Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Australian Military Aviation History"
channel.
-
110
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@crusader5989 The P-47 couldn't win a dogfight for bragging rights stateside. Pilots would dogfight for beers and prestige, and everyone learned to just not go up high and force the P-47 low and the fight was guaranteed.
Greg tends to focus on theoretical ideal performance, not real world (various states of maintenance, wear, pilot skill, etc.). And some of my data comes from pilots who fly the real planes today.
How many air races has the P-47 competed in, let alone won? How many speed records does the P-47 hold?
P-39s were actually good, and US pilots admitted they were overly harsh on it, and it actually still managed a positive kill ratio in US hands. And Greg has a whole video on this. And I've found additional supporting evidence of my own as well.
The P-47 wasn't bad, especially the P-47N, but it simply was Not as good as the P-51 except in toughness/ruggedness because it was massively overbuilt. The F4U used the same engine and was a better airplane (and actually competed in air races and won), it just wasn't as good at high altitude as teh P-47, but it could do everything else the P-47 could do and better.
4
-
@crusader5989 But that's just it. the P-51 dominates even at low altitude. P-51 can best the best at any altitude. And that is one reason why the P-47 can NEVER be better than the P-51.
Problem with the P-47 vs Bearcat and Sea Fury, is the F8F and Sea Fury aren't overweight pigs.
Do you have ANY clue how the P-47 is built? It is literally a flying double-hulled submarine. It literally has two separate fuselages! It is so massively overbuilt it's not even funny. It is literally a submarine with wings. You can't just rip out structure to make a racer out of it. the design is fla3wed from the start, just like the P-40. P-47 and P-40 are both tough aircraft, both good aircraft, but both were flawed (P-47 is overbuilt and sluggish, P-40 is aerodynamically challenged).
F8F is legendarily of lightweight design to begin with, P-47 has no chance against it.
Sea Fury is one of the most balanced designs of WW2, a worthy competitor to the F4U and F2G. In many ways the pinnacle of good prop fighter design. P-47 has no chance against it.
Yet, there is the Mustang, still slaying, and current world record holder above all others.
P-47 is expensive and unreliable. And that's why they didn't last after the war and the USAF dropped them like a hot potato. They consumed FAR too much in terms of aluminum, fuel, oil, manpower, maintenance, money, etc. in a war of logistics. And private owners struggle to keep P-40s and P-51s airworthy, let alone a pig like the P-47. Yet, look how many F4Us regularly show up to airshows, using the same engine. Hell, I've seen more flying Sea Furies, F7Fs, and F8Fs in my life than flying P-47s.
P-47 was not the better fighter. It was slow climbing, slow accelerating, Sucked below 15k ft in every category (speed, maneuver, accel, range...). In actual fights for bragging rights it lost consistently to the P-38, F4U, P-51, P-40, F6F, and more. Literally everyone beat it in dogfighting, as they knew it's fatal weakness and exploited it. The P-51 had no such weaknesses. It could fly fast at all altitudes, climbed well, accelerated well, maneuverable, etc.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
P-51 was not "average", it was a top tier fighter.
P-51 was far cheaper, consumed half as much aluminum per aircraft, burned half as much fuel as the P-47, flew farther, faster, and was a superior dogfighter at pretty much all altitudes. The P-51 took nearly half as many maintenance hours between sorties. P-47 was slow to accelerate, slow to climb, and needed significantly more runway length to get airborne. The German test pilots hated the P-47, only praising it for it's high altitude performance and nothing else.
WW2 was won by logistics, and logistically the P-47 consumed more than twice as much as the P-51 in nearly every way, while offering less performance.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@akritasdigenis4548 P-51 was far cheaper, consumed half as much aluminum per aircraft, burned half as much fuel as the P-47, flew farther, faster, and was a superior dogfighter at pretty much all altitudes. The P-51 took nearly half as many maintenance hours between sorties. P-47 was slow to accelerate, slow to climb, and needed significantly more runway length to get airborne. The German test pilots hated the P-47, only praising it for it's high altitude performance and nothing else.
WW2 was won by logistics, and logistically the P-47 consumed more than twice as much as the P-51 in nearly every way, while offering less performance.
3
-
@crusader5989 The Corsair and P-51 always top the list of "best fighters of WW2".
I liken them to this;
F4U = F-35
P-51 = F-22
High low mix: Multirole fighter + Air Superiority Fighter.
P-51 was the better pure fighter, goes fast, goes far, flies high, and if you keep the speed up and fight BnZ, the P-51 wins. The superior speed and altitude of the P-51 means that it should never lose to the F4U in the hands of a good pilot.
F4U was a multirole monster. Finished the war as the best dive bomber for the USN, 4,000lb bombload, rockets, guns, cannons, radar, night fighter, carrier capable, fast, tough, etc.
Both served into the 1980s with foreign countries, both fought in Korea. Both outlasted other late war superprops like the F7F, F8F, P-47N, etc.
Both the Japanese and German pilots were impressed with the P-51.
I think the P-51 looks much better (but I do like the Corsair's looks too). I think the P-40E and P-40N look better than the F4U as well. As you say, looks is purely a matter of opinion. I have a special criteria that I find is critical to judging looks, and that is how many angles you look at something from and it still looks AMAZING. the P-51 and P-40, as well as the Me109, Spitfire, Ki-43, and others are that way for me. I can view them from numerous angles and they still look sleek, or mean, etc. Corsair has some less flattering viewing angles angles. I find the P-39 and F4U comparable in looks. I like both of them, but they aren't quite as nice to look at as my top picks (in terms of looks).
2
-
2
-
2
-
the P-51 flew it's first combat sorties with the RAF 12months before teh P-47 ever flew a single combat sortie. The RAF used the P-51 for recon and ground attack for that first year. The very first mission they sent a ground attack mission into Germany, the first combat sortie of any allied fighter over Germany in WW2. And the RAF only lost 8 mustangs during that first year or 2 of missions. They even flew low level recon over berlin before the P-47 ever showed up.
P-51 was faster at all altitudes.
P-51 flew further.
P-51 carried more bombs as a percentage of weight.
P-51 was more maneuverable at all altitudes.
P-51 required less maintenance man hours between sorties.
P-51 cost half as much.
P-51 used less fuel.
P-51 used less oil.
P-51 consumed less aluminum.
P-51 could be produced far faster.
P-51 was the best dive bomber of WW2.
P-51 fought in more theaters and more wars than the P-47.
P-51 began combat operation 1year before the P-47 ever did.
P-51 stayed in USAF service until 1957.
P-51 has won many famous air races, P-47 has never won a single race, and only ever entered into 2 races.
P-51 holds numerous world records, including fastest propeller driven airplane ever.
P-51 was easier for pilots to learn/transition.
P-51 was used as a recon airplane.
For the same cost in money, fuel, and oil, maintenance man hours, and manufacturing man hours, you could put 2x as many P-51 in the skies than you could P-47, in a war of logistics.
P-51 used 25% shorter runways, needing less steel mat.
P-51 accelerated faster.
P-51 climbed faster.
P-51 used up to 6x .50cal, 4x 20mm, rockets, napalm, 2x 500lb bombs, recon cameras, dropped supplies to troops in Italy, etc.
And Preddy was shot down by friendly fire.
P-47 pilots considered an airfield ground attack mission suicide and would do anything to get out of flying such a dangerous combat sortie. This is where most top mustang aces died, attacking airfields. Yet, P-47 suffered equally ridiculously high losses doing the exact same thing. Ground fire, being what got them, not enemy fighters.
Consider the fact that the P-47 had 2 unarmored oil cooler radiators slung under the engine like a P-40, and that a hit to those resulted in total engine failure of the radial within 5min. Don't beleive em, just watch Greg's videos for more details and he even admits the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@bizjetfixr8352 Wrong. P-39 was a front line fighter on the Eastern Front, a MAJOR frontline theater, until the end. But clearly you think the Russians don't count as a major theater of operations.
P-40 fought on the front lines until the end across teh globe.
F4F was in all the major battles until the end, as all the escort carriers relied upon them until the very last days, in support of every major action. The US never operated FM-2s either, they operated late model F4F with great success too.
This isn't about "production", stop trying to change the argument. This has NOTHING to do with what was claimed in the video, nor what I posted in my comment.
"P-40 - Out of production, used to harass bypassed Island garrisons"
not everything was bypassed and ignored, battles occurred, were occurring. you don't have to be part of the main thrust to be "frontline". Do you also consider the battles in Sicily and Italy to not count as frontline combat as well?
you love cherry picking to suite your narrative. try being logically consistent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@twolak1972 If the P-51 was merely Average, then the P-47 was below average. And what aircraft were better than the P-51?
interesting the ONLY ETO Medal of Honor went to a P-51 pilot.- Single handedly took on tens of fighters. how many P-47s have done that?
Robert Johnson himself praised the A-36, and dedicated dive bomber variant o f the P-51 that was beloved by its pilots. A-36 pilots Hated the P-47 and preferred the P-47. get their books and read for yourself.
How many Me262 and Me163 kills do P-47 have?
Test pilots of the Luftwaffe hated the P-47, said it was slow, sluggish, heavy, accelerated slowly, climbed slowly, only did well around 25k ft. They loved the P-51 though, as did the Japanese pilots. The Germans described the P-47 as a dog.
The famous air battle of the 352nd where a P-51 damaged by 20mm cannon, lost oil, aileron, and more, and still downed 3 aircraft (2 of them after taking damage) and managed to land back at base.
Many top German aces (200+ kills) flew against mustangs late in the war. Many German aces survived the war, including Hartmann, Galland, etc. Hartmann was even downed by Mustangs. the top ace ever in history beaten by rookie mustang pilots, was never beaten by a P-47.
German pilots also flew short range missions accompanied by some of the most experienced pilots in Europe. Not every pilot was a green new pilot.
But US and other pilots rotated home as hero aces and to be flight instructors, with far less total experience than their German counterparts.
Germans spent a higher percentage of their total flying experience in combat, where the Allied pilots spent a lot of time in cruise flight.
The Production of German aircraft didn't slow until late in the war. Many of the top German aces never fought on the western front until late in the war. Even Hartmann was bested by less experienced Mustang pilots. Many top German aces fell to Mustangs. The average German pilot had less initial training, but also had more average combat experience than western fighter pilots on account of fighting for far longer.
You can't claim total kills determines the better fighter, otherwise the P-39 is the top US fighter of the war. And you can't claim the P-40 is superior to the Sea Fury on account of the fact the P-40 has more kills. So kills of the P-47 or F6F alone doesn't make them top fighters.
You must consider top speed (P-51 wins), range (P-51 wins), climb rate (P-51 wins), acceleration (P-51 wins), high altitude maneuverability( P-51 wins), low altitude speed (P-51 wins), Low altitude maneuverability (P-51 wins), toughness/rugged (p-47 wins), Firepower (P-47 wins, only sometimes, Mustangs also use 4x 20mm cannons, A-36 were better dive bombers), Cost (P-51 wins), maintenance per sortie (P-51 wins), fuel burn rate (P-51 wins), aluminum resources consumption (P-51 wins), manufacturing time (p-51 wins), ease of pilot training (P-51 wins), takeoff distance required (P-51 wins), Pilots workload and ergonomics (P-51 wins), which were fast enough to be air racers (P-51 wins), which holds multiple speed records (P-51 wins), which holds numerous air race victories (P-51 wins), lowest drag (P-51 wins), superior aerodynamics (P-51 wins), etc.
And in stateside dogfights for bragging rights, the P-47 lost to literally everything (P-40, P-38, F4U, F6F, P-51, etc.) as it only performs well at altitude once its gotten up to speed. down low it's slower and less maneuverable than a P-40. it's an overweight pig. the heaviest single engine fighter of WW2, yet the lighter F4U used the same engine. Think about what that weight loss does for speed, maneuverability, climb rate, acceleration, and turning performance.
% of max gross allocated for pilot, fuel, and weapons:
P-47: 57%
P-51: 63%
F4U: 63%
% of max gross specifically allocated to carrying bombs
P-47: 14%
P-51: 8%
F4U: 27%
Typical max bomb load:
P-47: 2500lb
P-51: 1000lb
F4U: 4000lb
Carrier capable?
P-47: no
P-51: yes (more suitable than the seafire, and none of the F4U's bad carrier qualities)
F4U: yes (not the best carrier fighter, but it worked well enough)
Another factor, the P-47 shared the skies with the P-51 for a long time, and so are you saying when the P-51 came along, the P-47 was fighting inexperienced rookie German pilots? And thus the P-47 total kills is inflated? Or are you saying that German rookie pilots only existed AFTER the P-47 were largely removed from service over Germany that rookie pilots were on the scene? In which case the P-51s encountered lots of top pilots in the early days of the transition from P-47s to P-51s.
In the PTO, P-47s were relegated to ground attack only, in less critical areas of combat, and not used as fighters. They were no match for the Japanese fighters.
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis Name a speed record held by the Spitfire. I can name multiple P-51 ultimate speed records, including the current record holder.
Spitfires did prove they could fly high, but that's compared to the D model, I have little data on H model high altitude performance. So that's debatable. But the Spitfire only achieved that in tests, and it was never used in combat, nor was it much higher than a P-51.
The Spitfire was maneuverable, but not as good overall as teh Mustang. Speed is more important than maneuverability.
You can cherry pick a spitfire model all you want, but teh P-51, from the P-51A, B, D, H, A-36, F-6, etc. were all rock solid performers and tough for any model of spitfire to beat. Yet you have to cherry pick models of the spirfire, of which most late models were wholly different aircraft by the end. The only mustang that changed radically from the As was teh H.
4x 20mm was found to be equivalent to 6x .50cal in real testing.
But the early model Mustangs started out with 4x 20mm including in RAF service. Ultimately standardizing on the 6x .50cal, after trying a wide range fo armament combinations. Your ignorance of the mustang is starting to show. Even the RAF pilots LOVED the MkI, MkIa, MkII, etc.
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis "We did not need it we had the best in the Spitfire"
that is not a valid argument, it proves nothing. You didn't need it, that's fine. You didn't want it, that's fine. Doesn't mean it was superior.
The Brits weren't using their spitfires for CAS though, weren't escorting bombers to Japan though. Weren't using spitfires as Dive bombers though. Weren't using the spitfire on regular/daily long range or high altitude escorts though.
Most models of spitfire lacked the long legs (range) too. They were more complicated to build and repair too, due to their elliptical wing. And the Spitfire was not as fast either. show me some spitfire speed records if you think it was faster.
The Spitfire was also not as goof of a carrier aircraft as the P-51 either. The narrow weak landing gear and other issues required significant redesign before full carrier adoption (basically a whole new airplane), where as sea trials with a P-51 proved it worked better than expected as a carrier fighter (still would have gotten some modification), but wasn't adopted due to the jets already coming on the scene.
The spitfire was beautiful and well performing aircraft, and icon of WW2 and one of my favorites, but it was not as good as a mustang overall, and it's history and lack of versatility a lack of service post-WW2 shows this. Where was the Spitfire in Korea for example? The Sea Fury was a better overall aircraft than the Spitfire. Why no spitfires in air racing if it was "fast"? yet the F4U, P-51, Sea Fury, F8F and even the P-39 had successes there, and many still do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@akritasdigenis4548 "if your goal is saving pilot's life at all cost, P47 is the only option."
this is war, not a lifesaving operation. the best way for a pilot to survive is to not get shot. a P-51 improves the Chances o fnot getting a bogey on your tail.
I want to win the war, logistics wins wars. Using the P-51 allows me to put 2x as many fighters in the skies over europe for the same cost and manpower, that is SIGNIFICANT.
"They preferred saving money, that may sound from a strategic perspective."
wrong is Logistics. and yes, saving money when funds are limited is critical to win a war without going broke yourself.
"If you only need 1 type of fighter for every missions, then again, P47 is the only way to go. "
wrong again. F4U wins this argument hands down, but the A-36 was also preferred by its pilots over the P-47, and was a superior ground attack aircraft to the P-47. And again, the P-51 could do so much more than the one-trick-pony that is the P-47. Th P-51 could still dogfight below 20k ft, unlike the P-47, and could defeat a P-47 in a dogfight at any altitude, and fly faster at any altitude, and fly farther at any altitude, and used less fuel, aluminum, maintenance downtime, and took less to time to manufacture, as well as being easier to ship/transport. P-47 did only one thing well, and that was high altitude escort above 20k ft, and it was such a massive pig that it couldn't help getting constantly shot, but managed to survive sometimes. Lots of P-47 pilots died and lots of P-47 aircraft were lost.
"Both P51 and P47 saw they had room for development. The last P47 had about the same range, even higher and were on par with speed but with twice the firepower, bombing capacity and still keeping the top safety. "
P-47 never had the same range. it closed the gap with the P-47N, but at the cost of burning twice the fuel per sortie than a P-51. that means for the same money and resources the US could send 2x as many mustangs on a sortie (build 2x as man mustangs for the price of a P-47, and send 2x as many mustangs for the fuel burned by a P-47, and the p-47 couldn't do ANYTHING more than the P-51 could do. Even the Germans and Japanese thought the P-47 was terrible and the P-51 formidable and amazing. The US gov did studies and found 6x 50cal was equivalent to 4x 20mm cannon, and that nothing in terms of effective firepower was achieved with more than 6x .50cal, and that 4x .50cal proved sufficient even. Once again, the P-47 was carrying around more weight than necessary and consumed more resources than necessary. The P-47 did have more bomb load capacity, but that is to be expected for such a massive airplane. Yet teh F4U carried even more bombload than a P-47, and could also use 20mm cannons, radar, dive bomb, napalm, rockets, etc.
"Dogfighting seems for me less relevant. After all, the F4 destroyed A6M in PTO (less speed, less climb, lower maneuverability), even before F6."
The F4F was an even match for the A6M, and even the Japanese pilots knew that. Dogfighting is about playing to your strengths and weaknesses. But most PTO dogfights occurred at low altitude, and at low altitude the P-47 sucked. Even the P-40 was faster and more maneuverable than a P-47 below 15k ft. In the US, stateside, pilots would dogfight each other for beers and bragging rights. The P-47 ALWAYS lost. F4F, F6F, F4U, P-40, P-39, P-51, P-38, etc. could all defeat the P-47 in dogfights, so the P-47 pilots simply stopped trying. The other pilots knew that a P-47 stood no chance of winning below 15k ft, so they would stay low and force the P-47 to come down to them and lose. The P-51 was a boom and Zoom master, and was a superior dogfighter at any altitude.
P-47 never set a speed record, never ran in air races. it was slow to accelerate, climbed like a pig, took significantly longer runways to get airborne, consumed significant fuel, required far more maintenance downtime between sorties, consumed large amounts of oil, etc.
You're clearly a biased and uneducated individual when it comes to the realities of war and aircraft design.
1
-
@clarkenoble "Loss rates in the G/A role don't tell a story in and of themselves....like the entire production of A-36s (the attack variant of thr P-51A) that were almost entirely wiped out in the G/A role? Sweet airplane, wrong mission. "
proving your own point by misusing the data.
the A-36 pilots so loved their aircraft, they refused to give them up for anything, including P-47. So they flew them until none remained. They literally flew teh A-36 until the last was was finally damaged beyond repair. Yes, nearly ALL of the A-36 were ultimately lost to accidents and combat action, because they were limited in number and the pilots were willing to keep using them until they literally fell apart or could no longer be repaired because they loved them so much in teh ground attack role. Their "high" loss rate must be put into context. Even the famous Robert Johnson got to fly the A-36 and praised it.
"Everyone picks and chooses the parameters of evaluation. The question is who picks the ones that are really pertinent."
and you've proved you are equally as guilty.
"For the record, the Taiwanese has great success with the P-47Ns in the early '50s too. Against jets too. No one ever talks about that either."
just as the A-1D did well in Vietnam against jets, or the P-51 did well against the Me262.
Don't cherry pick. Motivated pilots will always win. Look at Ukraine vs Russia. Ukraine had inferior numbers and inferior aircraft, and yet Russia is hemorrhaging aircraft, and Ukraine still has some left. Or look at Royce Williams in Korea, outnumbered in an inferior aircraft he still shot down 4 russians and returned to base. Tons of such examples. Or what about the german assault on US airfields in France in WW2 in which a P-51D mustang took off, down 2 Germans, then got hit by 20mm and lost an aileron, part of the tail, and lost all the oil from the engine, and still then proceeded to shoot down 2 more german fighters before landing safely back at the airfield.
"I'm beginning to notice the attacks on Greg's work is done with rather great zeal. Yet, it's not really a debate about facts."
wrong. he isn't God. I have debated him personally many times, and I have ceded points to him on many occasions, but I have facts in my favor on other topics as well. He is too focused on performance numbers, and fails to account for the realities of combat, such as the skill and knowledge of the pilot, the maintenance factor, psychological factors that affect performance, and more. Even the personal testimonies of many actual WW2 P-47 pilots contradict many modern claims.
Eric Brown doesn't know all either. He was a pilot, not an engineer. And we can look beyond what the pilots knew, think they knew, mistakenly recalled, etc. We have the data and can evaluate the aircraft using science. Few pilots had the big picture about their aircraft or the war as a whole back in WW2. A great many myths an misconceptions about WW2 still persist to this day despite hard evidence to the contrary.
1
-
@clarkenoble The way you said it implied that it's high loss rates were due to being unsuited to ground attack and vulnerable, which is contrary to reality and the testimony o fthe pilots that flew teh A-36.
"It's amazing how you read and hear what you want to, not what is actually said. Seems like you might have that problem in other aspects of life."
you neither spoke clearly, nor clarified. what you said, leaving it open to interpretation.
"It's drawback was it was a liquid cooled aircraft with a radiator on the belly...not the wisest choice for ground attack."
yet the Typhoon and Tempest are not likewise criticized, nor is the Ju87, nor the Hurricane, nor the Mosquito, nor the IL-2, nor the P-40, nor the P-39, etc. All inline liquid cooled.
Did you know P-47 pilots considered a ground attack mission against a German airfield suicide? They would do Anything to get out of flying such a mission. Did you know the P-47 has 2 giant oil cooler radiators on the belly of the airplane, completely exposed to ground fire, and that a hit to either of them will result in total engine failure in no more than 5min?
The A-36 was the BEST dive bomber of WW2, bar none. It was the ONLY allied dive bomber of WW2 to be allowed to do danger close drops in support of friendly troops in contact due to it's incredible precision. A-36 did 90 deg vertical dive bombs. Even the SBD, Helldiver, and F4U weren't as accurate. The A-36 could also outrun everything on the deck, and pilots were pushing the engines as high as 72-75in manifold pressure (I have the data, from multiple WW2 sources).
"I can line up more pilots that swear by the ruggedness of the P-47 over any other American fighter in the ground attack mission than you can any other American fighter aircraft in WWII. That's not even debatable."
then do it. It absolutely is debatable. And you're proving that I was completely right about you statement about A-36 losses.
" It's one of those cliches that actually has validity to it. "
wrong, people look at teh data incorrectly, and do blanket calculations that in no way accounts for the realities. They'll compare survival rates but discuss P-51 losses in Korea rather than WW2. you can't do that. They'll divide total losses of a given airframe by total production, while failing to separate out training losses, maintenance losses, combat losses, and other accidents, and also failing to separate out WW2 production from post-WW2 production. And then they fail to consider that the P-51 entered frontline combat service in Europe a full 12 months before teh P-47 ever flew its first combat sortie, and thus racked up missions and losses much longer than teh P-47, and also enjoyed great success in that first year of combat over europe, suffering only 8 losses in RAF hands. A-36 pilots had more confidence in teh A-36 to bring them home than the P-47 and explicitly stated that. They despised the P-47. The Allison engine was simple, durable, reliable, tough, and easy to maintain, and fast down low as well as being hundreds of lbs lighter than the Merlin and capable of up to 2,200HP at the 70+ manifold pressures, and tests (I have the test reports) proved it could run for 20min at over 70in MAP with no adverse effect (on the deck).
When did I cite a P-47 test report? quote me where I said it.
1
-
@rebelscumspeedshop "The P47 was in a class of its own as a " Multi Roll" aircraft. "
not even close. F4U had it beat by a mile, as did other aircraft like the Mosquito, P-38, etc.
P-47 did a few things well. Dogfight at altitudes above 20k ft. strafe with 8x .50cal. Drop bombs. fire rockets. Consume disproportionate amounts of resources (aluminum, money, maintenance time, fuel, oil, etc). Below 15k ft it sucked as a fighter.
The F4U was the best Navy dive bomber, could operate from land or carriers. Could carry far more bombs than a P-47, used MGs, 20mm cannons, was a radar and night fighter, escort fighter, napalm, ground attacker, fired rockets, etc.
The P-51 saw combat service in Europe a full 12 months before the first P-47 combat sortie. It carried 4-6x .50cal, or 4x 20mm, and used large caliber cannon gun pods, dropped bombs, fired rockets, was the only dive bomber approved for danger close drops. lead the charge in both the ETO and PTO, fought in Korea, Israel, and into the 1980s. The P-51 wasn't retired from USAF service until 1957. It could dogfight the best at any altitude, it was fast at any altitude, it holds significant world records including the current holder of the ultimate propeller driven speed record. It won many air races. one of the only fighters more affordable in WW2 was the F6F Hellcat. P-51 were even used to drop supplies to troops in Italy. It had greater range and fuel efficiency, accelerated faster, climbed faster, could outrun anything on the deck (the RAF famously did this in their use of the P-51 as a recon aircraft). The P-51 was the first fighter to operate over germany (by the RAF), striking ground targets in 1942 and doing recon.
The P-38 used all manner of weapons, radar, recon, was a bomber, 30mm cannon, etc.
The Mosquito was a multirole master, like the P-38.
How come the P-47 didn't do recon work, but the Spitfire, P-38, P-51, and others did? Because it was too SLOW and too vulnerable. The P-40 was faster and more maneuverable at lower altitudes.
"It could carry 1,500 more pounds in ordinance and over 1,000 rounds more ammunition."
yes, because it's MUCH heavier. as a proportion of it's weight, the P-51 actually carried MORE bombs than the P-47, and the F4U even more so. The F4U used the same engine as the P-47 but was much lighter, while also carrying significantly more bombload while launching from a carried deck.
"These are attributes that can't be tossed aside."
Yes they can.
P-51 was faster at all altitudes.
P-51 flew further.
P-51 carried more bombs as a percentage of weight.
P-51 was more maneuverable at all altitudes.
P-51 required less maintenance man hours between sorties.
P-51 cost half as much.
P-51 used less fuel.
P-51 used less oil.
P-51 consumed less aluminum.
P-51 could be produced far faster.
P-51 was the best dive bomber of WW2.
P-51 fought in more theaters and more wars than the P-47.
P-51 began combat operation 1year before the P-47 ever did.
P-51 stayed in USAF service until 1957.
P-51 has won many famous air races, P-47 has never won a single race, and only ever entered into 2 races.
P-51 holds numerous world records, including fastest propeller driven airplane ever.
P-51 was easier for pilots to learn/transition.
P-51 was used as a recon airplane.
For the same cost in money, fuel, and oil, maintenance man hours, and manufacturing man hours, you could put 2x as many P-51 in the skies than you could P-47, in a war of logistics.
P-51 used 25% shorter runways, needing less steel mat.
P-51 accelerated faster.
P-51 climbed faster.
The F-82 could carry 14x .50cal, 10x rockets, and 2x 500lb bombs all at the Same Time. Or, 6x .5cal, 10x rockets, and 4 500lb bombs all at the same time. And could also be equipped with radar for night fighting.
What did the P-47 do better again?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1