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

[michael rauls]

I thought the P-47N flew from Okinawa and the P-51D from Iwo Jima.

The p47N also flew from I believe La Shima( may be spelled wrong).
They did, at least from every source I have ever read, have a longer range than the p51d by about 150 miles.

 

[Conslaw]

Speaking of Lockheed and compressibility, another Lockheed product that had issues regarding compressibility was the U2 spy plane: "One problem that had been addressed was that the first-generation U-2 had become so heavy that the margin between stall buffet and compressibility at high altitudes was only 6 knots. With improved wings and engine, the U-2R had a comparatively generous 20-knot window, greatly improving the airplane's flying qualities." Unlimited Horizons Design and Development of the U-2, Merlin, Peter (pg 77-78)

 

[Peter Gunn]

It doesn't matter if the Thunderbolt is slower than the Mustangs if your opponents are slower than you. If you're escorting and fighting between 20 and 30 thou feet and your speeds are the same then you're just as good as one another. Surely, in the Pacific, flying from Okinawa to Kyushu, your better off in a Thunderbolt for ruggedness and the Lightning for twin engine safety, than in a less structurally strong Mustang? Iwo Jima is different as you need more range, therefore, late model Mustangs.

But is the Mustang less structurally strong? Also, escorting bombers and fighting in the 20-30,000 foot band is right in the Mustangs wheelhouse, not so much for the Thunderbolt.

Also much is always said of the twin engine P-38 for safety, I hate to spill it but you're not there to be safe, you're there to find, fight and kill the enemy, the P-38 is an excellent platform, but when the chips are down and my ass is on the line, I'd take the higher performance of the Mustang any day of the week.

Hell, they flew 8 hour flights from Iwo to the Empire and back and I don't see Mustangs just dropping into the Pacific because they only have one engine or aren't "rugged" enough. I could be wrong but here's a pretty good site about long range ops from Iwo 506th Fighter Group Home: 506th Fighter Group, 457 Fighter Squadron, 458 Fighter Squadron, 462 Fighter Squadron Iwo To Japan

Also, not trying to sound like a dick so please don't take it as an attack, just a different point of view.

 

[Admiral Beez]

P-38 - first fighter to fly escort to Berlin and back 8)

And unlike the P-51, the P-38 has an autopilot and a roomy cockpit. Those two alone reduce pilot fatigue and workload. If I'm sitting in a chair for 8-10 hours I'd choose the P-38. I imagine the unique profile also makes it less likely the B-17 or B-24 gunners will accidentally shoot you down.

Hmmm.... I may need to retract the above, I can't see the autopilot switch.

 

[Kevin J]

But is the Mustang less structurally strong? Also, escorting bombers and fighting in the 20-30,000 foot band is right in the Mustangs wheelhouse, not so much for the Thunderbolt.

Also much is always said of the twin engine P-38 for safety, I hate to spill it but you're not there to be safe, you're there to find, fight and kill the enemy, the P-38 is an excellent platform, but when the chips are down and my ass is on the line, I'd take the higher performance of the Mustang any day of the week.

Hell, they flew 8 hour flights from Iwo to the Empire and back and I don't see Mustangs just dropping into the Pacific because they only have one engine or aren't "rugged" enough. I could be wrong but here's a pretty good site about long range ops from Iwo 506th Fighter Group Home: 506th Fighter Group, 457 Fighter Squadron, 458 Fighter Squadron, 462 Fighter Squadron Iwo To Japan

Also, not trying to sound like a dick so please don't take it as an attack, just a different point of view.

By the time P-51D Mustang reached Iwo, all its structural problems had been resolved.

 

[tomo pauk]

And unlike the P-51, the P-38 has an autopilot and a roomy cockpit. Those two alone reduce pilot fatigue and workload. If I'm sitting in a chair for 8-10 hours I'd choose the P-38. I imagine the unique profile also makes it less likely the B-17 or B-24 gunners will accidentally shoot you down.

Hmmm.... I may need to retract the above, I can't see the autopilot switch.

Cockpit of the P-38 was rated was worst among all US-made fighters at the 1944 'Fighter conference'. Mentioned at the pg.164 of the AHT book, along with: 'Cockpit comfort was miserable'; 'The cockpit had otten lousier and lousier...'. Cockpit heating was apalling until early 1944.
It's profile should remove a lot of friendly fire possibility, however that will also represent an instant cue to the enemy it will encounter. Big size = easier to spot on the 1st place.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Cockpit of the P-38 was rated was worst among all US-made fighters at the 1944 'Fighter conference'. Mentioned at the pg.164 of the AHT book, along with: 'Cockpit comfort was miserable'; 'The cockpit had otten lousier and lousier...'. Cockpit heating was apalling until early 1944.
It's profile should remove a lot of friendly fire possibility, however that will also represent an instant cue to the enemy it will encounter. Big size = easier to spot on the 1st place.

Would the P-47D be rated the best for cockpit comfort? With that giant engine in front and supercharger ducting below and plenty of space to move about, it must have been warm enough even on the coldest European winter missions. Bf 109 pilots must have been shocked at the roominess when inspecting captured 'Jugs.

 

[tomo pauk]

Would the P-47D be rated the best for cockpit comfort? With that giant engine in front and supercharger ducting below and plenty of space to move about, it must have been warm enough even on the coldest European winter missions. Bf 109 pilots must have been shocked at the roominess when inspecting captured 'Jugs.

From what I've read, there was no problems with cockpit heating on the P-47.
Same source as above says that Germans (including Galland) stated that cockpit was huge. Indeed, once you step out the Bf 109 into P-47 that is no surprise.
FWIW - seems that most pilot-friendly cockpit was that of the F6F, out of US-made fighters.

 

[michael rauls]

And unlike the P-51, the P-38 has an autopilot and a roomy cockpit. Those two alone reduce pilot fatigue and workload. If I'm sitting in a chair for 8-10 hours I'd choose the P-38. I imagine the unique profile also makes it less likely the B-17 or B-24 gunners will accidentally shoot you down.

Hmmm.... I may need to retract the above, I can't see the autopilot switch.


View attachment 566256

View attachment 566257[/QUOTE
I read the p47 N had some sort of auto pilot. Not sure if it's true but ive read it from a couple sources so maybe.

 

[BiffF15]

I've heard the same thing, IE the P47N had an autopilot. It would be interesting to see it's capabilities but expect it was nothing more than altitude & attitude hold (surprisingly enough exactly what the F-15A-D has).

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Navalwarrior]

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.

Resp:
Yes, the 56th did keep them . . . and as the bombers flew further, their air-to-air combat diminished. The 78th FG was reluctant to give up their P-47s but it didn't take long for them to realize that the P-51 was just the ticket for air-to-air kills. The P-47 was an important fighter in the ETO, just reached its zenith until units transferred to the Continent where its role changed to ground support w air-to-air engagements became secondary. Although New Years Day 1945 7 P-47s enroute to drop ground ordinance turned into @ 25 FW-190 (?) after jettisoning their bombs. If I remember correctly, only one P-47 was lost with a pretty significant kill ratio on their part. P-51s soon joined the melee.

 

[Csch605]

Well, let's hear it.

Yes

Well, let's hear it.

 

[P-39 Expert]

That P-47N was fast and could go a long way. The tests of 9/27/46 show top speed only 423mph but climb was dismal at 1700 feet per minute at 20000'. A P-51B would climb at 2750fpm at 26000'.
Didn't really matter, even if the -N got into combat in September '44, it had missed the brunt of the war. Air superiority over Europe was attained in Feb/March 1944. The Pacific saw the Great Marianas Turkey shoot in June of '44. Proof that the Japanese were pretty much done in the air. After that there was a lot of ground attack in Europe and in the Pacific the B-29s went to low altitude night bombing in early '45.
If we compare planes we should compare those in service at the same time. Otherwise we're comparing SPADs to F-22s.

 

[michael rauls]

I've heard the same thing, IE the P47N had an autopilot. It would be interesting to see it's capabilities but expect it was nothing more than altitude & attitude hold (surprisingly enough exactly what the F-15A-D has).

Cheers,
Biff

I read a quite favorable discription of the P47Ns cockpit by a pilot that flew them out of Le Shima. Good heat and ventilation, a cup holder right by some kind of ventalation port( said it kept his soda cold) lots of room, auto pilot as we already mentioned,and the seat sounded like it was just this side of a barka lounger.
Sounded like the only thing that could have made it more comfortable would be a toaster oven and a mini-bar.
Maybe those were comming in the next variant but the war ended before Republic could get the toaster oven and mini- bar equipped version into production

 

[MiTasol]

So I gather the P-47 N was the best escort fighter in combat service? You blokes made me llose a bet.

Noble Frankland, Director of the Imperial War Museum, founder of Duxford, WW2 bomber crewman and co-author of one (four volume) book in the official British war histories covering Bomber Command says the Mustang without a doubt.

He also says that those who were not there can get things terribly wrong based only on documented performance (and peoples long term memory). He was referring to the H2S navigation radar in the first statement to that effect but the same message is repeated often in his book History at War.

As an aside he was invited to give a lecture at one of the USAF staff colleges in the 50s and after he was introduced General Eames stood up and said he was not going to sit around and be lectured by someone who was not there. He started his presentation with - I WAS there.

 

[Dan Fahey]

I can't imagine any version of the P-47 being better at anything other than diving and absorbing punishment than the P-51. It was twice its size and weight...that's like comparing the flight performance of a B-25 to a B-17...

The P-47 was not that much more rugged than the P-51.
A hell of a lot of them were shot down.

The only issue with ruggedness with the Mustang was getting hit in the radiator.
Then again had about 15 minutes to get out.
If the Thunderbolt got hit in the oil cooler or reservoir it would be in flames.
You had to get out.

 

[IdahoRenegade]

The P-47N was significantly superior in every area to the P-47D, and, I would argue, superior to the P-51D Mustangs that actually saw service.
From: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html

The XP-47N took to the air for the first time on July 22, 1944.

It was a fantastic fighter. One that was developed far too late to make a significant difference to the war effort in any meaningful way. Had it been available in August of 1943, IMO it would have been perhaps the most important fighter of the war. As it stands, it's sorta like the ME-262. A fantastic, groundbreaking aircraft-available in too few numbers and too late in the war to make a significant difference.

 

[Barrett]

I'm going way outside The Box here but would nominate
The F6F
and F4U
as best escort fighters
because they lost so few bombers to enemy aircraft. (The numbers are available, but I'd have to dig thru the massive USN stats published in 45.) Yes, the strategic-tactical situation was different than the ETO-MTO but still...Helldivers and Avengers loved Hellcats & Corsair!

 

[PAT303]

I am going to be controversial and say none of them are, the only reason the escort fighters were effective was because the opposition was weak, by 1944-45 both the LW and Japanese air forces were shadows of their former selves. Hypothetically speaking, if the P51D's and P47M/N's flew from Germany to England they would be picked up by chain home when they are still over France, as soon as they hit the channel Spitfire XIV's and 21's combined with Spiteful XIV's and XVIII's would hit them above 25,000ft, Tempest II and V's below that. The British integrated defense system was world best and using Parks peeling away the defenses tactic with fighters with equal too or better performance than the escorts its not going to be an easy ride, remembering too that the Hispano was a mature weapon by that stage and being caught in a burst by two or four depending on the plane loaded with SAPI rounds will test the robustness of even the P47. The BoB is proof of what happens when escort fighters meet a defending force equal to them equipment performance, pilot skill and ground to air co-ordination.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

No American ace ever lost his life in a jug.