Only one fighter

[renrich]

Three other reasons why the hypothetical "one fighter" perhaps should be the Corsair are: Cost-The Corsair cost was about $75,000 each. I believe the P47 was more than that, the P38 was a lot more and the P51 might have been slightly lower. Air to ground-The Corsair had a form of dive brakes which may have given it an edge in dive bombing. Short field- The Corsair had much better short field take off and landing capabilities than any of the AAF fighters which would have allowed it to use forward landing fields in a fluid battle environment.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Jank

"Yes I stated that opinion, and continue to a.) state it as an opinion, and b.) you can't prove otherwise., and c.) because you Assert and I merely express an opinion - where is burden of proof?"

You did in fact say, "My OPINION, as I have stated it before - as contrasted with OPINIONS to the contrary, is the the F4U was just as 'survivable'."

That certainly looks like an opinion to me.

Good - you actually passed that test in reading comprehension

You also said, that the Corsair "would have done far better air to ground" than the Thunderbolt.

OOPs - You failed this one.

Jank - you consistently change the wording of what I write to suit your argument

Here is SPECIFICALLY what I wrote in my first post on this subject. Rather than re-write it as you like to do I used the simple "copy' and 'paste' to reproduce it as I wrote it.. now close your eyes for a minute


"My love is the Mustang for all around but my head is on the Corsair.

In ETO, the only group that did exceptionally well air to air against the Luftwaffe throughout the campaigns in P-47s was the 56th (in context of air to air ratios achieved by Mustangs). The 51s had far better success against the Luftwaffe but I believe the Corsair would have done as well and far better air to ground."

Now a simple question for you - and I'll do it SLOOOOOOOOOWLY

1. Was the 'opinion of how the Corsair would do "as well and far better air to ground" connected to a comparison against the 51s or P-47s? Take your time. This is complicate english comprehension.

If you finally decide the comparison was F4U versus 51, do you accept my uninformed opinion that a.) it (Corsair) probably would have done as well air to air and far better air to ground (vs 51)"?

If not, why not and as you say back it up.


On this forum, people issue opinions all the time and are queried on them. Is there some reason why you are uncomfortable sharing your considerable knowledge? That is rhetorical as we both know that you don't want to get sucked into looking like a hippocrite when it turns out that you are insisting that I conform with statistical data and provable facts while you get a pass.

As the Hypocrite (me) relative to statistical proof - you of course stay out of that zone by having which set of statistics?? to support your OPINION that the Jug was a.) as survivable as F6F, and b.) more survivable than the F4U?

I'm searchin' for confirmation, here Janky but not seein much from your lofty 'statistical' high ground? Maybe I Missed it - again and again and again when I asked you for backing to your assumption?

You said, "I would have picked the F4U over the P-47 (and P-51) simply because the a/c was as good or better than both in about 75% of the air to air criteria up to 25,000 feet (where ETO was fought) and superior on the deck - "

So again, I ask you what statistical basis do you have that the Corsair 'would have done far better air to ground' than the Thunderbolt. In order to prevail on this point, you will need to provide evidence not just that it would have done just better but far better.

I never said 'far better' - I said "as well as".. go find the quote - use 'copy' then use paste' and we will try this one again.

If by some chance I actually wrote 'far better' in context of Corsair to P-47air to ground capability - instead of the comparison above that you frequntly mis-quote, I will acknowledge my error

As to "as good as in air to ground", What evidence do you have to contradict it (my opinion)? My Opinion is that the Corsair would carry a load (combination of rockets and bombs and fuel) farther than a Jug and be better defensively against any of the primary adversaries on the deck.

1. Corsair better air to air on deck in defense
2. Corsair carry heavier load in combat
3. Disputed on survivability to flak but Corsair should unquestionably be more survivable than Mustang? Still need to prove that Jug better here.

Now back to the reading comprehension thingy again. In my statement I said

"plus as good air to ground as P-47 with added advantage of being a better defensive fighter on the deck."

But you just said I said "far better".. wrong again.. you keep disconnecting brain to my comparison of Corsair to Mustang (again and again)


Still waiting.

Continue waiting, suck a thumb, tap a foot - whatever.

Again, you stated, "All of the 355FG P-47 awards were diving chasing attacks with very little turning."

I DID say that. I also said that the awards in subsequent statements, were never for out turning the adversary in a lufberry type turn.

I never said that I accepted your "proposal" based on your redrafted conditions. Let's stick to the facts, shall we? It is a fact, a provable fact, that you stated the foregoing.

I provided two examples of P-47 awards (kills) from the 355th. Did you read them?

I read them and commented on them. If you read my post and comprehended what you read, you would have noted that and not asked another dumb question

Well, would it make you feel better if I "clarified" that my assertion that the P-47D "could have" carried a 4,000lb ordinance load was an opinion that I believe based on the evidence / presumptions / examples I provided?

[b]Here is precisely what you said{/B]

Republic Aviation's own design specs for the P-47M, which had the exact same wing and fuselage structure with respect to load bearing, indicate a maximum bomb load of 4,200lbs The P-47N, which did often carry 3,900lbs of bombs and rockets actually had a maximum design bomb load that was somewhat less at 3,700lbs. I have never come across Republic Aviation's design specs for the P-47D but there is no reason to assume that they would be any different than those for the P-47M.

So, re-clarify. I challenged that because I have never seen a photo, a document, a first hand account of such and asked you to substantiate it.

A design spec for individual load bearing points is not a manufacturer's assertion or recommendation to use all such weights on all such racks - under any basis unless so stated in the operating manual. Period. To do so frequently, if not always, results in a burning pile of junk at the end of the runway.

The manufacturer will specificically state what the load conditions should be for safety as well as the flight profile or cautions when loaded to Gross Max TO.

Despite your knowledge of the P-47, you do not seem to be able to conjure up a document which recommends or even states a wing/fuse store configuration which lives up to your assertions, or assumptions or wild ass speculations - and your 'feelers' are hurt when I repeadtedly ask for for the proof. Hey - I am willing to acknowledge that you could be right - but nothing you produce lives up to your statements.

Three websites that I provided for you all have the bomb load capability of 2,500 pounds (all stores) and you keep asserting otherwise. This is an an example of repeated published stats - as contrasted with your assumptions.

So what do you wish to add?

I will be holding you to the same rigorous standards that you have held me to my friend.

You haven't met your own standards, much less mine.

[renrich]

My friend who flew the F100 was an IP and had 2000 hours in them. My memory may be faulty but I believe that at some point during the Viet Nam war he was asked to do some sort of extension of his service in return for some rank. He declined and they pulled him off F100s, sent him to Nam where he flew the 150 missions in the single engine observation plane working primarily for the 1st Div(I think). He won several medals including the DFC. After his service he flew for United and is now retired. He is a spendid fellow.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

Three other reasons why the hypothetical "one fighter" perhaps should be the Corsair are: Cost-The Corsair cost was about $75,000 each. I believe the P47 was more than that, the P38 was a lot more and the P51 might have been slightly lower. Air to ground-The Corsair had a form of dive brakes which may have given it an edge in dive bombing. Short field- The Corsair had much better short field take off and landing capabilities than any of the AAF fighters which would have allowed it to use forward landing fields in a fluid battle environment.

Rich - the 51D final price was $50,985 when the last one rolled off in 1945 - a reduction in $7500 from first production P-51A about 1942.

According to the book, the unit cost for the airframe was $3.59/lb, the P-47 was $5.75/lb and the P-63 was $6.74 - this is before GFE was added to airframe to complete it for delivery. I don't offhand know what the P-38 was but it was above $105K

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by helmitsmit

I think we are all missing the point a little. Yes, load carrying ability is important but you need the air superiority first. In a fighter this best achiveved by speed, manoevourabilty and firepower. Therefore, I think the Corsair fills most of these requirements on average better then any other american fighter.

Just because the thread is about US decision, say hypotetically, that Roosevelt could have purchased an off shore airframe as well as duplicate engineering.

Whta would you have proposed for all the US requirements - and remember to add 600-1000 punds for the Carrier version.

[AL Schlageter]

P-38

1939-41 - $134,284
1942 - $120,407
1943 - $105,567
1944 - $97,147

from #82 USAAFSD

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by AL Schlageter

P-38

1939-41 - $134,284
1942 - $120,407
1943 - $105,567
1944 - $97,147

from #82 USAAFSD

Thanks Al.. I should realized production would have lowered it below 100K mark

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

[Jank]

"In ETO, the only group that did exceptionally well air to air against the Luftwaffe throughout the campaigns in P-47s was the 56th (in context of air to air ratios achieved by Mustangs). The 51s had far better success against the Luftwaffe but I believe the Corsair would have done as well and far better air to ground."

I am going to guess that you weren't an English major. In the above paragraph, you are comparing the Corsair to the Thunderbolt. Let's take it SLOOOOOOOOOWLY as you would say.

The first sentence is independent but the second sentence is dependent. The second sentence does not stand alone. The 51's had far better success ... Far better than what? Far better than the subject of the first independent sentence. The P-47. The but between the P-51 and F4U merely ties both in the conditional alternative to the subject of the first independent sentence.

"This is complicate english comprehension."

Yes it is. Yes it is.

If by some chance I actually wrote 'far better' in context of Corsair to P-47air to ground capability - instead of the comparison above that you frequntly mis-quote, I will acknowledge my error

Somehow I doubt that. Care to prove me wrong?

So again (this is actually the fifth time I have asked this question), I ask you what statistical basis do you have that the Corsair 'would have done far better air to ground' than the Thunderbolt.

Do you have any statistical data for Corsairs and Thunderbolts flying similar air to ground missions against similar targets? Are there similar threats from the ground? What about similar threats from the air? Does that matter? Why. Does gun armament make a difference? Are there range considerations? How does survivability enter into the consideration? Bomb load / ordinance load? Which is a more stable firing platform?

As the Hypocrite (me) relative to statistical proof

Yes. Now you are starting to get the picture.

"I never said 'far better' - I said "as well as".. go find the quote - use 'copy' then use paste' and we will try this one again."

Does this mean I will have to ask it a sixth time? How about you just agree to answer it on the tenth query. I will even throw in a p-l-e-a-s-e.

Again, you stated, "All of the 355FG P-47 awards were diving chasing attacks with very little turning."

I DID say that. I also said that the awards in subsequent statements, were never for out turning the adversary in a lufberry type turn.

Ah, yes. The "subsequent statements" defense. I accept your concession.

"Three websites that I provided for you all have the bomb load capability of 2,500 pounds (all stores) and you keep asserting otherwise. This is an an example of repeated published stats - as contrasted with your assumptions."

Wikipedia, Warbird Alley and Republic P-47Thunderbolt? Published stats that you are relying on?

I'm laughing. The last source puts the operational weight of the D-25 at 19,400lbs. Warbird Alley might as well be a Signal Publication and Wikimoron?

I will go with the published stats put out by Republic Aviation before I place faith in those rags. Tell me. Are you sourcing Wikipedia for your book?

"A design spec for individual load bearing points is not a manufacturer's assertion or recommendation to use all such weights on all such racks - under any basis unless so stated in the operating manual. Period. To do so frequently, if not always, results in a burning pile of junk at the end of the runway."

So what were the manufacturer's assertion or recommendation for the Corsair? A 4,000lb bomb load? Did F4U's frequently, if not always end up burning piles of junk?

One last question, are you now or have you ever been under the care of a psychiatrist? You sent me a PM with your address (a fake I'm sure) and told me that you were not afraid of dying.

The tough guy, not afraid to die, here's my address, let's dance posting from the safety of my computer crap makes you look look an ass. I'm guessing your wife lives in fear of you. Maybe your dogs too.

Anyway, this is going nowhere and I am tired of the dance.

You win.

[AL Schlageter]

Originally Posted by AL Schlageter

P-38

1939-41 - $134,284
1942 - $120,407
1943 - $105,567
1944 - $97,147

from #82 USAAFSD

Comparison to the

P-47

1939-41 - $113,246
1942 - $105,594
1943 - $104,258
1944 - $85,578
1945 - $83,001

P-63

1942 - $60,277
1943 - $57,379
1944 - $59,966
1945 - $65,914

Why the increase in the 1945 price for the P-63?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Jank

[i]"

The tough guy, not afraid to die, here's my address, let's dance posting from the safety of my computer crap makes you look look an ass. I'm guessing your wife lives in fear of you. Maybe your dogs too.

Anyway, this is going nowhere and I am tired of the dance.

You win.

You, the one that said I would never accuse you of overloading a small personal orifice with a very large one to your face -and further noted in your PM that a.) I was another one of those anonymous guys sitting behind a keyboard (or words to that effect), or b.) inebriated to say such a thing - in what most people would deem in a threatening manner

I sent you a PM giving my address in case you wanted to 'drop by'. You disparaged that as a fake address and questioned my integrity because I didn't give my name - which I have done on many posts so I thought you would have filled in the 'Marshall'? There is at least one admin and one other poster on this forum that can validate name and address for you.

I filled it out for you. The address is real, the dogs are real and unafraid. I am real and not under psychiatric care. My wife is not only not afraid of me - she is a better shot with a pistol.

You 'guess' and 'assume' far too much Jank - but I noted you didn't reciprocate and invite me to come see you and 'discuss' this? nor did you mention your 'anonymous name' or 'unspecified address' in a reply to show how tough you are. I will 'assume' and 'guess' that you ARE tough so we can leave the insults on the table and agree to go separate ways.

One final thought for you.

Why is it that of all the USAAF and USN and USMC 'aces in a day' that only 6 were P-47 pilots in the ONLY eight .50 cal equipped fighter that happened to fly more sorties than any other fighter and actually flew about the same as the P-38 plus P-51 plus P-40...?? STATISTICALLY it would appear that the eight .50s were not as effective as six or four. What do you make of that?

What do you make of the fact that the eight .50 caliber equipped Jug flew nearly 3x the sorties of the combined four and six .50 cal equipped Mustangs, yet only managed to scratch out 2/3 of the air to air kills of the Mustang and less than that ratio on the ground? Theoretically a LOT more firepower than the wimpy P-51 (and F6F) and a 'no brainer' for you - right?

I'm going to have to do some research but I suspect the P-47 comes in 4th behind the F6F, the P-51 and the P-38 in air to air kills - all with fewr weapons (although a 20mm probably counts for two .50s on the 3..

What do you make of that?

I don't know what to make of it either Jank - but it is a reason I look at statistics as only a factor - not the conclusion.

Have a good day

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by AL Schlageter

Comparison to the

P-47

1939-41 - $113,246
1942 - $105,594
1943 - $104,258
1944 - $85,578
1945 - $83,001

P-63

1942 - $60,277
1943 - $57,379
1944 - $59,966
1945 - $65,914

Why the increase in the 1945 price for the P-63?

i'm guessing but a jump like that would either be an increase in the GFE (the airframe costs as you know would continue to reduce based on volume) or there was some significant design mod that was amortized either in the run or it represents a 'stop' work to and existing contract which had a contractual premium.

I would guess GFE.

[Jank]

You, the one that said I would never accuse you of overloading a small personal orifice with a very large one to your face -and further noted in your PM ... in what most people would deem in a threatening manner.

Did I hurt your wittle feeblings? Why don't you go ahead an cut and paste that "threatening manner" for all to read for themselves. Tell me, do those black helicopter follow you around too?

I sent you a PM giving my address in case you wanted to 'drop by'.

Now why the Hell would I want to do that Bill? Do you think we're best buds? Do you think I'm gay?

You disparaged that as a fake address and questioned my integrity

I notice you didn't lash out with a "How dare you!" I bet you've got a glove handy to slap my face if I happen to "drop by."

I'll tell you what, answer the question I have asked six times now. That one concerns your hypocrisy. Then we'll move on to your sense of "integrity."

I noted you didn't reciprocate and invite me to come see you and 'discuss' this? nor did you mention your 'anonymous name' or 'unspecified address' in a reply to show how tough you are.

Duly noted.

On your "final thought," I really don't know. For me to ponder that thought, I would need to presume the accuracy of the figures you pose and also presume that the sole relevant independent variable is six vs. eight wing mounted guns that causes the observed dependent variable.

Chew on that while you peruse Wikipedia.

Again, I don't know where this is going. Good day to you to sir.

[SoD Stitch]

Another thread gone to hell in a handbasket . . . .

I know the P-38 was expensive, but it wasn't that much more than a P-47 (apparently). The first P-38's were essentially hand-built, and it didn't get a whole lot better by the end of the War (though it did get better), which would explain it's higher manufacturing costs. However, I feel you got a lot of plane for the money. I've always been a sucker for the P-38, and probably always will be; I'd take a -38 over a -47 or a -51 any day.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Jank

"In ETO, the only group that did exceptionally well air to air against the Luftwaffe throughout the campaigns in P-47s was the 56th (in context of air to air ratios achieved by Mustangs). The 51s had far better success against the Luftwaffe but I believe the Corsair would have done as well and far better air to ground."

So again (this is actually the fifth time I have asked this question), I ask you what statistical basis do you have that the Corsair 'would have done far better air to ground' than the Thunderbolt.

You keep misquoting and you keep leaving outh the first line

[B]"My love is the Mustang for all around but my head is on the Corsair.

In ETO, the only group that did exceptionally well air to air against the Luftwaffe throughout the campaigns in P-47s was the 56th (in context of air to air ratios achieved by Mustangs). The 51s had far better success against the Luftwaffe but I believe the Corsair would have done as well and far better air to ground."[/b]

The 'subject of my thesis - my comments and my statement above -is comparing the Mustang to the Corsair.

You keep skipping the first line above for whatever reason.

After explaining that MY choice emotionally was the Mustang I went on to say the Corsair was objectively the right choice. You with me so far?

I introduced the Corsair by a.) stating that the 51 was better than the 47 against the Luftwaffe - by demonstrating that if the Corsair was equal or better than the 51 it would have to do as well as a 51 (which I believe it would and so stated) air to air, and be better than a 51 air to ground (and I stated far better).

I didn't consider the P-47 worth mentioning in the statement other than it was inferior to the Mustang air to air. There is zero question in my mind that the Corsair would have been much (superior, excel, etc) better than the P-47 air to air - never crossing my mind that it would merely 'equal' a P-47 in that domain.

Still with me? You don't get to parse my words and eliminate context without being intellectually dishonest

Do you have any statistical data for Corsairs and Thunderbolts flying similar air to ground missions against similar targets? Are there similar threats from the ground? What about similar threats from the air? Does that matter? Why. Does gun armament make a difference? Are there range considerations? How does survivability enter into the consideration? Bomb load / ordinance load? Which is a more stable firing platform?

Simple answer - No. And neither do you.

You are amazing - I asked you the same questions (first) when you referenced the F6F -one theatre comparison of battle damage survivability - against the F4U.. then asked you how you were going to compare against either for the P-47.. and never got an answer while you pounded on me to explain my OPINION that the F4U would probably be 'as survivable' - BTW if you can drag out the number of P-47s shot down by flak we could start working on this - but nobody seems to have the answer for the entire war.

I have a start for 8th FC but have to start breaking out the 'mixed' groups that flew 47s and transitioned to 51's. A better start would be if someone really has good data on the 9th AF than the 8th

"Three websites that I provided for you all have the bomb load capability of 2,500 pounds (all stores) and you keep asserting otherwise. This is an an example of repeated published stats - as contrasted with your assumptions."

Wikipedia, Warbird Alley and Republic P-47Thunderbolt? Published stats that you are relying on?

Here's another one with a pilot who has flown both the 51 and 47 late model D.. he specifically states that the max bomb load was one 1,000 pounder on each wing rack and one 500 pounder on Cl - and required water injection to take off...

P-47 THUNDERBOLT quoting Rip Collins former USAAF pilot who flew combat in both types.

"6. The later model Thunderbolt's could carry and deliver 2,500 pounds of bombs. (One 1,000-lb. bomb on each wing, and one 500 lb. bomb under the belly.) This was a maximum load and you had to use water injection to get airborne. But it would do this with sufficient runway. I have done this myself."


I will go with the published stats put out by Republic Aviation before I place faith in those rags. Tell me. Are you sourcing Wikipedia for your book?

No, actually I sourced 3,000 pages of microfilm plus cross referenced perhaps 30 other baseline references. So far you have produced zero backing to your claim despite denigrating my own research. The above reference is link #4. You are still at link zero and no photos - I have zero problem for you knocking any or all of these, but you have yet to establish yourself as an authority and continue to argue on emotion

You have presented Republic' manufacturer specs for each pylon and Centerline. You have yet to publish a 'source' of any kind that states the load max exceeds 2500 pounds of total stores, including a mix of bombs and rockets. You are wrong. period.

You do know that B-17s had approximately 8,000 pound internal bomb load and two 4,000 pound bomb/missle Do you suppose any missions were flown using maximum carrying capacity of each and every load point internally and externally?

The answer is no, unless you can find a reference external to manufacturer's spec for each load point - do you not? Do you suppose any B-17 took off with more than the max load externally, or took off with max external and anything internal?


Now here is a question for you? Is the following an illustration that the P-47 was hard to fly, was overloaded with fuel to try for max range, or what?

The 56th FG had the highest number and the highest rate of fatal accidents in the 8th AF FC - (27 in 462 missions) is that because the P-47 was faulty? If you wish to argue long service the 78th (17 in 450) and 4th (18 in 576 missions) or 353rd (15 in 447 missions). The 357th (all Mustangs) had 13 in 318 missions and 339th (10 in 264 missions) - lower rates by significant margin.. so Jugs out pointed 51's in burning hulks by accident - but as rugged as a Jug is - should that happen? These aren't 9th AF Jugs loaded for ground support.

So if 47 lost more to accidents, lost more proportionately to LW fighters but lost fewer to flak - what does that say to 'survivability - against the Mustang - statistically speaking of course.


You win.

Nah - I know in your heart of hearts and razor sharp mind that you would merely retire from the field - not quit.

Let's summarize.

I believe (note the hedge) that

a. The 51 and the Corsair were better to far better than the Jug in air to air combat. I believe that because statistically, in aggragate, they had higher air to air ratios, were more manueverable, accelerated faster and had better overall performance up to (but not above) 25-27,000 feet for all models in approximate release stages. I can prove the air to air ratios per sorties for the 8th AF..

I can prove the air to air ratios as a function of all sorties flown - (but that is bogus because the Mustang's role was air superiority and the Jug was both air superiority and Ground support and it flew longer in more theatres earlier) - but for 8th the missions were the same

b. The Corsair was equal to nearly equal of the P-47 in air to ground capability. I believe that because they (F4U's) OPERATIONALLY carried higher loads, and were more agile on the deck defensively. I don't know what the survivabilty comparisons should be between the P-47 and F4U. Neither do you. I believe and have stated that the Corsair is far better air to ground over the Mustang for payload and survivability with near equal(one way or other) agility and performance on the deck.

c. In the operational experiences of the 8th AF, the Mustang had fewer operational fatal accidents, had better air to air ratios, shot down far more German fighters and destroyed far more a/c on the ground than the P-47 and lost more than the 47 to flak. So, if you want to argue against the Corsair being the best, or 'not better overall' than the Jug in any category you will have to get something definitive about survivability... because the Jug was inferior to the Mustang in the following categories, and I believe the Corsair was better than Mustang.

• number of air to air kills per sortie
• number of ground kills per sortie
• number of fatal accidents per sorties
• number of aces
• number of aces with 5 in one mission despite 2x in number of combat sorties in ETO (i.e the P-47 had approximately 420K+ sorties versus 213K_ for Mustang - or for you, 200,000 more opportunites for possible engagement of enemy) and despite the early and frequent engagement with LW (8 months sooner than P-51 even in theatre), 'much heavier' firepower, high altitude performance on par with Mustang (or better in roll and sustained dive) at bomber escort altitudes.

The F6F and F4U both had more '5 in a day' than the 51. The F6F had more air to air than the 51(barely) and even the P-38 was close to the Jug in air to air... so you can make a case that P-47 was number FIVE as a fighter versus fighter despite having 'much heavier firepower and a lot more sorties.

Whatever