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

[Shortround6]

The P40 could climb quicker up to 18k.

Which P-40 vs which P-47?

and when?

The only real P-40 contenders for a fast climb are the P-40L and the first few hundred Ns.

How did they achieve this great climb?
They left two of the guns out and cut the remaining ammo for the remaining 4.

You bitch about the short range of the P-47 ( which could actually fly twice as a far as the Spitfire under similar conditions) and then you use P-40s with just 120 gallons of internal fuel (if that) for your climb figures, How far was the P-40 stripper going to get?

You rag on the P-47 for being expensive. It carried twice the guns of a stripper P-40 and with just 267 rounds per gun it carried 2.27 times the ammo of the strippers , With 467 rpg which the early planes could do without under wing loads it is carrying 3.6 times the ammo. Perhaps that is too much but obviously the P-47 has a lot more combat effectiveness than a P-40 stripper. So it is returning value for the money spent on it. At least better than the 2 to ratio some people imply.

And since the P-40 strippers could not even operate at the altitudes needed to escort the B-17s and B-24s the argument about the cheaper fighter really falls flat.

 

[Shortround6]

I have never heard of this prohibition. When was it introduced and why?
All USAAC P-40D (serials 40-359 to 381 inclusive) and subsequent P-40 aircraft had drop tanks so why did the USAAC/F prohibit them on later aircraft? That does not make sense.

I am not sure the USAAC prohibited them on later aircraft so much as they prohibited them in the early stages of design and development and then had to play catch up.
some accounts also claim that Curtiss worked on the external tank on the P-40 for export sales, and so had a lot of the early design/development work done. When Bell got in on this I don't know but the P-39 had a real range problem from the start.
A number of the pre -P-35 fighters and ground attack planes used external tanks so unless there were actual operational problems with them it is hard to figure out the reasoning.

 

[Navalwarrior]

I have never heard of this prohibition. When was it introduced and why?
All USAAC P-40D (serials 40-359 to 381 inclusive) and subsequent P-40 aircraft had drop tanks so why did the USAAC/F prohibit them on later aircraft? That does not make sense.
View attachment 567028

Resp:
No, it does not make sense. The USAAC saw the next war from a Strategic point of view where Long Range Bombers (1935 B-17), armed to the teeth . . . would not require additional aircraft (namely fighters) since they believed 4 engine bombers could fight their way to the target and back. One of the reasons Chennault (who was teaching fighter tactics) was forced to resign from the USAAC in 1936. If you read enough, you will hear/see the term 'Bomber Mafia' here and there. Generally, anyone who spoke out about anything not supporting/pushing the Strategic Long Range Bomber theory was derailing/damaging Strategic Air Power. Chennault was pushing the incorporation of external fuel stores (drop tanks) on Army fighters (the Navy had no such prohibition) in case the need ever arose. So in 1939 the USAAC actually wrote into contracts with companies who built fighters for them, the restriction against incorporating drop tanks. A case in point, the Lockheed P-38E was Coming off the production line in mid 1941 that was not drop tank capable. However, the test pilot for Lockheed's P-38 went to the Chief Engineers and said something like "you need to make the P-38 drop tank capable, as this next war will be a long range affair (Japan?)" Lockheed immediately drew up plans and these 'plumbed' fighters we're coming off the production lines when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Just imagine how long it would have taken P-38s to reach England if the US couldn't/didn't ferry them over the Atlantic (usually in groups of 5, using a B-17 for navigation), but instead had to wrap them before shipping by ship? Gen Hap Arnold was the commander of all US Army Air Forces, and generally supported the Bomber Mafia (I think he generally just didn't want to ruffle any feathers during the 1930s) but soon realized all planes would have to travel long distances (Europe/Asia). I noticed that in his early written communications that either he, or his staff started using the term 'ferry tanks' which I believe he knew were more than ferry tanks (P-38 a case in point). If you read enough about the 8th AF 78th FG, which flew P-47s beginning in 1943, you will see that the Group used on one mission a large 200 gallon tank (a wide balloon shaped tank) specifically designed to ferry P-47s long distances. Technically, these tanks could be jetsoned by the pilot, but weren't built for that purpose and so often hung up when the pilot attempted to jetson them. Pressure with the increasing number of bombers losses, the 78th FG flew a combat mission with these ferry tanks attached where they surprised the Luftwaffe . . . as the Germans knew the area where the escorting P-47s normally turned for home. Many of the P-47 pilots did battle with the ferry tanks attached. Not a tactic for a long life.
As for the P-39 and P-40, it may have been that since foreign countries (Russia/England) were ordering them, so the USAAF got them plumbed to take drop tanks.

 

[Shortround6]

The other factor that came into play was that in 1938-39 and early 40 some of these planes were designed, as was just about everything else at the time, without drop tanks.

The early P-38s carried 400 gallons of fuel in unprotected tanks. When they installed self sealing fuel tanks the fuel capacity dropped to 300 gallons. External tanks of some sort would be needed just restore the original range. Same for the P-39 and P-40, original fuel was supposed to be 200 to 170 gallons and 180 gallons respectively. But the self sealing tanks cut capacity to 120 gallons on the P-39 and around 150 gallons on the P-40 (sources differ on the early models as to which ones got what) The P-47 was designed after the "Ban" and while it was thirsty it was not as bad as some of it's detractors claim and that 305 gallons of internal fuel gave it a considerable range for 1942/early 1943, unfortunately it was nowhere near what was actually needed.

 

[Navalwarrior]

The other factor that came into play was that in 1938-39 and early 40 some of these planes were designed, as was just about everything else at the time, without drop tanks.

The early P-38s carried 400 gallons of fuel in unprotected tanks. When they installed self sealing fuel tanks the fuel capacity dropped to 300 gallons. External tanks of some sort would be needed just restore the original range. Same for the P-39 and P-40, original fuel was supposed to be 200 to 170 gallons and 180 gallons respectively. But the self sealing tanks cut capacity to 120 gallons on the P-39 and around 150 gallons on the P-40 (sources differ on the early models as to which ones got what) The P-47 was designed after the "Ban" and while it was thirsty it was not as bad as some of it's detractors claim and that 305 gallons of internal fuel gave it a considerable range for 1942/early 1943, unfortunately it was nowhere near what was actually needed.

Resp:
You will see photos of 8th AF P-47Cs and early Ds that were retro fitted using a 'kit' that Republic made during Aug/Sept (some say July, which may be correct) 1943 for a single centerline drop tank (initially P-39 75 gal). Some historians have seen photos of early model P-47s and assumed that they came from Republic that way. Such is not the case.

 

[Kevin J]

I have never heard of this prohibition. When was it introduced and why?
All USAAC P-40D (serials 40-359 to 381 inclusive) and subsequent P-40 aircraft had drop tanks so why did the USAAC/F prohibit them on later aircraft? That does not make sense.
View attachment 567028

Prohibition does make sense as it concentrates your design teams minds on getting your fighter into production and service fast.

 

[michael rauls]

The Thunderbolt was a big bulky plane and combat range of a Spitfire !
It was more reliable than the P38.
The P40 could climb quicker up to 18k.

The p47 had a much greater range than the Spitfire. As much as I love the Spitfire range was not it's long suit..........Seems like your just sayin stuff.............Making it up as you go.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Thunderbolt was a big bulky plane and combat range of a Spitfire !
It was more reliable than the P38.
The P40 could climb quicker up to 18k.

The Me163 could climb to 18k in a fraction of the time than your P-40...

 

[Dan Fahey]

The Me163 could climb to 18k in a fraction of the time than your P-40...

So what? Flight time was 15 minutes

 

[Dan Fahey]

The p47 had a much greater range than the Spitfire. As much as I love the Spitfire range was not it's long suit..........Seems like your just sayin stuff.............Making it up as you go.

In the European theatre no it didn't .
Go read some Range charts.
P47 was a fuel pig needed twice the fuel to go the same range.

 

[Dan Fahey]

Which P-40 vs which P-47?

and when?

The only real P-40 contenders for a fast climb are the P-40L and the first few hundred Ns.

How did they achieve this great climb?
They left two of the guns out and cut the remaining ammo for the remaining 4.

You bitch about the short range of the P-47 ( which could actually fly twice as a far as the Spitfire under similar conditions) and then you use P-40s with just 120 gallons of internal fuel (if that) for your climb figures, How far was the P-40 stripper going to get?

You rag on the P-47 for being expensive. It carried twice the guns of a stripper P-40 and with just 267 rounds per gun it carried 2.27 times the ammo of the strippers , With 467 rpg which the early planes could do without under wing loads it is carrying 3.6 times the ammo. Perhaps that is too much but obviously the P-47 has a lot more combat effectiveness than a P-40 stripper. So it is returning value for the money spent on it. At least better than the 2 to ratio some people imply.

And since the P-40 strippers could not even operate at the altitudes needed to escort the B-17s and B-24s the argument about the cheaper fighter really falls flat.

P47 even with the cuffed prop could only hit 2800 ft / min.
it was a heavy pathetic climber compared to its competitors.
Even the M model could only do 3500ft/min.

P40 could do as much as 3500 ft/min and got better fuel economy.
Was a better low mid altitude fighter and would make mince meat out of a Thunderbolt In a dogfight.
Add a 75 gallon tank and you had a decent low mid altitude Escort fighter.
Which is what the Russians used over the P39 and Spitfire.

Only main attribute the P47 had over the P40 was high altitude performance.
It had excellent high speed agility but in a turn knife fight it lost.
Once it's potential energy was used up you better be heading home Or at least taking the time to get it back If you had it.

P38 and P47 were both expensive and maintenance hogs compared to every other US fighter and Axis fighter Of the war.
That is just a fact...
Logistically had the Army and Curtis built the P40Q it would have replaced both P47 and P38 in many roles.
In fact been awesome had it been put in the P51A as it was with the P63.

British loved the P51A and wished the US would have produced them in tandem.
The P51A was one of the best low mid altitude Escort /Attack fighters of the war.
Helped by the fact the Allison could be throttled back to fly at bomber speeds.
Brits kept them to the end of the war.

The airplane every Allied combatant used was the P40.

Look at the Fighter platforms that survived after WW2.
Only country that took it was Taiwan that had US built bases with Long enough runways.

 

[drgondog]

Very interesting chart. If I'm reading it properly it says the best climb for the p47d is about 2300 fpm?
All the other types on the chart are about what is commonly cited but the p47D is way different than the usual. Doesn't nescesarily mean it's wrong but I do find it a curiosity.

Michael - the reason I broke the Performance Comparisons in the book (as shown except for the Bf 109G-6AS) is to portray the relative performances as a function of altitude for two primary periods. The first block for December 1943 - Jan 1944 was to position the narrative for a very important period when the P-47D through the -10 was equipped with Provisions for WI on the -21 engine but neither the -11 with factory WI/R2800-63 capable of 56" boost nor enough kits to equip Group level deployment. The important fact to take note of is that the P-47D at 52" boost and standard prop (Pre-paddle blade HM Std) was a sluggish pig in climb - comparatively speaking - until the turbo provided advantage above 24K vs the Bf 109 @1.3 ata and 20K for the Fw [email protected]. That said, the Chart plots for Flight test results are Optimistic. The Jug as flown was light on ammo and 50 cal guns. It performed no better than the P-47C.

At the end of 1943 the VIII FC Jugs started receiving the WI kits and installations began. The October 1943 Flight test on the P-47D-10 (so equipped and cited for April May for all pre-P-47D-11 and subsequent through the -16) reflected Group quantity deployment for combat ops. The P-47D-22 was the first production equipped Ham-Std prop and didn't appear in ETO until May in small numbers.The paddle blade dribbled in during the Jan-April timeframe but full Group equipment was not complete for VIII, IX and XV FC until April May timeframe. For an idea you could add ~200 fpm increased ROC at SL but drop top speed slightly at 20,000 feet.

The ROC and top speed for both the P-38 and P-47 when equipped with pylons, are both Optimistic (ditto the P-51B and FW 190) but less so due to the high drag of the fixed wing pylons after tanks were dropped. The Bf 109G-6 was the least affected with the Schlob 503 C/L rack.

To put the discussion in context - my book is all about pre D-Day battle for air supremacy over the beachead.

 

[BiffF15]

P47 even with the cuffed prop could only hit 2800 ft / min.
it was a heavy pathetic climber compared to its competitors.
Even the M model could only do 3500ft/min.

P40 could do as much as 3500 ft/min and got better fuel economy.
Was a better low mid altitude fighter and would make mince meat out of a Thunderbolt In a dogfight.
Add a 75 gallon tank and you had a decent low mid altitude Escort fighter.
Which is what the Russians used over the P39 and Spitfire.

Only main attribute the P47 had over the P40 was high altitude performance.
It had excellent high speed agility but in a turn knife fight it lost.
Once it's potential energy was used up you better be heading home Or at least taking the time to get it back If you had it.

P38 and P47 were both expensive and maintenance hogs compared to every other US fighter and Axis fighter Of the war.
That is just a fact...
Logistically had the Army and Curtis built the P40Q it would have replaced both P47 and P38 in many roles.
In fact been awesome had it been put in the P51A as it was with the P63.

British loved the P51A and wished the US would have produced them in tandem.
The P51A was one of the best low mid altitude Escort /Attack fighters of the war.
Helped by the fact the Allison could be throttled back to fly at bomber speeds.
Brits kept them to the end of the war.

The airplane every Allied combatant used was the P40.

Look at the Fighter platforms that survived after WW2.
Only country that took it was Taiwan that had US built bases with Long enough runways.

Dan,

It would help if you would quote data from, or provide links to, exactly what you use to arrive at your conclusions or theories. Your view seems to a bit different from what's generally posted or accepted as the norm on this forum.

For example Bill, AKA Drgondog, has posted range depictions, which appear to be from the artwork used from back in the day (WW2), of the different fighters with varying ranges, depicted via half circles showing how far into Europe they could go (from Eastern UK). I seem to remember there were several of these slides / pictures covering different stages or times during the war and the legs on all the fighters continued to increase, but that the P47, AKA Jug, was longer than the Spit. I looked but was unable to find them.

Also remember that we kept so many fighters in production for different reasons. The Mustang (Merlin version), was a tremendous success and seemed to have that magic formula (from the US perspective). Why didn't the powers that be just cancel P38, 39, 40 production and have those companies make more Mustangs? I'm going out on a limb here but think production interruption was a big part (I can make something for the the Russians, that they like, which doesn't give them our best weapons but helps with their war effort) AKA the P39. One can't walk into a plant, shut it down one day, swap out tooling (which SOMEONE has to make), and start making quality aircraft the next day. Then there is the down range logistics that has to be established, training and support, ETC.

You threw some hate at the P38, but could you have hung two drop tanks on a P40 and taken out Yamato? Most of our aircraft were designed for something particular, but used in so many other venues it's mind boggling. Do you think the designers of the B25 ever thought it would fly from the deck of a carrier or carry a 75mm cannon?

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Snautzer01]

Schlob 503 C/L rack

A typo i am sure but it is schloss. (Or a ringle s is used.)

 

[Shortround6]

P40 could do as much as 3500 ft/min and got better fuel economy.
Was a better low mid altitude fighter and would make mince meat out of a Thunderbolt In a dogfight.
Add a 75 gallon tank and you had a decent low mid altitude Escort fighter.

What load of selective crap.
here is your 3500ft/min P-40 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40N_42-9987_FS-M-19-1535-A.pdf

weight=Gross weight at take-off was 7413 pounds., guns and ammo as stated above, climb at 15,000ft was 2680ft/min and it justs gets worse the higher you go.
Plane had no forward fuel tank, 120 gallons of fuel at best and the test plane was not carrying full internal fuel, not at 7413lbs. Normal gross weight was 7740lbs. What is the range with 70 gallons of internal fuel? Even with a 75 gallon tank you are going to be turning around by the coast of France. Put the fuel back in (and the electric starter and the battery and.....) and that marvelous climb rate goes away. In fact the later P-40Ns (with six guns) and full fuel and equipment took 7.3 minutes to hit 14,000ft at military power.
BTW the P-47 will outroll a P-40.

Only main attribute the P47 had over the P40 was high altitude performance.
It had excellent high speed agility but in a turn knife fight it lost.

and strangely enough, the bombers were flying at high altitude. The P-40 would have made an excellent escort flying 10,000ft BELOW the bombers.

P38 and P47 were both expensive and maintenance hogs compared to every other US fighter and Axis fighter Of the war.
That is just a fact...

and off all those fighters, only the Merlin P-51s could do the same job. If you can't do the job then it doesn't matter how cheap the plane is......and that is just a fact.

Logistically had the Army and Curtis built the P40Q it would have replaced both P47 and P38 in many roles.

I won't even argue the P-40Q as that takes the P-40 religion to whole new level combining the Holy Grail, the dead sea scrolls and the mythical beast the Roc into one entity.

 

[drgondog]

I have never heard of this prohibition. When was it introduced and why?
All USAAC P-40D (serials 40-359 to 381 inclusive) and subsequent P-40 aircraft had drop tanks so why did the USAAC/F prohibit them on later aircraft? That does not make sense.
View attachment 567028

The USAAC and early AAF restricted external fuel tanks to ferry tanks. It wasn't until the Arnold Fighter Conference Jan-Feb 1942 that the AAF got serious about developing self sealing combat tanks. The 60gal and 75 gal were first, the 150 gal last. The shock of the Pacific war and range requirements imposed 'new thinking' regarding combat operations as well as the requirement for very long ferry ranges.

Look into combat ops in summer 1943 in ETO. The 8th AF was desperate enough to equip the P-47C/D with the non-pressurized 200 gallon bathtub ferry tank at the end of Blitz Week because the 'on order' pressurized 75 and 108 gallon tanks were not yet delivered.

To compound the problem, there were no factory installed pressure pumps to pressurize tanks to feed above 20K. The initial work around was to slave pressurization from the vacuum pump for instruments.

The failures of Materiel Command were numerous but flawed testing for combat ops of the aircraft tested at Wright Field was monumental - hence Air Technical Services in the field were burdened with patching up inbound fighters to achieve some norm of 'combat ready'.

 

[swampyankee]

A rarity: an aircraft thread were nobody is claiming the Luftwaffe's aircraft were incontestably better than anybody else's. I'm impressed.

Of course, an escort fighter needs to have enough range to remain with the bombers to target and fight enemy interceptors to, from, and in the target area, or they were useless. It also need the air-air performance to win those fights. In the ETO day strategic bombing against the Axis, the only two practical choices were the Mustang and the Thunderbolt (the P-38's design flaws such as causing pilots to get frostbite in the cockpit takes it off the list). On the other hand, both were pretty useless at escorting a carrier strike against a well-defended carrier task force (until PGM, high-altitude bombers had trouble hitting a a specific city block, let alone a moving ship).

 

[Navalwarrior]

In the European theatre no it didn't .
Go read some Range charts.
P47 was a fuel pig needed twice the fuel to go the same range.

 

[Navalwarrior]

Resp:
The two range charts that I have seen, gives the P-47 a slight edge over the Spitfire . . . when the RAF used them in escorting USAAF heavy bombers (4 engines). Google it. There wasn't much difference, but you will see that the Spitfire flew the initial leg (and sometimes the final leg for egress) with the P-47 relieving the Spitfire.

 

[drgondog]

The p47 had a much greater range than the Spitfire. As much as I love the Spitfire range was not it's long suit..........Seems like your just sayin stuff.............Making it up as you go.

Hi Michael - Range in context of Combat Radius for major AAF fighters in May 1943. No external tanks, clean, full internal combat load out Provisions for warm up, take-off, climb to cruise altitude, fight 20 min at the end of the tether, return home, 30 minutes reserve.

P-38H 300gal internal fuel - CR = 130mi; with 300gal plus 2x150 external - CR = 440mi (Dec 1943); with 410gal plus 2x150gal ext = 650mi (Mar/April 1944)
P-47C 305gal internal fuel - CR = 125mi; with 305gal plus 1x75gal external - CR = 230mi (Aug 1943);with 305gal plus 2x150gal ext = 425mi (April 1944)
P-51B 184gal internal fuel - CR = 150mi; with 184gal plus 2x75gal external - CR = 470mi (Dec 1943); with 269gal plus 2x75gal ext = 705mi (Feb 1944)
Sources - AAF, Republic, Lockheed and NAA testing, Dean for cross reference.