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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


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.
 
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.
 
Admiral Beez said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Admiral Beez said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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,
 
Last edited:

The mission was put together very quickly.

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

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.
 
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
 
wuzak said:
It did?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Admiral Beez said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
Replies
12
Views
585
wrathofatlantis
W
P-51 escort operations in the PTO prior to the capture of Iwo Jima and Okinawa?
Replies
2
Views
1K
BarnOwlLover
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
11K
EwenS
E
Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
11K
Thumpalumpacus
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register