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

[33k in the air]

Wow - The ChicagoBoyz have not performed much personal research into the Arnold history or narrative and give undeserved credit to Wright Field Material Command for 'driving' the combat tank development . . .

Given the dating and tone of the blog I wonder if Greg Pascal drew on their 'lens' for his rant about politics stifling LR escort development?

The phrase 'bomber mafia" turns up several times there, on other articles on the site covering the same basic subject. (I've seen that term used here by one or two people.)

I came across the site which running searches for fighter combat radius data. The site did provide some useful info for me such as the Tactical Development document I mentioned earlier, which I was able to find in full online, as well as acquainting me with Gen. Kenney's efforts in the Southwest Pacific. And it gave me more respect for the P-47 than perhaps I had previously.

That said, I am skeptical of the remainder of its claims. Using the term 'bomber mafia' doesn't inspire confidence either.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This website says so, P-47 vs P-51: America's Best WWII Fighter? | International Aviation HQ but info on the interest is often worth what we pay for it.

We beat this up on a thread several years ago, it's not as cut and dry as that article makes it.

Range of P-51D and P-47N

Numbers vary, but what were the ranges and combat radius of the two fighters?

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Admiral Beez]

We beat this up on a thread several years ago, it's not as cut and dry as that article makes it.

Range of P-51D and P-47N

Numbers vary, but what were the ranges and combat radius of the two fighters?

ww2aircraft.net

Which has the longer range isn't really important if they both have sufficient range to get the job done. After that it comes done to which one is cheaper and more easily produced.

 

[Greg Boeser]

And more economical for operations. P-47s were withdrawn from China, because their fuel consumption was eating up too much of the theater's fuel supply. B-29s were withdrawn for similar reasons. Since all supplies had to be flown in from India, the amount of resources had to be carefully husbanded.

 

[Shortround6]

Which has the longer range isn't really important if they both have sufficient range to get the job done. After that it comes done to which one is cheaper and more easily produced.

Cheaper and more easily produced are not always the same thing.
Case in point was the single source of supply for Merlin engines vs 5 sources of supply for R-2800 engines(in 1944).

This is also a simplification as not all R-2800 factories made the same model or types of R-2800s and they also changed back and forth at times.

The Packard V-1650 was probably much cheaper than the R-2800s but if you decide to double the production of P-51s while cutting the P-47 it is going to take over a year (or considerably more) to get the V-1650 production up to what you need.

If you decide in Feb 1944 that the P-51 was the answer to all your problems it was going to take well into 1945 to change the production over.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Which has the longer range isn't really important if they both have sufficient range to get the job done. After that it comes done to which one is cheaper and more easily produced.

Points taken but it isn't that clear cut. How about maintenance and ease of operation? Which aircraft requires more pilot skill, training? Operating cost per hour?

And the question of range - the P-47D-40 is shown in that article with a range advantage over the P-51D (internal fuel). Those figure are based on optimum conditions for distance. Take the same P-47 and add in combat operations, full open throttle, autorich mixture, 5 minutes of WEP and see how that optimum range advantage compares when you put a P-51 in the same scenario. My final point? When making comparisons like this, don't trust internet articles - crack open a flight manual and calculate real world scenarios.

 

[SaparotRob]

I thought we settled that whole "read the manual" thing.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I thought we settled that whole "read the manual" thing.

It's settled if you read the manual CORRECTLY

 

[Greg Boeser]

I know an expert who can help you with that.

《ducks and covers》

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I know an expert who can help you with that.

《ducks and covers》

Yep!

 

[PAT303]

Yamamoto was shot down on April 18 1943.
Most sources say Lindbergh left the US to go to the Pacific on April 24 1944, just over 1 year later.
Sources say he flew his first mission in a P-38 on June 27th 1944 with 475th fighter group.
This was after 13 (?) Missions in Corsairs.

From what I read there was no mention of Lindbergh being a fighter pilot so it could be that he was an adviser to the AF before joining?, I will do some research to refresh my memory.

 

[PAT303]

The only modification that was done to the aircraft on the Yamamoto mission was the use of larger drop tanks and the mission leader John Mitchell had a navy compass installed in his aircraft. As stated, Lindberg did not provide any training to the folks who flew the Yamamoto mission (339th and 347th FS)

For such an important one off mission those aircraft would be specially prepared, like the fit and finish and having the engines running right on tune, it's silly to think otherwise. From what I understand Lindbergh's contribution to the Yamamoto raid was teaching the pilots how to run the engines on lower RPM with lean mixture but higher boost giving the P-38's a few hundred more kms range,

 

[33k in the air]

I find it hard to believe they just grabbed 18 P38's and sent them for such an important one off mission, those aircraft would have every panel gap checked, paint rubbed smooth and polished and have the engines running right on tune. From what I understand Lindbergh's contribution to the Yamamoto raid was teaching the pilots how to run the engines on lower RPM with lean mixture but higher boost giving the P-38's a few hundred more kms range.

The mission was put together very quickly.

I suggest watching the video interview with the author to which I referred in post #633.

 

[GrauGeist]

Yeah, there was not much time to put the operation together.
To get the strike force up to 18, they had to pull in elements from another FG and get everyone on the same page.
They weren't even sure the 330 gallon drop tanks would arrive from New Guinea in time.

 

[PAT303]

I've been in maintenance of heavy equipment for 30 years, you don't send your gear out on important work without giving it some lovin.

 

[tomo pauk]

Not sure about that. Economical air cruising range for a Mk V was 465-500 miles (depends on engine and max approved boost) and for a Mk IX with a Merlin 66 at +18lbs was 434 miles (450 miles for the Merlin 61 version).

Spitfire LF IX November 1943 data card gives max still air range of 724 miles with a 45 gal tank at most economical after allowing for take off and climb to 20,000 ft (685 miles if tank is retained), and 387 miles at maximum weak mixture power. Same data card gives 980 miles max range with the 90 gallon tank (900 miles if tank is retained) and 520 miles at maximum weak mixture power.

As I understand it, RAF practice was that practical combat radius was between 33% and 40% of maximum still air cruising range (i.e. most economical power). After allowances for take-off/climb, combat power and reserves, the variance mostly depended on how much time was allocated for operating at most economical cruising power vs how much time was spent at 'fast cruising' - which was maximum weak/maximum continuous power.

I'd argue that for Europe in 1942 to 1944 all Spitfire needs is the 45 gallon slipper tank for a true 200 mile effective combat radius (possibly only a 30 gal tank).

American practice in ETO escorting the B-17s and -24s from England was to cruise at 310 mph TAS at 25000 ft, 20 min combat, 30 min allowance for finding the proper airstrip and land. The closest British equivalent is the 'mwm' power?

Case with 90 gal drop tank for the Mk.IX HF (the only type I can find the data sheet fast).:
5 min of combat at 'combat power' setting was supposed to cut the range by 48 miles
4x48 miles = 192 miles.
550 miles of range -192 miles due 20 min of combat = 358 miles. 358 miles divided by 2 (to the target + back to base) = 179 mile radius.
I haven't subtracted the range to account for the 30 min allowance once above friendly territory.

 

[Shortround6]

From a website devoted to Lindbergh.

Lindbergh In World War II

Lindbergh In World War II

www.charleslindbergh.com

Charles Lindbergh and the 475th Fighter Group

Charles Lindbergh and the 475th Fighter Group

www.charleslindbergh.com

 

[FLYBOYJ]

For such an important one off mission those aircraft would be specially prepared, like the fit and finish and having the engines running right on tune, it's silly to think otherwise. From what I understand Lindbergh's contribution to the Yamamoto raid was teaching the pilots how to run the engines on lower RPM with lean mixture but higher boost giving the P-38's a few hundred more kms range,

Show us evidence of that! Specially prepared??? What you're describing is normal squadron maintenance and meeting the requirements of approved maintenance manuals. "Fit and finish" is only addressed if there is visible surface irregularities such as wrinkles or missing fasteners, again routine maintenance.

As stated, aside from the larger drop tanks and the navy compass installed on Mitchell's aircraft, these aircraft were "stock" from 2 operational squadrons.

Lindbergh had absolutely NOTHING to do with this mission!

Date of Operation Vengeance - April 18, 1943

Participating Squadrons - 347th and 339th FS

Lindbergh's time in the Pacific - May 1944

Units flown with - VMF 222, VMF 216, USMC, 433rd FS USAAF

 

[drgondog]

It did?

The max Combat Radius for -47N for max internal fuel (556) and external (440) for CR of 1000 mi.

P-51D with max (269) and external 110 gal tanks (220) had CR of 750 miles. I don't have CR with 165 gal externals but in the range of 900 mi.

One of the reasons why the P-47N was resigned to ANG post WWII - 2x to operate, 1.5 to buy.

I know that several of the posters regarding combat radius tables inherently know and remember that Max combat radius is entirely based on internal fuel remaining when a.) entering combat, and b.) simultaneously dropping external tanks. That which remains is a.) fuel to supply 5 min WEP and 15 min MP, b.) enough fuel to cruise back to base, and c.) have 30 minutes of fuel reserve at loiter settings to find place to land.

Another factor which is built into the AAF tables but not explicitly stated in the assumptions - are differences in inbound cruise speeds at specific altitudes based on the drag effect of the external tanks. For example, the P-51D (and B) with 75 gal tanks at 25K with optimal cruise settings, achieve ~ 300mph TAS while only 260+ mph TAS with 110 gal tanks. The result is about 10%+ difference in miles per gallon consumed. The tables show the result, but not the process.

This is why the actual 'extended' combat radius does not seem quite right when comparing 220 gal external to 150. It isn't a linear extension because of reduced cruise speed attainable economically with the larger tanks.

All affected by winds aloft, actual combat consumption, and time to seek alternates in case of bad weather.

McGuire was KIA because he chose to engage with combat tanks still attached, at low level, with a far more maneuverable fighter - drop tanks are not your friend in a fight.

 

[drgondog]

This website says so, P-47 vs P-51: America's Best WWII Fighter? | International Aviation HQ but info on the interest is often worth what we pay for it.

These guys didn't get the geneology correct, mucho errors followed.

The AP-10/XP-47 was an Allison powered lightweight in competition with Curtiss XP-46. When the R-2800 was introduced, AAC requested that (re-constructed Seversky Newco) Republic design an airframe around a turbo charged R-2800 and what emerged was XP-47B and a production contract was almost immediately let for P-47B.

Designing the P-47 Thunderbolt | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Although it came into being only eight months after contract, the P-47 had its beginnings in earlier a

www.airforcemag.com

Concepts of Range vs Combat Radius are understood by few, but bloviated by many in the publication world.