p51 vs p47

[Jank]

Thought the P-47N was a better escort plane than the Mustangt.

[plan_D]

The P-47N was extremely late in the war and probably was a superior escort fighter to the P-51D - but so what? You could get more P-51s in the air than P-47s. P-51s could handle themselves in the air and they were the best escort fighter from a countries point of view.

I already said they were not the best dogfighter, they were not the best interceptor, they were not the best bomber destroyer, they were not the best ground attack aircraft but they were the best escort fighter.

They got those bombers to Berlin and back better than anything else out there. It might have been due to high numbers but you cannot build high numbers of a complicated aircraft. The P-51 was a sturdy, reliable, easy aircraft.

I don't care if a Bf-109K-4 could out-climb it - the P-51 wasn't an interceptor. I don't care if a Fw-190D-9 could out-roll it, the P-51 wasn't a dogfighter. I don't care if the Typhoon packed more of a punch, the P-51 wasn't a ground attack aircraft or a bomber destroyer. It was an escort fighter and escort fighters do one thing - they keep the interceptors off the bombers and the P-51 did that, it kept the daylight offensive alive.

Before anyone mentions it - I know the A-36 was a ground attack aircraft.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I don't care if a Bf-109K-4 could out-climb it - the P-51 wasn't an interceptor. I don't care if a Fw-190D-9 could out-roll it, the P-51 wasn't a dogfighter. I don't care if the Typhoon packed more of a punch, the P-51 wasn't a ground attack aircraft or a bomber destroyer. It was an escort fighter and escort fighters do one thing - they keep the interceptors off the bombers and the P-51 did that, it kept the daylight offensive alive.

Well put

[d_bader]

I feel that the p-47 was underated and has not been given the credit it is due but however i voted 4 the p-51 because it is the one i would prefer to fly if i had the option.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by plan_D

the simple design was something that allowed the U.S to produce it in such numbers to allow that many in the sky.

The P51/A36 used a laminar flow wing design. While this type of wing is very efficient, its also very complicated to build in quantity. NAA performed a miracle in tool design that this type of wing could be built to very tight tolerances in a mass production enviornment.

A saying came about in WWII that describes the Mustang well: "The Mustang won't do what a Spitfire does, but it does it over Berlin". ....They weren't the best turning planes in the air, but by the time they were widely in use pilots understood that turning was a very limited performance characteristic in combat - what was required of newer fighters was speed. And the P51 had it in droves; it was faster than almost everything in the air, climbed reasonably well, and suffered much less high speed maneuverability loss than most of its opponents, due to the wing design.

[wmaxt]

First the P-38 kept the daylite raids going before the appearance of the P-51 escorts by themselves for the first two months and parity of the P-51/P-38 was not reached untill the end of May '44. The P-51 after that and was adopted fir two reasons it was easier to build in numbers and the desire to cut as much out of the logistics demand as possible (as confirmed by Doolittle himself the man who the final decision in the ETO), period.

The P-51 came at a time that gave the 8th an excuse for not escorting the bombers from the start, that the P-38 wasn't used but was available was an embarassment that would have otherwise cost Arnold, Eaker and Spatz their jobs.

One example of the attitude was that only 165gal drop tanks were ever used in the ETO Though 300 gallon tanks were available and in use everywhare else in the world, this limited the range of the early P-38 just enough to give the P-51 an ~ 100mi range advantage.

The P-38, as an example, had better performance every where except cruise speed, In the 8th (the only place we have a direct comparison) a better kill/loss record (twice the P-51) and was 3.82 times (adjusted for sorties) more likely to come home. The P-38 escort in the 8th was against a more experianced foe who also had numerical superority.

As for cost, even today a pilot is the most expensive part of a fighter, the loss of 4 P-51 pilots for each P-38 pilot is a lot. The P-51 was cheapper to buy and fuel.

The P-51 was the worst of the AAF fighters from a ground attack point of view even including the P-40 that could carry about as much and less suceptable to ground fire.

The P-51 was a competant fighter that had numerical superiorority over a diminished enemy. The P-51 smothered the German fighters more than out fought them. Very Overrated.

wmaxt

[plan_D]

The P-38 didn't keep the daylight raids alive. The US 8th Air Force was on the brink of cancellation of daylight raids until the Mustang came along. But you're absolutely right about the two reasons it was chosen but there just might have been another reason. The P-38 was a harder aircraft to fly than the P-51. The P-51 was a rookie's machine, and most airmen were rookies.

The P-38 was more expensive to build, harder to fly and harder to build. It wasn't a good war weapon. The P-51 could be up there in larger numbers due to it's design.

No, during World War II life was cheap. It was the cheapest in the Soviet Union and Germany but it was still cheap in the Western Democracy. It needed to be cheap or we would have lost the war. The U.S could train pilots at an extremely high rate, high rate enough to say; man all their air force? Which they did and there was more to their air force because there was a nice easy plane to build, the P-51.

Entering combat at a higher speed than your opponent is a distinct advantage. The P-51 entered combat on the advantage almost everytime, even if it was on it's own. But, you're right, it smothered it's enemy and the ability to do so was from the fact that the plane was cheap and easy to build.

The pilots like the P-38 better but who cares what they say? It's the production that'll win the war, they're just the middle-man. # for $ wins wars, not turning circles.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

The P-51 was a competant fighter that had numerical superiorority over a diminished enemy. The P-51 smothered the German fighters more than out fought them. Very Overrated.

wmaxt

Agreed with overwellming numerical numbers in fact.

[syscom3]

When you make a list of all the factors that make up a fighter, the P51 was good in enough of them to make it overall, a high quality aircraft. Best in all catagories? No. Good in all of the catagories? YES!

Was there some glaring defect in the plane that made it substandard? Or are the Spit and 109/190 fans jealous that the range of the Mustang enabled it to fly to where the action was when those other planes were on the ground refueling?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

When you make a list of all the factors that make up a fighter, the P51 was good in enough of them to make it overall, a high quality aircraft. Best in all catagories? No. Good in all of the catagories? YES!

When you make up a lilst of all the factors that make up a fighter was the 109/190/152 eneogh to make them the best? No. Good in all catagories? YES!

Originally Posted by syscom3

Was there some glaring defect in the plane that made it substandard? Or are the Spit and 109/190 fans jealous that the range of the Mustang enabled it to fly to where the action was when those other planes were on the ground refueling?

No the range was the 51's only real relevant advantage. When it was taking the fight to Germany, the German fighters did not need the range, they just had to go up and fight.

Are the Mustange fans just jealous that it was overated?

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by "DerAdlerIstGelandet

No the range was the 51's only real relevant advantage. When it was taking the fight to Germany, the German fighters did not need the range, they just had to go up and fight.

Are the Mustange fans just jealous that it was overated?

I don't know if jealous is quite the right word but thats close to the truth.

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I just think it is funny, especially after he made that dumb comment. Most fans (again I said most of us) of the 109/190/152 accept the faults that they had because they know that no plane is perfect, but Mustang fans like himself, who think that the 51 was the greatest thing since bread and butter, believe that it had no faults and was the greatest thing.

Each aircraft was good at somethings and bad at others. Some people dont seem to realize this especially the guys who live by the P-51.

Do I think the 51 is crap. NO! It was a great plane. Was it remarkable. NO! Was the Bf-109 remarkable? NO! Was the Fw-190 remarkable? NO! Well actually each of these planes is remarkable in its own way.

Now can we please get back to the point of this thread?

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The P-38 didn't keep the daylight raids alive.

The P-38 was more expensive to build, harder to fly and harder to build. It wasn't a good war weapon.

No, during World War II life was cheap. It was the cheapest in the Soviet Union and Germany but it was still cheap in the Western Democracy. Which they did and there was more to their air force because there was a nice easy plane to build, the P-51.

Entering combat at a higher speed than your opponent is a distinct advantage. The P-51 entered combat on the advantage almost everytime, even if it was on it's own. But, you're right, it smothered it's enemy and the ability to do so was from the fact that the plane was cheap and easy to build.

The pilots like the P-38 better but who cares what they say? It's the production that'll win the war, they're just the middle-man. # for $ wins wars, not turning circles.

Wheather you admit it or not from the period from Oct '43 to the end of Dec it was all P-38. From January to May there were more P-38s than P-51s. Without the P-38s the long range bombing would have stopped until June '44 at the earliest.

Doolittle admits he made the decision to go with the P-51 over Both the P-38 and the P-47 based on logistics, not cost.
2. Also the P-38 was Second sourced in Jan '45 a YEAR after the P-51s showed and 6 monthe after the 8th and only the 8th decided to go with 1 prime fighter other that the P-38. If it was cost for a medeocer aircraft they would have cut back.
3. The WPB refused a 2/3week delay to get the K on line because they would lose ~50 planes, cost was not the issue.

Higher speed? P-51s flew 250mph out of Britain, and up to 350mph out of Italy, as confirmed by WWII P-51 pilots. The P-38L cruised most efficently at 290mph. With a P-38 at 290mph and a P-51 at 350mph full throttle will get both to 420 at the same time. If you were bounced and never saw it it doesnt matter how fast your going.

As for the Pilots They just wanted the best and when a P-51 pilot says that to fight a P-38 with a P-51 you better start a lot higher and faster to have a chance, it isn't because he thinks the P-51 is better.

The P-51 did win the choice in the 8th and it was probably a lot due to production numbers and maybe a little on the demand for the P-38 elswhere. The P-51 was 90% fighter capabilities against the 190/109 and even the P-38L, It was aircraft numbers that made the difference.

I'm not saying the P-38 was gods gift to fighters the P-38 was not perfect and the early planes had some serious issues but it was noticeably better than the P-51 which was a good, solid, competitive fighter with long legs.

wmaxt

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I just think it is funny, especially after he made that dumb comment. Most fans (again I said most of us) of the 109/190/152 accept the faults that they had because they know that no plane is perfect, but Mustang fans like himself, who think that the 51 was the greatest thing since bread and butter, believe that it had no faults and was the greatest thing.

Each aircraft was good at somethings and bad at others. Some people dont seem to realize this especially the guys who live by the P-51.

Do I think the 51 is crap. NO! It was a great plane. Was it remarkable. NO! Was the Bf-109 remarkable? NO! Was the Fw-190 remarkable? NO! Well actually each of these planes is remarkable in its own way.

Now can we please get back to the point of this thread?

Your right, and maybe you said it better than I did. Its time to get back to the thread.

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Now we just have to figure out how.