted ailerons rolled faster than the P-47N?

The chart indicates that at 450mph (I don't think the J could go that fast), the roll rate was less than 100 degrees/second.

Sure the J could go that fast, in a mild dive.

Yes, the P-38L would roll faster than the P-47N at very high speed, after the roll rate of the P-47 starts going down. The P-47N is going to have a roll curve of similar shape to that of the P-51, it will peak at some speed (250 IAS?) and then begin to drop, as the pilot looses the ability to move the stick far enough to fully deflect the ailerons. The P-38L pilot can always fully deflect the ailerons since it's done by a hydrolic booster not muscle power.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Thanks. I should have thought first before I wrote. It hit me a couple of minutes after I posted that.