Which country designed the best engines for WWII?
- Thread starter Soundbreaker Welch?
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
NO...you do not get it !!
When looking at statistics...
P-47 did not have the range to get into the fight.
Mustang flew less sorties, got to the combat site far more often and destroyed more planes.
Had the P-47 had the range would probably could produce similar results.
The sorted out late model P-38s began racking up a good consistent scores.
So you don't think the transition from escort to ground attack roles might have increased losses?
fubar57
General
"Thunderbolts were lost at the exceptionally low rate of 0.7 per cent per mission and Jug pilots achieved an aerial kill ratio of 4.6:1. In the European Theater, P-47 pilots destroyed more than 7,000 enemy aircraft, more than half of them in air-to-air combat. They destroyed the remainder on very dangerous ground attack missions In fact, the Thunderbolt was probably the best ground-attack aircraft fielded by the United States."
Republic P-47D-30-RA Thunderbolt
Republic P-47D-30-RA Thunderbolt
The "fight" was the landing at Normandy where boots were put on the ground. How much of a part each aircraft or any aircraft played in that will always be open to debate. It is a fact that P-51 losses increased when they were used for ground attack and it is also a fact that the P-47 was a well used and successful ground attack aircraft.
Shortround6
Major General
Trying to use gross statistics usually means there is plenty of room for error.
For example in this P-47 vs P-51 argument
really doesn't mean much because because it ignores the number of sorties, it ignores the length of service, it ignores which planes were available when.
The Mustang was built in very similar numbers in total but out of just under 15,600 Mustangs 6100 of them were built in 1945. For the P-47 out of just under 15,700 planes only about 3660 were built in 1945. 1944 production was almost even (about 80 more P-47s out of around 7000 each) but 1943 production was 4428 P-47s to 2482 P-51s.
Not hard to figure out why there were more P-47 losses.
Mustang numbers also get tricky because of number of Mustang Is, Mustang IAs and Mustang IIs (about 760 planes) that went to the British with Allison engines, IF you are counting US statistics do they count these British planes (British also got later Merlin powered planes).
we also have the 500 A-36s, are they counted in the Mustang losses or not?
The Mustang was great plane and it was a much better plane for the bomber escort role than the P-47 and it did a lot of ground pounding.
But things are rarely as cut and dried as some people seem to think.
For instance this map is often brought out.
But please notice the dates. By March of 1944 (modification of planes in the field started in Jan) the P-47s were fitted for under wing tanks and by the end of May the P-47D-25 was starting to trickle into UK with the larger internal fuel capacity. The P-47 (aside from the N) was never going to equal the P-51 in range (and need around twice the fuel to do it) but the actual difference in range changed almost by the month in late 1943 and early 1944 and the difference most of the time was not what the above chart shows.
That chart shows the improved escort ability over time, not the radius capability of the different airplanes at the same point in time.
A P-47D-25 with a pair of 150 gallon drop tanks had a radius of 600 miles but is a more of a late 1944 aircraft.
For example in this P-47 vs P-51 argument
really doesn't mean much because because it ignores the number of sorties, it ignores the length of service, it ignores which planes were available when.
The Mustang was built in very similar numbers in total but out of just under 15,600 Mustangs 6100 of them were built in 1945. For the P-47 out of just under 15,700 planes only about 3660 were built in 1945. 1944 production was almost even (about 80 more P-47s out of around 7000 each) but 1943 production was 4428 P-47s to 2482 P-51s.
Not hard to figure out why there were more P-47 losses.
Mustang numbers also get tricky because of number of Mustang Is, Mustang IAs and Mustang IIs (about 760 planes) that went to the British with Allison engines, IF you are counting US statistics do they count these British planes (British also got later Merlin powered planes).
we also have the 500 A-36s, are they counted in the Mustang losses or not?
The Mustang was great plane and it was a much better plane for the bomber escort role than the P-47 and it did a lot of ground pounding.
But things are rarely as cut and dried as some people seem to think.
For instance this map is often brought out.
But please notice the dates. By March of 1944 (modification of planes in the field started in Jan) the P-47s were fitted for under wing tanks and by the end of May the P-47D-25 was starting to trickle into UK with the larger internal fuel capacity. The P-47 (aside from the N) was never going to equal the P-51 in range (and need around twice the fuel to do it) but the actual difference in range changed almost by the month in late 1943 and early 1944 and the difference most of the time was not what the above chart shows.
That chart shows the improved escort ability over time, not the radius capability of the different airplanes at the same point in time.
A P-47D-25 with a pair of 150 gallon drop tanks had a radius of 600 miles but is a more of a late 1944 aircraft.
PlasticHero
Senior Airman
I had thought that the CW rotation was so that goosing the throttle while landing on a carrier would tend to roll the aircraft away from the island. At the very least it makes sense to standardize rotation to make it easier to transition between aircraft. The "short" range of the P-47 can be explained here.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles
Bozothenutter
Airman
- 56
- Feb 10, 2021
voted US, but mainly on the premise that Packard, as I understand it improved the 'productionability' of the merlin
Please explain !
Or maybe i should've just gone with
Bozothenutter
Airman
- 56
- Feb 10, 2021
well, do you or don't you?
Welcome to the forum, this has been discussed at length on many threads, there is a forum search function that is a great help.
Bozothenutter
Airman
- 56
- Feb 10, 2021
well, do you or don't you?
Did you mean to repeat the post?
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
This myth will never die. We have burnt it at the stake scattered it's ashes in the sea and still it comes back from the dead.
With an Fw190 in a crate under its arm.
special ed
1st Sergeant
- 5,139
- May 13, 2018
Not to mention the dreaded Papa Three Nine. No, wait, I just mentioned it.
Shortround6
Major General
Short answer,
RR Glasgow was building 400 engines a month by March of 1942, Packard built 333 Merlins that month.
RR had factories at Derby and Crew. Ford of England at Trafford Park was the last British factory to be brought into the Merlin production scheme. Ground was broken in May of 1940, a month or two before Packard even saw a Merlin.
Each factory was different, had different supplies of labor (trained and untrained workers) and had different amounts of in house and subcontracted parts/components.
Packard did a marvelous job but was the last factory to start production and any ideas they had about mass production of the Merlin, regardless of merit, were a bit late.
RR Glasgow was building 400 engines a month by March of 1942, Packard built 333 Merlins that month.
RR had factories at Derby and Crew. Ford of England at Trafford Park was the last British factory to be brought into the Merlin production scheme. Ground was broken in May of 1940, a month or two before Packard even saw a Merlin.
Each factory was different, had different supplies of labor (trained and untrained workers) and had different amounts of in house and subcontracted parts/components.
Packard did a marvelous job but was the last factory to start production and any ideas they had about mass production of the Merlin, regardless of merit, were a bit late.
