P-38 Lightning vs P-51 Mustang: Which was the Better Fighter?

[Milosh]

I put drgondog's post to a P-38 fanatic and this was his reply:

Imagine 2 apposing air-forces. Each air-force have only one type for ALL TYPES OF MISSIONS (intercepting, ground attack/bombing, air-superiority etc) which would you use?

Left out a few mission types: What about photo/recon, torpedo attacking, dive bombing, strategic level bombing, coastal-shipping attacking, night fighter, strike fighter? There is not one of these roles that the Mustang even comes close to performing as well as the P-38.

"Imagine" that cost is important - both acquisition and spares, crew training and maintenance, operating cost (fuel, oil)..

Advantage - by 2:1 ratio aquisition cost ------> Mustang
Advantage - by 2:1 ratio operating expense---> Mustang

Although the P-38 did cost more than the P-51, The above 2:1 ratio is an exaggeration. By war's end, the P-38's price was a little over $97,000 while that of the P-51 was a little less than $51,000. Also, the P-38 had nowhere near twice the fuel consumption of the P-51, nor had it twice the oil consuption. Maintenance on those two engines probably approached the 2:1 mark, but two P-51s had twice as many radios, twice as many instruments (except engine istruments), twice as many control surfaces with their controls, one third more landing gear (not counting the P-51's tail wheel), twice as many cockpit controls/canopies, and one third more propeller blades (not to mention twice as many constant speed propeller systems). All of these required maintenance, regardless of which airplane they were associated with.

"Imagine" the P-38 losing and engine during take off - big torque roll with split seconds to recover - and visualize big hole at the end of the runway killing pilot and totally destroying the P-38. P-51 pilot bellies it in, minimal damage to P-51 and pilot OK.

Losing an engine on takeoff was certainly a problem with the P-38, but a manageable problem. And whereas every takeoff in a P-51 was threatened by high torque and P-factor, there was none of this with a normal takeoff in the P-38. And, once proper corrective action was taken by a properly trained pilot, the P-38 could make a go-around and execute a safe landing. Not so with a P-51.

Imagine P-51H which climbs about the same as a 38J, depending on weight, runs faster, dives faster than best P-38.. booming and zooming

One point here: Even though the P-51H had begun delivery at the very end of the war (I think it didn't fly until Feb. 1945), there were only 555 built, and it was no more a WWII fighter than the F7F, F8F, F-80, or the F4U-5 or F4U-7.

Also, the P-51H's main claim to fame was speed. When compared to the P-51D, it had less range, lower ceiling, the same armament, and was not as rugged. The P-38 could fly higher, and farther than the P-51H, and it could carry twice the bombload. It could climb as fast, and, even though its maximum diving speed was lower than that of the P-51H, it could accelerate into a dive faster.

Imagine P-51 pilot able to spot P-38 farther away than P-38 pilot can spot Mustang (same eyesight assumed), which puts the Mustang in a position to decide whether it can attack from a superior tactical position or leave if not favorable

This is true, but during the war, there were instances where Luftwaffe fighters did not attack American bombers because they could see from a distance that they were escorted by P-38s. What better protection could a bomber crew want?

"Imagine an Air Force that only has a limited budget and has to spend twice as much for the P-38's as the Mustangs to acquire and support.

Adressed above.

The Mustangs were FAR more effective in bomber escort, far more effecive in air superiority and far more effective in destruction of enemy aircraft on the ground, had fewer training accidents, cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate - plus or minus the same performance - harder to see.

Again an exaggeration. The use of the word "far" is not appropriate here. Also, if, and that is a very big if, the P-51 destroyed far more enemy aircraft on the ground, it would have been in the 8th Airforce where the P-38s were restricted from leaving the bombers whereas the Mustangs were later released to attack targets of opportunity on their way home. And their were far more P-51s in the Eighth than there were P-38s. For a more fair comparison, consider the performance of the P-38 as a ground attack fighter in the 9th, 12th and 14th Airforces in the Med and over the Continent (not to mention the 5th Airforce in the Pacific).

Even with twin engines the P-38 had a terrible ratio for aircraft destroyed on the ground to the number of aircraft (P-3 lost while strafing - while the twin engines offered some reliabilty when an engine was lost to mechanical reasons, a coolant hit or fuel/fuel fuel line was curtains for both of them - an the P-38 was an easier target to see and hit by flak crews.

The P-38 was a far better ground attack/close support fighter than the P-51. Its concentrated firepower, which included a 20 mm cannon, was more effective against all types of targets--including light armor. It could carry 4000 pounds of bombs and ten rockets as opposed to 2000 pounds for the P-51D/H. And the P-51s could only carry six rockets when they were carrying any bombs.

As far as surviveability on ground attack missions is concerned, both fighters were susceptible to ground fire, but, in the abscence of engine fire, the P-38 was the more surviveable of the two. It had two engines to be knocked out, and those two engines provided good protection for the pilot from all but head-on fire; those guns up front helped from that angle. Also, the late-model P-38s had fire sensors and extinguishers, so they had a chance even with an engine fire. And if the plane was doomed, the Lightning, with one good engine, had the possibility to leave the immediate area and climb high enough to allow the pilot to parachute to safety. Not so the P-51.

So, when comparing the P-51 to the P-38, things are not so cut-and-dried. Although I understand P-51 fanboy's enthusiasm for "his" plane, he tends to exaggerate the qualities of the Mustang while underestimating those of the Lightning

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Left out a few mission types: What about photo/recon, torpedo attacking, dive bombing, strategic level bombing, coastal-shipping attacking, night fighter, strike fighter? There is not one of these roles that the Mustang even comes close to performing as well as the P-38.

Funny, he did not leave any missions out. See the "etc." at the end of his post. That means Et cetera, which means "other things", "other types", "among other things", etc.

See how I used etc. at the end of that last sentence?

Although the P-38 did cost more than the P-51, The above 2:1 ratio is an exaggeration. By war's end, the P-38's price was a little over $97,000 while that of the P-51 was a little less than $51,000.

That would make it approx. 2:1 would it not? Not quite, but about 2:1, correct?

$97,000/$51,000 = 1.9

Not quite an exaggeration is it?

So who is the fanboy now?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Imagine" the P-38 losing and engine during take off - big torque roll with split seconds to recover - and visualize big hole at the end of the runway killing pilot and totally destroying the P-38. P-51 pilot bellies it in, minimal damage to P-51 and pilot OK

Engine out procedures were developed for the P-38 and it's obvious that your contact knows nothing about twin engine aircraft operation. The P-38 had no "critical" engine (or two critical engines if you like the glass half empty) because the propellers turned opposite of one another. Engine out procedures gave you the same result on either side and you actually had to reduce power on the good engine when going through emergency procedures on the bad engine.

 

[renrich]

Engine trouble was a big bug a boo with those big recip engines. Having two engines meant that engine trouble was twice as likely to happen. One pilot in WW2 said of the P38, "it needed two engines so it would have one to come back on". Perhaps that helps explain the following in the ETO:

P38 sorties per loss-74
P51 sorties per loss-85

 

[Milosh]

Engine out procedures were developed for the P-38 and it's obvious that your contact knows nothing about twin engine aircraft operation. The P-38 had no "critical" engine (or two critical engines if you like the glass half empty) because the propellers turned opposite of one another. Engine out procedures gave you the same result on either side and you actually had to reduce power on the good engine when going through emergency procedures on the bad engine.

FLYBOY, that is drgondog's text.

Adler, would say fanatic = fanboy? I agree, but sometimes Mr. P-38 only reads what he wants to read. He is, afaik, USAF in Germany.

The AAFSD only lists costs for 1944 for both a/c,

P-38 - $97,147
P-51 - $51,572

P-51 1945 - $50,985

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

FLYBOY, that is drgondog's text.

Adler, would say fanatic = fanboy? I agree, but sometimes Mr. P-38 only reads what he wants to read.

That was my point...

The AAFSD only lists costs for 1944 for both a/c,

P-38 - $97,147
P-51 - $51,572

P-51 1945 - $50,985

Still about 2:1...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FLYBOY, that is drgondog's text.

Really?

He knows better than that!

 

[drgondog]

I put drgondog's post to a P-38 fanatic and this was his reply:

Left out a few mission types: What about photo/recon, torpedo attacking, dive bombing, strategic level bombing, coastal-shipping attacking, night fighter, strike fighter? There is not one of these roles that the Mustang even comes close to performing as well as the P-38.

The P-38 was an excellent airframe. Period. To the point of "torpedo attacking", "Strategic Bombing", "Night Fighter", "Coastal-shipping attacking"...
1.) From a historical note, the P-38 had a far greater load carring capability - no question. From a P-51 'family perspective' however, the P-82/F-82 was a far superior Night Fighter, Long Range All Weather Interceptor and equally capable as a load carrying airframe. Conversely the P-38 had no family 'extension' as a single engine version of the Lightning.

2. The Droop Snoot was used a couple of times to lead bomb carrying missions of other P-38s. Did it - wasn't great at it.

3. Night fighter capability interesting but in context of 'success' or a good reason to keep the P-38 in hte USSAAF or USAF inventory in prteference to the P-82, it was inferior from a 'potential' standpoint and far less successful than the P-61. The F-82 replaced the P-61 in that role post WWII.

4. The F-6 was a superb photo recon ship, not sure the P-38 can claim victory there. It set a long range

5. The A-36 was an excellent dive bomber long before that role was contemplated for the P-38. The P-38 sucked performing dives of any kind until dive flaps were installed late in the war.

Conclusions? The Air Deemed the Mustang as the superior airframe and combined the family into the single system to bridge the USAF into the jet age with P-82, P-51D, P-51H performing Long range bomber escort, long range interceptor, long range all weather/Day-Night fighter.

Although the P-38 did cost more than the P-51, The above 2:1 ratio is an exaggeration. By war's end, the P-38's price was a little over $97,000 while that of the P-51 was a little less than $51,000. Also, the P-38 had nowhere near twice the fuel consumption of the P-51, nor had it twice the oil consuption.

Close enough for this discussion

Maintenance on those two engines probably approached the 2:1 mark, but two P-51s had twice as many radios, twice as many instruments (except engine istruments), twice as many control surfaces with their controls, one third more landing gear (not counting the P-51's tail wheel), twice as many cockpit controls/canopies, and one third more propeller blades (not to mention twice as many constant speed propeller systems). All of these required maintenance, regardless of which airplane they were associated with.

True, on instruments, etc but the engine and cooling system were the key maintenance items.. P-38 had two turbo superchargers, and complex intercooler radiator systems plus more plumbing to keep the systems connected.

One point here: Even though the P-51H had begun delivery at the very end of the war (I think it didn't fly until Feb. 1945), there were only 555 built, and it was no more a WWII fighter than the F7F, F8F, F-80, or the F4U-5 or F4U-7.

True - and the same can be said about the comments I just made about the P-82 - but the extensibility of the P-51 family into a twin engine high performance fighter with a crew of two made it more desirable than the P-38 projected into similar roles.

Also, the P-51H's main claim to fame was speed. When compared to the P-51D, it had less range, lower ceiling, the same armament, and was not as rugged.

That would not be true on all accounts except for one point.

When the H was designed it had a slightly lower ultimate design load factor than the D. Having said that, the D design ultimate was 12G at 8,000 pounds - which translated to far less stress capability at normal gross weights - the P-51H was 11G at 8800. BTW the P-38 also suffered from reduced ultimate G capability due to its own escalation of Gross weight over the early versions to the P-38L


The P-38 could fly higher, and farther than the P-51H, and it could carry twice the bombload.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-tactical-chart.jpg

Looking at the tech manuals for both, there are two things you can say. The P-38 COULD carry 2x1600 pound bombs but the standard load outs for the P-51D, P-51H and P-38J/L were 2x1000 pounders or 2x500 pounders. The P-38 could carry a lot more internal fuel but rated for 2260 miles in Ferry condition with max internal and external fuel of 1024 gallons (2x300 gallons external) - versus 2900 miles for P-51H in Ferry condition with 2x165 gallon external) plus 255 gallons internal - 580 total.

P-51H then travels 600 miles further with 500 gallons fewer.

While not fair to contrast the P-82 to to the P-38, the 82 flew much faster and farther and had a greater payload.


It could climb as fast, and, even though its maximum diving speed was lower than that of the P-51H, it could accelerate into a dive faster.

Your sources? The P-38L had a slight edge in level flight acceleration from 250mph... not enough to be significant - and the ALL versions of the 51 were cleaner than all versions of the 38 giving it dive performance far exceeding the 38.

Also, if, and that is a very big if, the P-51 destroyed far more enemy aircraft on the ground, it would have been in the 8th Airforce where the P-38s were restricted from leaving the bombers whereas the Mustangs were later released to attack targets of opportunity on their way home.

I will produce the 8th AF results but the final statistics of air to air and air to ground are totals for the entire USAAF and do not include any RAF or RAAF statistics for the Mustang.

The 20th, 55th, 364th and 479th FG in the 8th AF were under Precisely the same rules of engagement as the Mustang Groups, namely destroy the LW in the air and the ground' - the P-38 just was less successful in the ETO while they were flying side by side with the P-51s on the same mission profile of target escort.

As far as surviveability on ground attack missions is concerned, both fighters were susceptible to ground fire, but, in the abscence of engine fire, the P-38 was the more surviveable of the two.

Common misconception. - at least for the ETO - In the ETO the P-38 lost significantly higher % ratio than the Mustang per German a/c destroyed on the ground -

So, when comparing the P-51 to the P-38, things are not so cut-and-dried. Although I understand P-51 fanboy's enthusiasm for "his" plane, he tends to exaggerate the qualities of the Mustang while underestimating those of the Lightning

If the gentleman in question is referring to me as 'fanboy' I would simply offer him facts and let him check his own..

Not missing the qualities of the Mustang versus Lightning at all - neither did the USAAF and USAF planning leaders post war when they chose the Mustang over the Thunderbolt and Lightning...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Shazam!

 

[drgondog]

Milosh - back to the final points not addressed above - quotes are mine and your P-38 guy's comments are in italics
Quote:
Imagine P-51 pilot able to spot P-38 farther away than P-38 pilot can spot Mustang (same eyesight assumed), which puts the Mustang in a position to decide whether it can attack from a superior tactical position or leave if not favorable

This is true, but during the war, there were instances where Luftwaffe fighters did not attack American bombers because they could see from a distance that they were escorted by P-38s. What better protection could a bomber crew want?

The point was the disadvantage to a P-38 against the Me 109 or Fw 190 when the P-38 could be spotted and identified. The LW pilots could, and did, select a tactical approach to attack the 38s with favorable advantage of altitude (for example).

Quote:
The Mustangs were FAR more effective in bomber escort, far more effecive in air superiority and far more effective in destruction of enemy aircraft on the ground, had fewer training accidents, cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate - plus or minus the same performance - harder to see.

Again an exaggeration. The use of the word "far" is not appropriate here. Also, if, and that is a very big if, the P-51 destroyed far more enemy aircraft on the ground, it would have been in the 8th Airforce where the P-38s were restricted from leaving the bombers whereas the Mustangs were later released to attack targets of opportunity on their way home. And their were far more P-51s in the Eighth than there were P-38s. For a more fair comparison, consider the performance of the P-38 as a ground attack fighter in the 9th, 12th and 14th Airforces in the Med and over the Continent (not to mention the 5th Airforce in the Pacific).

The fair comparison is the most hostile environment and theatre during WWII - namely the ETO - as far as Allied fighters strafing Axis airfields. Second point re: ETO numbers of P-51s versus P-38s. True that after March 1944 there were more P-51s than P-38s in the ETO, but from October, 1943 through March, 1944 the P-38s exceeded or equaled the P-51s in the 8th AF. (Three operational groups each.)

Having said this, The first LW a/c destroyed on the ground following Doolittle's order was by the 78th on 6 February, 1944. (A P-47 Group). The three primary 8th AF P-38 Groups (20th, 55th, 364th and 479th destroyed a grand total of 57 LW aircraft on the ground through the end of July 1944 when they then converted to P-51s. The 479th went on to destroy 102 on the Ground during September to outscore the other three P-38 FG's combined.

Contrast those numbers with the ground totals of the 4th and 355th just for March and April, 1944 (4th-158 Destroyed on Ground, 355th- 134 Destroyed on the ground. Each of the two P-51 groups alone, in just those two months, nearly exceeded ALL of the combined P-38 groups for ALL of their 8th AF history. For those two months the 20th, 55th and 364th destroyed a combined 29.5 on the ground.

Both the P-38 and Mustang groups were flying the same missions to the same targets at the same time.


Quote:
Even with twin engines the P-38 had a terrible ratio for aircraft destroyed on the ground to the number of aircraft (P-3 lost while strafing - while the twin engines offered some reliabilty when an engine was lost to mechanical reasons, a coolant hit or fuel/fuel fuel line was curtains for both of them - an the P-38 was an easier target to see and hit by flak crews.

The P-38 was a far better ground attack/close support fighter than the P-51. Its concentrated firepower, which included a 20 mm cannon, was more effective against all types of targets--including light armor. It could carry 4000 pounds of bombs and ten rockets as opposed to 2000 pounds for the P-51D/H. And the P-51s could only carry six rockets when they were carrying any bombs.

Their record with the 8th AF did not reflect that relative to strafing airfields. As they 8th didn't do much CAS it is hard to say relative to ETO - maybe some statistics are available for MTO or PTO.

Neither the Mustang or Lightning groups in the 8th, except during the Normandy campaign, flew CAS. The P-38 had two external racks capable of 1600 pounds each, for either the 300 gallon ferry tank or the bombs but rarely carried either. For Ground support role in 8th the load out was either 2x500 or 2x250, occasionally 2x1000, for most missions for both fighters - although the P-38 clearly had a greater load capacity.

As far as surviveability on ground attack missions is concerned, both fighters were susceptible to ground fire, but, in the abscence of engine fire, the P-38 was the more surviveable of the two. It had two engines to be knocked out, and those two engines provided good protection for the pilot from all but head-on fire; those guns up front helped from that angle. Also, the late-model P-38s had fire sensors and extinguishers, so they had a chance even with an engine fire. And if the plane was doomed, the Lightning, with one good engine, had the possibility to leave the immediate area and climb high enough to allow the pilot to parachute to safety. Not so the P-51.

Logic would point to your statement being true - Howver the P-38 survivability, statistically, relative to aircraft lost strafing per aircraft destroyed was significantly less than the 51 in the 8th AF... There are no known statistics which can point back to the reasons the 51 was more effective in this category so one can only speculate that a.) the 38 was an easier target to hit because of the size and ability to spot and prepare for, and b.) was more prone to fire because of the many fuel tanks in the wings - but that is speculation. Facts are that the P-38s lost twice as many ships per a/c destroyed on an airfield when compared to Mustang.


Milosh - pass this statistical set to your friend.

 

[drgondog]

Some additional thoughts;
The October 1944 Fighter Conference at Patuxent River brought in fighter pilots from all services to evaluate and compare the US fighter inventory across a wide range of attributes including climb, accleration, turn manueverability, range, etc

Here are some of the results contrasting P-51D-15 and P-38J-25..
Profile Drag - P-51D=.0176 or 4.1 sq ft; P-38J=.0270 or 8.84 sq ft
L/D - P-51D= 14.92; P-38= 14.28
Range (max internal fuel) P-51D =1250; P-38J/L=1170 @10,000 ft/most economical power
Turning Performance- no flaps
P-51D speed for 3G stall = 159mph; P-38J/L= 170mph (both ranked better than P-47D-30 and F4U-1D)
P-51D minimum radius (compared to FM-2 index of 12.) = 21.5; P-38J/L= 24.6

Note - the 51D was ranked behind the FM-2 (best), P-63A-9, P-61B-1 and FF6F-5 in that order
Acceleration starting from 250mph and applying Military Power
P-51D =3.85; P-38J/L=4.13 ft/sec/sec - By contrast F4U-1D=3.33 and F6F=2.60
Limit Dive Speed
P-51D =505mph IAS, 1G; P-38J/L=440mph IAS; P-47D-30= 505mph IAS; F4U-1D=443mph
Initial Dive acceleration for P-38 slight better than P-51 at nose over, but caught and passed quickly by P-51.
The P-38J/L climbed significantly better than the P-51D, slightly better than the P-51B and less than the P-51H.

 

[Shortround6]

Good posts drgondog.

My own take on this is that while the P-38 was, in some cases, not allowed to reach it's full potential that potential was not going to equal the Mustangs potential or actual performance. This is hardly surprising as the Mustang, being about 3 years newer, is at least a half a generation (if not a full generation) ahead of the P-38. In structure as well as aerodynamics.

As far as some of the capabilities of the P-38 go, it is a larger airplane, and in even the early versions it was a 2300hp airplane. It should be able to do certain things better, like carry bombs.
The torpedo carrying ability however is a bit of a stretch, the widely published photos a one or two experimental planes carrying torpedoes (or mock ups) is not the same as operational capability.

A different take on the ground strafing thing comes from the CBI theater. There it has been said for every P-38 lost in strafing missions there would be 3 P-47s lost or 4 p-51s lost on comparable missions. The magazine article offers no other statistics and considering the number of P-38s in theater (two squadrons?) there may not have been a big enough data base to draw a valid conclusion, hanger tales aside. P-38s were known to have returned from missions on one engine for distance of over 600 miles.

Given the age of the P-38 I would say that is amazing the two planes are as close as they are, but the nod has to go to the Mustang even if the P-38 goes to what ifs like the "K" model.

 

[drgondog]

Good posts drgondog.

Thanks SR.. I'm often wrong but never uncertain.. Lol

My own take on this is that while the P-38 was, in some cases, not allowed to reach it's full potential that potential was not going to equal the Mustangs potential or actual performance. This is hardly surprising as the Mustang, being about 3 years newer, is at least a half a generation (if not a full generation) ahead of the P-38. In structure as well as aerodynamics.

I agree your points. As a weapons System I believe the P-38 because of its performance and size was the better ship, stripping economics out of the equation. As a Fighter I kinda think of the contrast between the F-4 and the F-16 as analogous to the P-38 vs P-51 argument.



As far as some of the capabilities of the P-38 go, it is a larger airplane, and in even the early versions it was a 2300hp airplane. It should be able to do certain things better, like carry bombs.
The torpedo carrying ability however is a bit of a stretch, the widely published photos a one or two experimental planes carrying torpedoes (or mock ups) is not the same as operational capability.

I had the same basic thought but didn't dive into it any more than dwelling on the 'Night Fighter' mission.. different thing to be 'able to' and 'be successful at'.. One wonder what the WSO in back felt about his chances of a.) bailing out, or b.) surviving a ditching, or c.) being able to use a relief tube.

A different take on the ground strafing thing comes from the CBI theater. There it has been said for every P-38 lost in strafing missions there would be 3 P-47s lost or 4 p-51s lost on comparable missions. The magazine article offers no other statistics and considering the number of P-38s in theater (two squadrons?) there may not have been a big enough data base to draw a valid conclusion, hanger tales aside. P-38s were known to have returned from missions on one engine for distance of over 600 miles.

I make no argument that the Mustang was the best choice for long over water flights where two engines Do make a difference when one fails. I have often wondered why statistically the P-38 did not do well in airfield strafing role in ETO, however, and I spent a lot of time looking at the topic. The variables include intangibles like leadership, lack of fuel at the tail end of Break Escort w/o enough remaining to get on the deck and zip across der Faterland at high speed like the 51. On the other hand there is zero question that when Zemke took over the 479th/P-38 Group that they had 'esprit' in great quantity and they showed it in September 1944.

Given the age of the P-38 I would say that is amazing the two planes are as close as they are, but the nod has to go to the Mustang even if the P-38 goes to what ifs like the "K" model.

Shortround - I think the great intangible between the two ships was the benchmark aerodynamics, including a laminar flow wing that proved a delay in transonic drag rise and shock wave movement from the first prototype to the last.

Given the great drag capabilities and a damned fine airframe the 51, particularly as manifested in the P-51H, had room to grow into a damned fine twin with phoenomenal speed and range - giving it much better performance than the P-61 as well as greater payload than the P-38.

In this debate I have always focused on the Fighter and not the Weapons System and readily agree that if you could only pick one fighter for your inventory of land based fighters (and resources are no issue), I would choose the P-38L (or K), P-47N and F4U-1D and P-51H at the end of the war and have to spend a lot of time thinking about the likely missions going forward.

 

[parsifal]

Great discussion guys, if a little emotive

 

[renrich]

It does not take a genius to determine that the P38 is going to be easier to hit with flak or MG fire than a much smaller single engine fighter. Bigger target! Also many more vulnerable places that can bring down the airplane. A mallard is easier to get hits on than a teal, given the same range and same speed.

 

[drgondog]

At the very end of the discussion, as the jet age arrived and the USAA/USAF was facing severe budget contraints and had to make a decsion which few piston engine fighters were desirable to compliment US warmaking capability - the USAAF/USAF picked the P-51D/H and the P-82 - which replaced the P-38L, the P-47D/M/N, the P-61 for all the missions the P-38 (and P-47 and P-61) was tasked to do.

 

[timshatz]

At the very end of the discussion, as the jet age arrived and the USAA/USAF was facing severe budget contraints and had to make a decsion which few piston engine fighters were desirable to compliment US warmaking capability - the USAAF/USAF picked the P-51D/H and the P-82 - which replaced the P-38L, the P-47D/M/N, the P-61 for all the missions the P-38 (and P-47 and P-61) was tasked to do.

Don't know about the P61/P38 mix but I do know the P51 was a lot cheaper to make than the P47 (even though the P47 was more rugged and the P51 was being kept for ground attack).

 

[drgondog]

Don't know about the P61/P38 mix but I do know the P51 was a lot cheaper to make than the P47 (even though the P47 was more rugged and the P51 was being kept for ground attack).

Very true Tim, and the P-47 was a closer contender as a 'keeper' primarily because of the long range performance of the N and the much better economics of both the 51 and the 47 over the 38.

 

[Jabberwocky]

At the very end of the discussion, as the jet age arrived and the USAA/USAF was facing severe budget contraints and had to make a decsion which few piston engine fighters were desirable to compliment US warmaking capability - the USAAF/USAF picked the P-51D/H and the P-82 - which replaced the P-38L, the P-47D/M/N, the P-61 for all the missions the P-38 (and P-47 and P-61) was tasked to do.

The USAF held large stocks of P-47s, particularly Ds but some Ns as well.

Most went to the Air National Guard on the East coast. Twenty-six ANG fighter squadrons, primarily in the East, South, Puerto Rico and Hawaii, were assigned P-47s.

One of the reasons that the P-51 was used in Korea over the P-47 was that the P-51 ANG units were stationed on the West coast, so had better positioning for spares, transport, crew rotations ect, ect. Forty-one squadrons, generally in the West and Midwest, operated P-51Ds.

Five ANG units operated P-80s. 12 operated B-26s (Invaders, not Marauders).

My knowledge of US geography is a little hazy, but I believe that the P-47/P-51 allocations generally broke down on grounds of proximity to production plants. Republic had plants in New York and Indiana, whereas North American had plants in California and Texas.

 

[drgondog]

The USAF held large stocks of P-47s, particularly Ds but some Ns as well.

Most went to the Air National Guard on the East coast. Twenty-six ANG fighter squadrons, primarily in the East, South, Puerto Rico and Hawaii, were assigned P-47s.

One of the reasons that the P-51 was used in Korea over the P-47 was that the P-51 ANG units were stationed on the West coast, so had better positioning for spares, transport, crew rotations ect, ect. Forty-one squadrons, generally in the West and Midwest, operated P-51Ds.

Another reason is that active US Fighter Bomber Wings in Japan and Okinawa were organized around F-51's. My father once commanded the 35th FBW based at Johnson AFB near Tokyo, and the ROK AF (ditto RAAF) was organized around F-51's. The D's were deployed instead of the H because SAC had all the F-51H's and kept them in the States (IIRC)

Five ANG units operated P-80s. 12 operated B-26s (Invaders, not Marauders).

My knowledge of US geography is a little hazy, but I believe that the P-47/P-51 allocations generally broke down on grounds of proximity to production plants. Republic had plants in New York and Indiana, whereas North American had plants in California and Texas.

Difficult to establish that connection. For example the 56th FG became the 56th Fighter Interceptor Group under SAC, post war and transitioned to P-51H in 1946 - then later P-80 - based at Selfridge MI. The 'South' would be generally closer to Texas, Ditto Puerto Rico.