Putting the P-47 back into production? - Page 3 - Aircraft of World War II

Dark Matter · 08-21-2009, 09:46 PM

I joined that forum with the username'Moderater' and they never let me on.

B-17engineer · 08-21-2009, 09:48 PM

Wow. Well you still have nothing on why the P-51 was a Piece of Junk or hopeless....

Do you have any accounts of the US Air Force saying it was hopeless or a pilot saying it was a piece of junk?

Njaco · 08-21-2009, 09:49 PM

I've had enough. You just got an infraction.

Darkfish, you're coming close to a permanant vacation. Stop with these insane posts. If you want to make a point, do it intelligently and with facts.

First, you are talking about 60 year old technology that has been surpassed by better designs and upgrades. Look up the Skyraider.

Second, every point you make about the P-47 being upgraded can also be said about the P-51, so the point is moot (look that word up).

Third, ITS OPINION and you will stop treating it as FACT!!!!

And here is a question if you haven't answered the one I posted in the Best Aircraft thread:

The US 8th AF stopped daylight bombing in Oct 1943 because they had no plane that could escort them all the way into Germany. When they resumed bombing in early 1944, what airplane did they rely upon to provide the escort? What airplane was escorting them BEFORE Oct 1943?

That is a fact.

Dark Matter · 08-21-2009, 09:49 PM

I'l go join that forum and write that.,..

Good Idea.

Dark Matter · 08-21-2009, 09:52 PM

The only plane that could do that was the P-51.

Oh look, The P-51 has one advantage, range.

I'm going to bed.
Night all!

B-17engineer · 08-21-2009, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Matter

The only plane that could do that was the P-51.

Oh look, The P-51 has one advantage, range.

I'm going to bed.
Night all!

I have been trying to say that all along...... Ugh.

FLYBOYJ · 08-22-2009, 12:29 AM

Dark Matter - are you trying to be an imbecile?

imalko · 08-22-2009, 01:05 AM

If he's trying to do that, then he is doing a good job. Another pointless argument here as it seems...

You have posted interesting link there timshatz (post #2). I can see the reasoning behind such a initiative and Columbia and some other South American nations have good experiences with Tucano in similar role I think. So, the question remains what type of aircraft would be best suited for US specific needs in this proposed new counterinsurgency squadron with the Air Force Special Operations Command. If prop driven aircraft is considered over the A-10, then there are far better platforms to be used then elderly P-47 (Skyraider immdeiatelly comes to my mind). But in my opinion some new design would be best suited with above mentioned Tucano being a good example.

Graeme · 08-22-2009, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Back in the 80's there was a turboprop version of the F-51. The idea didnt go anywhere.

There was an Australian businessman that tried the same thing here. An ex-RAAF Mustang (A68-187) was modified to take a Rolls-Royce Dart from a Vickers Viscount in the 1970's. Registration was VH-UFO. It never flew and was eventually restored to original condition. I don't know if it was intended for racing or an attempt to produce a viable cheap COIN aircraft or simply an impressively fast form of private transport.

vikingBerserker · 08-22-2009, 01:35 AM

Matt had an interesting post about a proposed COIN aircraft.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/mod...lane-4916.html (Stavatti SM-27M COIN Airplane)

GrauGeist · 08-22-2009, 02:29 AM

If you're looking for a flying dumptruck, then you just can't beat the Skyraider...that machine could create a tremendous amount of hurt...

Personally, I think they should stick with the A-10.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-22-2009, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Matter

The P-51 was faster becuase it was lighter and not as good of quality.

Please prove where it is not good quality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Matter

CHEAP PEICE OF JUNK!

You have no clue about aircraft design. Your posts make that very evident...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Matter

Why do you think teh P-47 was like 40,000 dollars more expensieve?

And dont give me teh answer "Becuase it was 3,000 pounds heviar!

See my answer above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Matter

Because I study it all friggen day long for the past 6 years!

6 years of research is not showing up very well here...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Matter

The P-47 did make a difference and was and is far better then the P-51!

It didnt need mods becuasei t was so freaking great!

What? Please explain. If you actually did research you would see the P-47 was modded and their were different versions because it had to be made better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Matter

It was kinda junk.

It wasnt totaly hopless but it was junk.

It was only designed in 120 days!

You are an idiot...

Please go someplace else.

I really do not want to resort to calling you such a thing, but I am tired of your trolling on this forum. If your opinion is that the P-47 was a better aircraft that is fine, but don't call it fact, and then not back it up with facts. You do not present a good argument as well, as it is not made up with facts.

In my opinion the P-47 was a better aircraft, but that is because I like its role better and its design better. However:

1. The P-51 was a marvelous aircraft. Your arguments will never prove that.
2. You are a troll...

So please go find someplace else to troll.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Matter

I joined that forum with the username'Moderater' and they never let me on.

They were smart, you are a troll. Either you quit your BS, or I will remove you from this forum faster that you can go and cry to your mother!

Until then, I present you with your diploma:

Njaco · 08-22-2009, 06:18 AM

He will probably actually print that out and put it on his wall. Jeez!

evangilder · 08-22-2009, 08:00 AM

Bud Anderson, who actually flew the P-51 in combat said:

Quote:

The P-51 was pleasant and forgiving to fly. Best of all, it went like Hell. The Merlin had great gobs of power, and was equally at home high or low, thanks to a two-stage, two-speed supercharger. The Mustang carried fuel enough to pursue and destroy the enemy once you'd flown to the target, and it could turn on a dime. It was crucial to keep it it trim but, as we gained experience with the plane, that became automatic. We sensed it was special, even before we measured it against what the enemy pilots were flying.

I will take a statement like that from an experienced combat pilot over someone who claims to have "studied aircraft for 7 years".

Anyone who calls the P-51 a "piece of junk" clearly has a lot more reading to do.

Dark Matter · 08-22-2009, 08:27 AM

The P-47 is superior when youi think about it.

I'd choose the P-47 anyday.

Just do some research and you will soon find out...

08-21-2009, 09:48 PM	#32
B-17engineer Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: New Jersey..The Garden State! Posts: 9,207	Wow. Well you still have nothing on why the P-51 was a Piece of Junk or hopeless.... Do you have any accounts of the US Air Force saying it was hopeless or a pilot saying it was a piece of junk? __________________ Sh! I'm hunting Wabits! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe36UMRkRbk

08-21-2009, 09:49 PM	#33
Njaco The Pop-Tart Whisperer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: South Jersey, United States Posts: 11,820	I've had enough. You just got an infraction. Darkfish, you're coming close to a permanant vacation. Stop with these insane posts. If you want to make a point, do it intelligently and with facts. First, you are talking about 60 year old technology that has been surpassed by better designs and upgrades. Look up the Skyraider. Second, every point you make about the P-47 being upgraded can also be said about the P-51, so the point is moot (look that word up). Third, ITS OPINION and you will stop treating it as FACT!!!! And here is a question if you haven't answered the one I posted in the Best Aircraft thread: The US 8th AF stopped daylight bombing in Oct 1943 because they had no plane that could escort them all the way into Germany. When they resumed bombing in early 1944, what airplane did they rely upon to provide the escort? What airplane was escorting them BEFORE Oct 1943? That is a fact. __________________ "If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's English, thank a soldier!" http://www.njcacoa.org/

08-22-2009, 12:29 AM	#37
FLYBOYJ IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 16,863	Dark Matter - are you trying to be an imbecile? __________________ > I Support Doug Gillis <

08-22-2009, 01:05 AM	#38
imalko Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Vojvodina, Serbia Posts: 1,961	If he's trying to do that, then he is doing a good job. Another pointless argument here as it seems... You have posted interesting link there timshatz (post #2). I can see the reasoning behind such a initiative and Columbia and some other South American nations have good experiences with Tucano in similar role I think. So, the question remains what type of aircraft would be best suited for US specific needs in this proposed new counterinsurgency squadron with the Air Force Special Operations Command. If prop driven aircraft is considered over the A-10, then there are far better platforms to be used then elderly P-47 (Skyraider immdeiatelly comes to my mind). But in my opinion some new design would be best suited with above mentioned Tucano being a good example. __________________ "Find your enemy and shoot him down - everything else is unimportant."

08-22-2009, 01:35 AM	#40
vikingBerserker Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: South Carolina Posts: 6,174	Matt had an interesting post about a proposed COIN aircraft. http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/mod...lane-4916.html (Stavatti SM-27M COIN Airplane) __________________ Take arrows in your forehead, but never in your back. - Samurai maxim

08-21-2009, 09:46 PM	#31
Dark Matter Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 382	I joined that forum with the username'Moderater' and they never let me on.

08-21-2009, 09:52 PM	#35
Dark Matter Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 382	The only plane that could do that was the P-51. Oh look, The P-51 has one advantage, range. I'm going to bed. Night all!

08-22-2009, 02:29 AM	#41
GrauGeist Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Redding, California Posts: 3,981	If you're looking for a flying dumptruck, then you just can't beat the Skyraider...that machine could create a tremendous amount of hurt... Personally, I think they should stick with the A-10. __________________ "Look back over the past, with its changing empires that rose and fell, and you can foresee the future." - Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome > I Support Doug Gillis <

08-22-2009, 06:18 AM	#43
Njaco The Pop-Tart Whisperer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: South Jersey, United States Posts: 11,820	He will probably actually print that out and put it on his wall. Jeez! __________________ "If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's English, thank a soldier!" http://www.njcacoa.org/

08-22-2009, 08:27 AM	#45
Dark Matter Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 382	The P-47 is superior when youi think about it. I'd choose the P-47 anyday. Just do some research and you will soon find out...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode