Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "" video.

  1. This is straight from 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles'. It's simply not true. The Luftwaffe probably peaked in 1940/41, by which time the RAF and other European air forces had taken a decent toll on the best pilots and it was all down hill from there. On top of that, plenty of German Experten met their maker on the Eastern Front and in the Mediterranean. The only time the USAAF sent fighters to smash the Luftwaffe in a battle of attrition was during 'Big Week' in February, 1944. Greg is big on documents and charts and small on history. It doesn't take a lot of research to show he's full of it. Read Williamson Murray's book, 'Luftwaffe: Strategy for defeat, 1933-1945'. Murray goes way further into this than Greg's piss and vinegar.
    5
  2. "P-51 to help get the women, P-47 to come home." Not that old inverted snobbery again.
    5
  3. Mustang pilots were statistically about three times more likely to engage in combat than P-47 pilots. It's really just a matter of range.
    5
  4. The P-47s Achilles' heel was always its rate of climb. Even with the new propellers - and there were several different ones - the P-47 was uncompetitive in climb against the two main German types (the sub variants of the FW-190 were another matter). It makes sense: it might have had a very powerful engine but it was also very heavy. This wasn't a major factor in the ETO because, 1) the USAAF usually had air superiority and 2) they always had the advantage of altitude.
    4
  5.  @SpreadEagled  Blakeslee was one of a number of American pilots who cut his combat teeth flying Spitfires with Eagle squadron. He found the P-47 not to his liking, particularly it’s climb performance. I think he also associated his own performance on the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission with the P-47, even if the aircraft itself was not the problem. Basically, the story goes that Blakeslee and his 4th Fighter Group were supposed to meet the bombers about the time the crossed the Dutch coast. Unfortunately, the weather had thrown a curve ball and the bombers force found itself in cloud. The group leader elected to fly under the cloud and that put them several thousand feet below the altitude they were expected. As a result, Blakeslee couldn’t find them until the Luftwaffe was already attacking them and one bomber had been shot down. But, even when you read about Blakeslee’s comments about the P-47, his real reason for wanting the P-51 was its range performance. Both Blakeslee and Zemke had flown all three American types and agreed that the P-51 was the aircraft they needed. Blakeslee famously told high command that the pilots would learn to fly them on the way to the target.
    4
  6.  @slumzur  "It could with drop-tanks" Okay. WITHOUT PREJUDICE Sorry but this will be a long post. This is a huge topic and not nearly as simple as you might think. There are several considerations and they're not always clear cut. I will say one thing though: if you got your information from 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles', as so many people on YouTube have, then I urge you to reconsider. Greg's research was almost entirely technical, very light on history and basically setup to prove a bugbear of his. It would be hard to consider it impartial. The problem with the P-47 wasn't drop tanks. It was internal fuel capacity. Drop tanks buy you range, of course, but you use half the fuel getting the other half there. I suspect that is still true today. But in 1943, The USAAF's main focus was on coastal raids, which presented no problem. Their early raids over Germany did not incur unacceptable losses. As they moved into Germany, they had more mixed success but were still largely ahead. On paper, at least, it looked like bombers could defend themselves. Of course the raid/s everyone wants to talk about are Schweinfurt and Regensburg. At that time there was no fighter in service that could have done the job of getting to Schweinfurt and back but that ignores one of the fundamental problems, at least with the first raid. The weather. Cloud cover over southern England and the Dutch coast meant that many of the escorts, including British Spitfires, never met up with the bombers and despite what they might have been able to do, they could do nothing to prevent the Luftwaffe's initial onslaught. Drop tanks would have made little-to-no difference to that. The next problem they faced was over the target and no fighter then in service could have done anything about that either, drop tanks or no drop tanks. So let's have a look at the P-47 for a minute. Whatever else it was, the P-47 was thirsty. It's tanks carried about 370 gallons of internal fuel (the Mustang had about 200) and the centreline tank gave it an extra 108 gallons. That total of 478 gallons gave it enough range to reach the Dutch border. By early 1944, just before 'Big Week' and Operation 250 - the first American raid on Berlin - a small number of P-47s had been re-plumbed for underwing drop tanks, making 576 gallons possible. But this was less than 20% of the fleet and still didn't get them any further than just west of Magdeburg. The 200 gallon 'Brisbane' tank Greg talks about - the clue is in the name - was not available in significant numbers and wouldn't have made a lot of difference if it had been, Three external tanks would have been a ridiculous drag penalty*. There were never more than 3,000 made and they were constructed in the Ford factory, in Brisbane, Australia. The only other tank was a hemispherical 200 gallon ferry tank which was unsuitable for combat. The claims in some quarters that Republic was told not to build drop tanks for the P-47 are ridiculous. If mechanics in the Pacific could design tank and get Ford, Australia to build it without getting approval then that claim can be consigned to the dustbin. I have my doubts that it is even true. A major part of the problem was that Republic took its sweet time about making the plumbing changes a line modification and all those P-47s that flew in 'Big Week' were modified in the field by cutting metal. Hardly an ideal state of affairs. They hadn't done much to increase the internal capacity either and the P-47N arrived too late to have any effect. It is not a factor in this debate, in part because it was intended for the Pacific campaign. By then, the P-51 had largely replaced the P-47 in Europe. The curious aspect of all this is that the USAAF high command were unaware of the potential of the P-51 and apparently, even less aware that Merlin-powered Mustangs had been rolling off the production lines for a considerable part of 1943. By summer, there were more than 1,300 of them and more than half were Merlin-powered. But communications were nothing like they are today, especially across the Atlantic and the depth and sophistication of the US industrial base - America's and the Allies' greatest asset - meant that it was not always clear what was going on. Hap Arnold wrote a memo to his deputy Lt Gen Barney Giles and gave him six months to have a workable solution, without knowing that it was already underway. Part of the problem was that this was being handled by a civilian, a Mr Robert A. Lovett, who was then Assistant Secretary of State for War. He had apparently told Arnold of the P-51's range potential but Arnold had either forgotten or filed the information somewhere while got on with the war. The idea that hundreds of American lives were sacrificed because of bullheaded 'doctrine' - a term so loaded we might as well call it 'communism' - is nonsense. It also doesn't prove that there was a campaign against the P-47. After all, they might have got away with Schweinfurt. But in cold analysis, it had to be attacked and the only available force was what they had. The raid couldn't wait for more of this or more of that. Even by the time of Mission 250, the P-47 couldn't get to Berlin. I'm happy to provide any references if you want to look them up. *If the 200 gallon 'Brisbane' tank had been on the centreline pylon and another 108 gallons under each wing, that would have basically equaled the total amount of fuel the P-51 carried, including external tanks, that got it to Berlin and back. 416 gallons of external fuel for the P-47 versus 417 gallons total for the P-51. And that's before we start counting the P-47's internal fuel.
    3
  7.  @SoloRenegade  The P-47 also had an inferior climb rate and relatively slow acceleration. As long as it was kept moving, it could perform. In fact, its biggest problems were the sheer bulk of the thing, caused by supercharger ducting and the fact that it hat too many guns for a single engine fighter.
    3
  8. It was attributable to all sorts of things. Those factors you mentioned just a small selection. Following the Battle of Midway, the quality of Japanese navy pilots took a serious hit. So many hot shot pilots had been burnt alive in their cockpits as the aircraft carriers blew up. Japanese pilot training did not have the luxury of being carried out in such controlled circumstances as the USN pilots did. So most of the replacements weren't up to much. Once the veterans ranks had thinned out, the overall quality became lower than that of the USN, in particular.
    3
  9. If you read Hub Zemke's version of that, it's rather different from what all the P-47 fanbois say. Zemke had campaigned long and hard for the P-51 and high command agreed. Zemke was then called away and while he was away, the stand in commander was persuaded to accept new Thunderbolts instead. It had nothing to do with all the usual tropes cited by P-47 fanbois.
    3
  10. After a bit of research, I have found that the Allies in Western Europe shot down 451 aircraft by the end of 1943. The P-47 accounted for 414 of them. If you think that sounds like a lot, the Germans lost 22,000 aircraft up to the end of 1943. That means the P-47s contribution was about 2%. So much for the P-47 decimating the Luftwaffe.
    3
  11. Zemke did not say that. Zemke wanted the P-51 because, in his words, he knew it was the best aircraft for the job. He pushed and the top brass agreed that his unit would get them. Then he went away for some reason and his stand in was persuaded to keep the P-47s. This is easy to find out.
    3
  12. By the way, here's a bunch of other Hub Zemke quotes: "The P-51 Mustang was the best fighter we ever had...It was the best fighter for the job." "The Mustang was the best fighter anyone had ever designed." “The Cadillac of the sky.” 'Well, we had P-47s that couldn’t go as far. P-51s could go much, much farther. I requested one time for P-51s. And I was sent to the United States, and during my absence, a man who became a general, a West Pointer, took my organization over and was influenced to take these P-47s back. Therefore, when I came back to the unit, it was determined in the program they’d keep them. The airplane that was really the combat airplane was the P-51. I know it is. I later transferred—I don’t know whether you knew this to another organization I was going to pick up organizations that were the lowest guys on the tote board, bring their morale up—and it worked well—to an organization that was getting P-51s. And they got them. They came right along the line. Good little organization. Sure, you’ve got to have—you got to have a Ferrari if you want to win the Grand Prix, don’t you?'
    3
  13. "more reliable machine" Reference?
    3
  14.  @bobh1208  Nope. I’m going mainly on the verdict of the top pilots, including Blakeslee and Zemke, both of whom had shot down enemy aircraft while flying the P-47. I’m also going on the verdict of the Germans, both pilots and the RLM. There are very good reasons why the verdict of history is that the P-51 was the best fighter of the war. But now people like Greg are making tribal and suddenly there’s a P-47 camp and a P-51 camp (actually there isn’t a P-51 camp, just a lot of noisy people who want that verdict changed, despite the evidence). I am totally aware that there are people who like the P-47 better. So be it. I’m not here to change that. But the Germans don’t talk about it that much. They talk about the Mustang.
    3
  15.  @bobh1208  A lot of people say ‘there’s no such thing’ when it doesn’t conform. I’m saying it on the basis of what the Germans said and the ultimate impact it had. The Corsair, great as it was, was nowhere near as impactful as the Hellcat in the Pacific. What the Corsair did, in its own initially flawed way, was to introduce a quantum leap in performance over the Wildcat.
    3
  16. My own research has shown this to be the bullshit claim I always thought it was. The P-51 suffered marginally more casualties than the P-47 - 1.18 compared to 0.73 - but scored 60% more air kills in half the number of missions and 30% more ground kills. The loss percentage is from all causes because the USAAF doesn’t seem to have recorded how they were lost. It doesn’t even differentiate between operational and non-operational. On top of that, because of its range, the P-51 spent a much higher percentage of its mission in hostile airspace. It was also statistically twice as likely to engage in combat. The more I look, the more obvious it is that the P-51 was the better aircraft for all kinds of reasons. The P-47 revisionism that’s dominated the internet for the last couple of decades is nothing more than fanboism. I’ve yet to come across a single argument in favour of the P-47 that can’t be riposted. And the harder I look the more obvious it becomes. I’m not the slightest bit surprised that pilots like Don Blakeslee and Hub Zemke campaigned to get the P-51 to replace the P-47. The idea that it had a glass jaw or was handicapped in any way by its liquid cooled engine is total nonsense.
    3
  17.  @sophiaalexander3149  You should do more research. Instead, you deleted all your replies and ran away! Now that is funny.😂
    3
  18.  @jacktattis  No, that’s not accurate. It was Packard who redesigned the crank case to be a bolt up design.. This solved the engine failure problems of the Merlin 45 and allowed for the 60 series to run at much higher boost levels. Packard also messed with water injection and replaced a few of the ancillary parts with American components.
    3
  19. I have been reading your posts on wwiiaircraft and I look forward to your debate with Greg.
    2
  20.  @paulbantick8266  And that's the trouble with the internet: it always falls for data sheet comparisons over real history. Well, you didn't but pretty much everyone else does.
    2
  21.  @treyhelms5282  Oh that old chestnut again. That’s from Johnson’s book, in which he fails to mention that he was flying against a Mk V. There is some doubt as to whether that mock dogfight ever even took place, regardless of what he says. In any case, if you actually read that anecdote more carefully, you will realise that he never claims to have out climbed the Spitfire. Not at any point did he say that. Not even an out-of-date Mk V. Johnson was a notorious bullshit artist.
    2
  22.  @bobbycv64  This not like comparing a Dodge Ram to a Ford Pony car.
    2
  23. The P-51 ended the war with 60% more kills in the ETO than the P-47 and 30% more ground kills. Have a look at the kill rates for the P-51B in early 1944. It punched so far above its weight, it's hard to imagine how anyone thinks it was overrated. And given the range problems of the Thunderbolt, it's not surprising it was handed over to the Ninth AF.
    2
  24.  @kurtpena5462  The -N version was not used in Europe so is an irrelevance.
    2
  25.  @SubParFlyFisher  Well if you're expecting a respectful response, you might consider how you frame your questions first.
    2
  26.  @akritasdigenis4548  That simply isn’t true. It couldn’t get to Berlin, for a start and the P-51 frighted the shit out of the Luftwaffe.
    2
  27. If you want to truly understand this, get off YouTube and away from data blocks and start reading books. As long as there were fighters flying top cover, the USAAF pretty much always had air superiority by virtue of numbers and particularly altitude. Speed is nearly irrelevant. Air superiority, especially altitude, gave the tactical initiative to the Americans.
    2
  28. "But it drank alot of fuel at max boost." The P-51 was 30% more fuel efficient than the P-47. The P-47 could not have done the job in time. It was an older design and very much heavier, which had a direct impact on range performance. Until the arrival of the P-51, the USAAF couldn't raid Berlin. If you want to know more about this, read 'Big Week', by James Holland and 'Target Berlin', by Jeffrey Ethel and Dr Alfred Price. The latter book outlines the entire escort plan from take off to landing. It makes for very interesting reading. The only aircraft that could support the bombers over Berlin was the P-51. Its efficiency was the result of a number of factors, the much-vaunted 'laminar flow wing' being only one of them. The radiator used the so-called Meredith Effect which had a significant effect on thrust, probably worth a couple of hundred horsepower. But the one thing that always gets overlook is the wing profile. The P-47 was a much more conventional profile with the point of maximum thickness at 30% chord. The P-51 wing had the point of maximum thickness at 38.9% chord. This doesn't sound like much until you start considering compressibility. The further aft the shockwave develops, the less effect it has on the controllability of the aircraft and the lower the drag. So even though the Mustang wing was 16%, compared to 11% for the P-47, it was much more efficient. This was also one of the major reasons the P-47 had a lowish tactical Mach number and suffered high speed control problems. Yes, they were largely corrected with some kind of dive flap but that's hardly an ideal solution because it's aerodynamically inefficient and adds weight and complexity. The Mustang had its own set of handling problems, mostly related to fuel distribution but it was seen by most pilots on both sides as the better combat aircraft.
    2
  29.  @rustysphotography  They had little to fear. The P-51 was a superlative escort fighter. In a short time it would be outscoring the P-47 by a factor as high as eight to one.
    2
  30.  @lqr824  You need to read a few books son.
    2
  31. "The radial engines of the P-47 would have been ideal for ground attack in the Korean war, like the Corsair. A lucky shot into the cooling system from a rifleman could shorten the mission of a Mustang." What justification can you provide for this claim?
    2
  32. "P-47's swept the skies of the most experienced Luftwaffe pilots. They were peerless at high altitude where they were designed to fight." This is straight from 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles'. It's simply not true. The Luftwaffe probably peaked in 1940/41 and it was all down hill from there. On top of that, plenty of German Experten met their maker on the Eastern Front and in the Mediterranean. The only time the USAAF sent fighters to smash the Luftwaffe in a battle of attrition was during 'Big Week' in February, 1944. Greg is big on documents and charts and small on history. It doesn't take a lot of research to show he's full of it. Read Williamson Murray's book, 'Luftwaffe: Strategy for defeat, 1933-1945'. Murray goes way further into this than Greg's piss and vinegar.
    2
  33.  @williamashbless7904  "Was it the 56th FG that kept the P-47 for air superiority missions?" Hub Zemke explained that. He had requested P-51s ASAP and the request had been approved. Then he went either on leave or away for a brief period and someone else took over. While he was away, the stand-in commander was persuaded to keep P-47s.
    2
  34.  @steveperreira5850  "Air cooled engine aircraft had way higher survivability, hence the P 47 aces surviving the war, and many of the too P51 aces were killed!" Impossible to sheet home to any single cause. Non-starter. "Plenty easy for mustang pilot rack up high scores in the latter year of the war facing mostly inexperienced German pilots, by then the P 47‘s were not doing long range escort, and they didn’t get so much of the turkey shoot." Most Germans in 1943 were not fighting in Europe. The Eastern and Mediterranean theatres kept a lot of top pilots busy until it became obvious that daylight bombing was becoming the primary threat from the air. That really only started when the P-51 made all of Germany reachable by an escorted force. "Nobody, nobody wants to go to war in a liquid called engine aircraft yes they are going to get fired on my ground fire and they are going to fly low." Nonsense. Read 'Typhoon Warfare,' by Tom Hall. There were so many other hazards in ground attack missions, a hit in the cooling system represented a relatively small risk. You'd be more worried about a 37mm than a single hit through the radiator. You'd be more worried about misjudging height than anything else. "I’ll try to sum it up with on positive note … The P 51 Mustang is the greatest fighter plane ever as long as no one is shooting at you and nobody is sneak attacking you. Too bad that isn’t reality." Reality, as you so presumptuously call it, can probably best be defined by the German perspective. The pilot reports, their memoirs, the RLM records and frankly, the combat records, all talk of two types that gave them the biggest headaches: the British Mosquito and the P-51. They say it over and over again. They don't talk much about the P-47. Read Galland's book, 'The First and the Last'. Despite losing his brother 'Wutz' to a P-47 flown by Walker 'Bud' Mahurin, Galland doesn't say much about the Thunderbolt. There was an interview with German Experte Werner Schroer (114 victories) on 'The World at War' in which he described the arrival of the P-51. 'We had nothing of the same effort', he said. 'They really frightened us quite a bit'.
    2
  35.  @Reylock118  Again, Zemke explained why this happened. It had nothing to do with pride and everything to do with command.
    2
  36. ⁠*”The 56th did not keep the P-47 out of pride as claimed by @TheAneewAony. The 56th kept the P-47 because they preferred the strengths of the aircraft and the tactical advantage the aircraft gave them.”* Not according to Hub Zemke. Zemke said in an interview that he and Don Blakeslee had both been campaigning long and hard to get the P-51 because they knew it was the best aircraft for the job. Just after getting approval, Zemke was called away for some reason and while he was away, someone in the chain of command persuaded his stand in to keep the P-47.
    2
  37.  @SoloRenegade  The Merlin-powered P-38 was never going to happen. Neither the British, nor the USAAF had any need for it. These days it's just an internet thing.
    2
  38.  @richardmontana5864  "The P-47's combat loss per sortie was much lower than the P-51 and the P-38. Yet it flew more missions than both of those combined." And the P-51 scored at more than twice the rate. It also scored 30% more ground kills when the Flak was thick enough you could walk on it. Again, in literally half the number of missions. And its combat exchange rate was much better than the P-47. P-47 Thunderbolt: Sorties: 423,435 Combat Losses: 3,077 Air Kills: 3,082 Ground Kills: 3,202 Total: 6,284 Loss % per sortie: 0.73% Combat exchange rate: 2.04 P-51 Mustang: Sorties: 213,873 Combat losses: 2,520 Air Kills: 4,950 Ground Kills: 4,131 Total: 9,081 Loss % per sortie: 1.18% Combat exchange rate: 3.60 The P-51 was a much better and more effective fighter than the P-47 and opened the way for complete strategic bombing coverage of Germany and, indeed, most of the Third Reich.
    2
  39.  @lookythat2  You sound unconvinced.
    2
  40. There’s little-to-no proof that the P-47 was any ‘safer’ than the P-51. The loss percentages were 0.73 for the P-47 and 1.18 for the P-51. One is slightly less than one in a hundred and one is slightly more. But it doesn’t take a lot of research to realise that the two fighters were built out of basically the same gauge of metal. If the P-47 was more strongly built then it paid a price in poor acceleration and climb. It also doesn’t take a lot of thinking about it to work out that the P-51 spent a lot more of its time in hostile airspace than the P-47. A Thunderbolt which had taken a hit in the undercarriage and had an oleo down by 20 degrees and leaking hydraulic fluid over Delft or Leuwarden was a lot more likely to get back to England than a P-51 with the same problems over Pforzheim or Cottbus. This is called ‘survivor bias’ and formed a major part of studies done into 8th Air Force casualties. Sure there are stories about cylinders being blown off P-47s that made it back but the fact is that these were exceptionally rare events and any single engine fighter suffering that much damage over enemy territory was unlikely to make it back, other than by dumb luck.
    2
  41. What's that got to do with technology?
    2
  42.  @raymonortiz3084  I am not a particular fan of any aircraft. My perception and opinion - such that I have one - is based entirely on what pilots like ‘Hub’ Zemke and Don Blakeslee said. I also draw my opinion from those of the Luftwaffe pilots who faced both types and the RLM reports of the period. I don’t see the kind of tribalism the internet promotes as being helpful to any cool headed assessment of the value of one type or another. Putting ’period’ after a particular comment doesn’t put it beyond question either. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. If you like the Thunderbolt, so be it. My opinion is actually the opinion of people who flew them and flew against them and I have little input into it.
    2
  43. No, only aircraft count.
    2
  44. "Which aircraft supported the ground troops better and did more damage to the enemies ability to wage tactical ground warfare ? Hands down the P-47’s all models ." The P-51 had 30% more ground kills than the P-47.
    2
  45. I don't there's a lot that can be drawn from that, though I'd like to see the combat loss rates for both types.
    2
  46.  @flutter8712  "Are you a scholar? Radial vs in line engine" Wow. Down to insults already. There are lots of things in a complex aeroplane that can fail, besides the engine. Even then, if you have a reference that shows the turbosupercharger engine system in the P-47 was more reliable, you're welcome to show it. Don;t bother with the one about 'liquid cooled death traps' either. It's internet hooey. Yes, a hit in the radiator could bring you down. But the radiator on the Mustang was also a very significant advantage, since it provided the equivalent of a couple of hundred horsepower due to the Meredith Effect. But if you can prove that a radial is more reliable than an inline, be my guest. Neither works very well after a couple of hits with 20mm or 30mm.
    2
  47.  @flutter8712  All the more reason to ask. There are too many hoaxers and too many gullible people in this world. Anyone who fails to verify has only themselves to blame. Ignorance is nothing to be proud of.
    2
  48.  @bobh1208  I’d suggest there are two kinds of survivability metrics: primary and secondary. Primary survivability would be things about aircraft performance that give you a marked advantage over the enemy. Turn rate, flying characteristics, engine performance at a given altitude, ease of flying, level speed, dive speed and rate of climb. Examples of secondary survivability might be ability to take hits, protection for the pilot, vulnerability to fire, crash worthiness, ease of escape and how long it stays up when ditched. When I look at like that, I suspect some of the P-47’s less desirable characteristics - like rate of climb, or lack of it - have been underplayed.
    2
  49.  @bobh1208 By the way, the P-47’s much-vaunted dive speed came at the cost of controllability. Some never pulled out. This was the price of an older design. That’s why the P-47 VNE was 500 IAS and the P-51 VNE was 505 IAS. The new wing design on the Mustang was responsible for that.
    2
  50.  @bobh1208  You’re talking more about tactics than the aircraft. Yes, they worked out ways to fight the Zero on their own terms. But the Hellcat demolished Japanese air power in a way no other aircraft did. Hellcats shot down 5,169 Japanese aircraft, a feat not matched the Pacific and not even close.
    2
  51.  @bobh1208  I have no idea what your last sentence means. Sorry.
    2
  52.  @bobh1208  Have you got a source for that please?
    2
  53.  @paulbantick8266  Yeah, very much like the story Johnson told about the P-47 v a Spitfire. He fails to mention 1) that it was a Mk V and 2) that in his claim that after the introduction of the new prop, he was never outclimbed by a 190 or 109 again, he fails to mention that the USAAF had air superiority by virtue of altitude and the need was unlikely to arise. Context matters. So obviously the question is how this supposed mock dogfight was set up and what marque of Spitfire the Corsair was pitted against.
    2
  54.  @jacktattis  The Ninth AF lost about 200 P-47s in GA missions, Jack and they did the bulk of it. You started at 2,000 and have upped the figure to 2,400 since without quoting a single source on it. Cute. Mine comes from Frank Olynyk’s exhaustive book ’Stars and Bars’ and Francis Dean’s ’America’s Hundred Thousand’.
    2
  55.  @ripvanwinkle2002  Probably the same guy who called the P-38 ‘the forked tailed devil’.
    2
  56.  @vozdelatalaya2041  Jesus…🙄
    2
  57.  @jacktattis  Not the point. I didn’t say the P-47 didn’t go into enemy territory. I said it didn’t go as deep into enemy territory as the P-51 did. Right from the off, the P-51 was flying deeper into Germany than the P-47 ever had before it. Take Mission 250, the first USAAF raid on Berlin. Most P-47s turned back at the Dutch border. Some - those which had been recently re-plumbed to carry two tanks - went on to a point just north west of Magdeburg. The Mustangs went all the way to Berlin.
    2
  58.  @jacktattis  YouTube is deleting all my replies again.
    2
  59. Not true. You got this from Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles', didn't you? At the end of 1943, the USAAF had shot down 451 German aircraft, with the P-47 getting the lion's share of 414. But the Germans lost 22,000 aircraft that year, of which the RAF shot down 3,300 (all theatres). So <2% is basically Jack Shit. It certainly isn't 'breaking the back of the Luftwaffe'. Greg claims they defeated the 'Abbeville Boys' on their own, yet JG26 was 30% bigger in early 1944 than it was in 1943. When the Mustang arrived in December, 1943, there were eight fighter groups equipped with the P-47 nd one P-38 group. By March, the P-51s were outscoring the P-47s. In April, P-51 Mustangs shot down 329 German aircraft to the P-47's 82. And they did this in half the number of sorties (there were only four Mustang groups, compared to eight P-47 groups). In other words, the P-51 was - for that month - eight times more effective than the P-47. The P-51 wrecked the Luftwaffe.
    2
  60.  @Splattle101  Good post. What those people also miss out on is the absolute carnage the Mustang caused over the Reich. The P-47 fanbois will tell you hand on heart that this was because the P-47 single-handedly 'broke the back of the Luftwaffe'. In 1943, the P-47 shout down 414 German aircraft from its first successes in April to the end of the year. The Germans lost 22,000 aircraft that year so <2% means Jack Shit and certainly isn't 'breaking the back of the Luftwaffe'. Even if we take every P-47 fanbois favourite channel, 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles', his claim that the Thunderbolt decimated the 'Abbeville Boys', it's worth noting that JG26 was actually 30% larger in 1944 than it was in 1943. And this wasn't because of the P-47. It was because of the B-17 and B-24. The leaps of faith and self-deception required to believe these fantasies are simply beyond my old head. The P-47 was a good aircraft. The Mustang made strategic bombing possible and it, more than any other, wrecked the Luftwaffe.
    2
  61.  @IncogNito-gg6uh  "USAAF commander-in-chief General Henry H. (Hap) Arnold turned a deaf ear to not only the development of drop tanks for the P-47, but also to the reports of American Air-attaché Col. Tommy Hitchcock from England pleading the potential of a Merlin powered Mustang." Simplistic nonsense from Greg Gordon again. The drop tank thing was a pre-war episode at a time when Materiel Command wanted manufacturers to increase internal fuel capacity as this is a much more efficient way of increasing range than drop tanks. All manufacturers made an effort except Republic. Same thing happened when USAAF command directed manufacturers to increase internal capacity at the beginning of 1942. Everyone complied except Republic. They added two extra guns instead. I don't know what they were smoking but it didn't help. Eaker, despite what has been claimed about him, was requesting more fighters from early on. Greg also oversimplifies this process (mostly in the interest of a good conspiracy theory) and leaves out US Assistant Secretary of State for War, Robert A. Lovett. It was Lovett who recognised the range potential of the P-51 and urged Arnold to adopt it. The USAAF placed orders for 1,350 P-51s on 9 October, 1942 and by the summer of 1943, they were ready. This coincided with Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles, in August of '43, demanding a solution to the problem of a lack of escorts which could penetrate deep into Germany. But what also needs to be recognised is that Arnold actually suffered two heart attacks in 1943 and had forgotten about it. That might sound like a basic error but I'm not speaking from personal experience. What also needs to be remembered is that there was lot more to the USAAF strategic bombing campaign than the bomber theory (which formed the basic philosophy of most of the world's major air forces anyway). Until the adoption of POINTBLANK, there wasn't a lot of need to penetrate deep into German territory. Once that had been adopted, the need to attack the German aircraft industry became the primary focus and the USAAF had to stop doing the easier, fully escorted, runs and start flying deep into Germany. "It is noteworthy that both efforts proceeded without his blessing until the disastrous losses in the fall of 1943 threatened to end the daylight bombing campaign." Much of the blame for this must go to Republic. USAAF command can be blamed for some missed opportunities but it was Republic that failed to respond to repeated requests for increased internal fuel capacity. Drop tanks were a distraction. That was a problem that could easily be fixed in theatre. Internal capacity could not. "You are right that after the war efforts to minimize the Mustangs contribution were made in official USAAF analyses of the campaign." Greg again. This guy has read no history and has a bee in his bonnet. He's pissed off that his favourite aircraft was not the greatest fighter of WWII and is making every effort to re-write history so he's no longer offended by reality. Unfortunately, what looks like good research has actually fooled a lot of people. Those of us who have taken the trouble to read about it know otherwise and we are a lot harder o fool. Even his debate with Bill Marshall was something of an anti-climax. Unfortunately, Marshall simply chose the wrong tactics and argued on Greg's strong points, rather than his own. The historical missions of Schweinfurt and Regensburg and all hose other missions from 'Big Week', as well as the first raids on Berlin, make a nonsense of the whole thing. Marshall did not even attempt to use this material and got dragged down the alley of technical BS which is as much use as a hip pocket in a T-shirt when it comes to judging the effectiveness of the P-47 or P-51. They might as well be arguing about the colour of the camouflage or the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. This is one of the greatest weaknesses of the internet. It's largely populated by nerds who assume that technology will always be the deciding factor and it just isn't.
    2
  62. More Greg nonsense.
    1
  63. Jesus, not that sh!t again. Statistics show that 'down on the deck', as you so succinctly put it, there was little-to-no difference. Unit histories show that squadrons that transitioned to her P-51 did at least as well, if not better, with the P-51. So much for the 'deadly liquid cooled engine' trope.
    1
  64.  @AmericasChoice  Go to a site called 'WWII Aircraft Performance' and look at the test data. The P-51 out performed the P-47 by almost every metric. Remember though that the range performance is not a representation of USAAF aircraft. The British used the 'Thunderbolt II' which was basically a D-25. Their 'Mustang III' was a P-51C with a Malcolm hood and no 85 gallon fuselage tank. That's why the Thunderbolt wins the range comparison. Had they compared US types it would have been reversed.
    1
  65.  @AmericasChoice  No, you didn’t. I was just pointing it out.
    1
  66.  @AmericasChoice  It’s not supported by statistical evidence. Does that mean we’re reduced to emotional argument? I hope not.
    1
  67.  @AmericasChoice  I have trawled aviation records for decades, including the internet and I cannot find one single solitary picture of a P-47 with cylinders that have been shot away, much less one that was probably flown home in that condition. It’s been said so many times that people think it was an everyday occurrence but it clearly wasn’t. If it ever happened, I’d be amazed because no such photograph exists. It was also said about the BMW 801 but I have never seen any evidence of that either. The British never claimed it for any of their (very successful) radials. The ‘one stray bullet in the cooling system’ trope has next to nothing going for it.
    1
  68. "Twice the chance you will come home in one piece with a T Bolt." Evidence?
    1
  69. @ Spare me the usual internet tropes and look at the loss figures. How do you measure survivability? What are the variables? The ‘one bullet to the radiator’ trope is one of the most hackneyed things in this whole debate. Why don’t you find out what the records say for units that switched from the P-47 to the P-51? Figures show that while ground attack was always the most dangerous mission, most units had better results with the P-51. Would you like to see those records? I can provide them. What’s the point of worrying about a stray bullet in the radiator when you might be vaporised by a 37mm in the next three seconds? And that applies equally to all single engine fighters. ‘Go look up the pilot observations’… yeah, I’ll bet you have…
    1
  70.  @twolak1972  Cheap shot. I don't need to. I have all the statical evidence I need. Sure, It's nice if pilots can have confidence in their aircraft but that's not the same as getting results. Has it occurred to you that the P-51 was a smaller target than the P-47? In any case, I'm really only interested in what can be proved or disproved and that doesn't run to pilot opinions,.of which I have read many. Doubtless the first one that will come to mind is the memoir of Robert S. Johnson in 'Thunderbolt!'. I read that as a teenager and that's probably the market it is best suited to. A lot of what Johnsons says is exaggerated and in some cases provably wrong. So why should I care? Try Richard E. Turner's memoir, 'Big Friend, Little Friend' if you like pilot memoirs. Not as many tall stories. And he flew with Blakeslee.
    1
  71. @ LOL! That’s hilarious.
    1
  72.  @twolak1972  Gabreski - to spell his name correctly - never flew the P-51 and certainly not in combat. His opinion is just another judgement that I don’t need to read. The fact is that every pilot will prefer the aircraft he had the most success with. It’s also true that - more than any other type - P-47 pilots appear to be slighted by the fact that the P-51 rightly enjoyed greater status in post war assessments. I’m happy to provide background and backup information to support this any time you want it. I have no illusions that you will learn anything from it though. The idea that anyone flying in combat could ever be as ‘safe as being in your mother’s arms’ only holds water if you are stupid enough to believe that the P-47 couldn’t be shot down. Some actually do believe that. Are you one of them? Normally I wouldn’t bother with this but your comment is so fatuous that it represents a new low in public understanding of air combat. Only someone who truly has no knowledge of the subject could believe that. It’s not that risks can’t be reduced. It’s your use of the word ‘safe’ in this context that is laughable. It’s a subtle difference and it’s unlikely that you will even see it.
    1
  73. I don't know how you figure that. There are several reasons why the P-51 was the better aircraft. But the real story has to come from the pilots and their foes. The German pilots measured their fighters against the P-51. They talked about it in interviews and in their memoirs. There were two aircraft that gave the German high command the screaming meemies. the de Havilland Mosquito and the P-51 Mustang. And we know this because they tell us.
    1
  74. By the way: The P-51 shot down 1.6 times as many aircraft as the P-47. It scored 30% more ground kills than the P-47. It did both those things in half the number of missions of the P-47. The P-51 could go literally anywhere the bombers went, enabling true strategic bombing. The P-51 wrecked the Luftwaffe.
    1
  75.  @bloviatormaximus1766  "like a good relief pitcher the mustang wasn't around until the late innings the allies had the lead before it got a new engine, came in and became the glory hog with the W" I'm sorry but what does this mean?
    1
  76.  @dgott7726  I'm sorry but Greg is full of shit. He's got a lot of nerdy charts but he's read no actual history. His claims are misleading and frankly, absurd.
    1
  77.  @tirebiter1680  The P-47's engine cowling was quite efficient. The problem was that it was very heavy and didn't carry enough internal fuel.
    1
  78.  @steveperreira5850  Yeah, that's been well and truly debunked.
    1
  79. "The Thunderbolt fought against better pilots, the luftwaffe was not as formidable by the time the mustang took over." This is a bit of a hoax. Until the P-51 arrived the majority of German pilots were flying in the East. And that's where most of them were lost. Not in the same proportions as the army but nevertheless, it holds. Greg's video tried to make it out that the P-47 defeated the Luftwaffe by itself in 1943. He's wrong, unless you believe the Germans were only fighting in the West. "Additionally the ten higjest scoring Thunderbolt aces all survived the war." Without more statistical information, I don't think there's much that can be drawn rom this. "I'd want to be in a Thunderbolt if I had the choice." The vast majority of pilots and commanders wouldn't agree with you but that's your businesss.
    1
  80. By the way, in 1943 the Allies accounted for 451 Luftwaffe aircraft in the west, with the P-47 claiming 414 of them. To put that into context, the Germans lost 22,000 aircraft by the end of 1943, so the P-47 only accounted for maybe 2%. This makes the claim that the P-47 did all the heavy lifting before the P-51 arrived or that it broke the back of the Luftwaffe a load of absolute bunk. The 8th Air Force might have disagreed anyway, on their experiences over Schweinfurt, even as late as October.
    1
  81. "P-51 cheaper, simpler ,easier to fly" Actually, it was harder to fly because of the way it consumed its fuel. But the pilots and the commanders wanted it and the Germans feared it. "Once pilots got used to stall characteristics of laminar flow wings." There wasn't much to get used to. The wing was better than that of the P-47 in just about every way. The problem with the P-51 was the way it used its fuel. The pilot had to start with the left hand tank. Once that was used up, he'd switch to the right. As if that wasn't hard enough, as soon as he dropped his empties, he was on the tank behind the pilot. In that configuration it needed a lot of forward trim and was not a good time to get bounced. That said, it was also cruising faster and much more efficiently - because of the wing - than any other type in the war. The laminar flow thing has been over stated. The means of producing such a wing didn't really exist until after the war but it was a good try. Where the Mustang's wing excelled was in efficiency. The P-47 had its post of maximum thickness at 30%, same as the Spitfire. The P-51 wing had its maximum thickness at 38.9%, which is even further aft than the Sea Fury. That meant shockwave formation was offset, giving the Mustang a higher tactical and critical Mach number. This was about controllability. The more you look, the more advanced the P-51 was but it was not without its drawbacks.
    1
  82. "Very robust, very reliable, two more guns and it was not dependent on glycol." All this has been overstated. By all means have you preferences but the pilots and commanders - not to mention the Germans - would mostly have disagreed with you.
    1
  83.  @paulbantick8266  What? More overhyped than the Ho-229?
    1
  84. Silly Greg nonsense. Greg is excessively strong on technical mumbo-jumbo but has read no history. He provides no anecdotal evidence for anything he says.
    1
  85. "it could be argued that by the time the P-51s came into widespread use over Europe, the P-47s had already done the heavy lifting and broken the back of the Luftwaffe." This is simply not true. In 1943, the USAAF shot down 451 German aircraft in Western Europe, with the lion's share - 414 - going to the P-47. The rest went to P-38s and Spitfires from Eagle Squadrons. The Germans lost 22,000 aircraft in 1943. So 2% is hardly breaking the back of the Luftwaffe. And this is pretty easy to prove historically, so rather than relying on conjecture spread by 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles', you're better off reading some history. For the record, the British shot down a similar number. "Additionally, strategic bombing and naval warfare had begun to degrade the quality of things like fuel needed for the Luftwaffe planes to operate at their best when the P-51s came in." This is rather too general to explain the situation. Germany was under industrial resources pressure for the entire war and the raids on Ploesti were simply one of a number of resources problems they had. It wasn't even the only fuel problem. At the end of 1943, there were eight groups flying P-47s, totalling about 400 aircraft. There was one novice group of P-51s and another group of P-38s. At the time of 'Operation Argument' in February 1944, there was still only a small number of P-51s but they were starting to score. In March, the P-51s outscored the P-47s. In April, the P-47s shot down 82 German aircraft to 329 by the P-51s. And they did this with half the number of aircraft. The figures remained spectacularly lopsided for the rest of the war. So it's not like the P-47s all went home when the first P-51s turned up. At the end of the war, the P-51 groups had shot down 1.6 times as many aircraft as the P-47s. They had also destroyed 30% more ground targets. In half the total number of sorties.
    1
  86. Well, as Hub Zemke said, 'You got to have a Ferrari if you want to win the Grand Prix, don’t you?' He was talking about the P-51.
    1
  87.  @AmericasChoice  I responded to another of your comments with a recommendation that you have a look at a site called 'WWII Aircraft Performance' if you're interested in any detail. You won't learn history from it but you might find it useful background.
    1
  88. This video is largely a distillation of data block figures and generalisations. The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft in the European theatre, in 423,000 missions. The P-51 shot down 4,950 in 213,000 missions.. The P-47 destroyed 3,202 aircraft on the ground in the ETO. The P-51 destroyed 4,131 aircraft on the ground in the ETO. The Mustang was actually the more versatile of the two.
    1
  89. By the way, and not to be too obnoxious here, ‘aircraft’ is both singular and plural, YouTube notwithstanding. There is no such word as 'aircrafts' in this context.
    1
  90.  @jacktattis  Range was not ever an issue. Politics was. Read James Holland’s ’Big Week’, which shows how the USAAF drew the Luftwaffe into an attrition campaign it couldn’t sustain. Holland points out that there was absolutely no reason the Spitfire could not have done escort duties over Germany. The problem was Trafford Leigh-Mallory, who didn’t want Fighter Command participating in USAAF raids past the Dutch coast. In the end, RAF Mustangs, which lacked the 100 gallon fuel tank behind the pilot, did some escorts work for the American bombers. But I believe at that time, they were actually assigned to 2TAF under Don Bennett, who had a much more cooperative attitude than either Leigh-Mallory or Arthur Harris.
    1
  91.  @jacktattis  France was different, Jack. Spitfires had been flying rhubarbs there for a couple of years before the Americans arrived.
    1
  92.  @jacktattis  And yes, you are correct about Conningham. Bennett was responsible for the PFF. Nevertheless, those RAF Mustangs did not, as far as I know, fall under the command of Leigh-Mallory. I believe they were a part of 2TAF.
    1
  93.  @jacktattis  I’m well aware of that. The 190 appeared in 1941, a year before the Americans arrived.
    1
  94.  @treyhelms5282  No, Johnson’s account - in this case - was about a mock combat he claims he took part in with a Spitfire. That’s what I’m basing it off anyway.
    1
  95.  @treyhelms5282  It’s a single passage in the book, rather than two separate incidents. It was in his claims about the new prop. The actual text is probably pretty easy to find on the internet. I know I’ve seen it before. He never says he outclimbed a Spitfire. He does say that no 109 or 190 ever outclimbed him again. But that needs to be seen in context. He always had the advantage of attitude so the situation was unlikely to arise.
    1
  96.  @IncogNito-gg6uh  Hmmm… interesting post. First of all, I didn’t realise Arnold wrote an autobiography. That would be an interesting reference. Secondly, your observation that the USAAF had little to do with the development of the P-51 could apply equally to the P-47. Some of the design decisions that were made by Republic suggest they were going off on their own tangent, rather than listening to what the Air Force needed. The difference was that one created a problem and the other solved it. The worrying thing about that was that it seemed to happen by chance, rather than design.
    1
  97. "the P47M saw combat with the 56th FG in the ETO and it was completely ignored, but you mentioned the P51H which never saw combat." He mentioned the -N, which he shouldn't have, more times than he mentioned the P-51H. It's a weak point of the video that he set himself the very reasonable parameters of using only the -D models to compare and then almost immediately deviated from them.
    1
  98.  @Reylock118  The subject was 'the best fighter in Europe'. It made sense to limit the comparison to the most typical variants, the -D models, in both cases. That's where he should have left it.
    1
  99.  @Reylock118  Yeah but he started with an excellent principle: comparing the -D models - and then didn't stick to it. What's the point of that if you're going to start talking about -N model Thunderbolts and -K model Mustangs? And what's the point of making a video specific to the ETO and talking about the Pacific?
    1
  100. By 1944, new pilots in the Luftwaffe had 110-120 hours and maybe 12-15 on front line fighters. It was very much like new pilots in the RAF during the Battle of Britain.
    1
  101.  @bobbycv64  That’s just internet exaggeration. Total BS. Against rifle caliber ammunition or proximity air burst, maybe. The P-47 was just as vulnerable to direct 20 and 30mm hits as the P-51. Two or three hits from a 20mm was enough. One hit from a 30mm would do it. There’s a channel called ‘WWII US Bombers’ or something that has done videos on exactly this.
    1
  102.  @ScoopsTVtools  Another freak incident, cited as some kind of ‘evidence’. Statistically irrelevant. Flying back from this condition from somewhere over Holland is one thing. Flying back in that condition from Pforzheim or Stuttgart is another. That’s how survivor bias works, kid. You should read about it sometime.
    1
  103. @ That’s an old story. Do you really think I haven’t heard it before? It’s grown arms and legs over the years. I believe very little of what I see on YouTube and even less of the hyperbole of YouTube posters.
    1
  104.  @twolak1972  By the way, there are many things that make for a good fighter aircraft. Mission availability is one factor nobody ever talks about. Overall exchange rate, AKA: K/D, is another. Handling qualities in respect of new pilots, making for ease of transition to new types. Transit speeds for escort work. Ability to climb away from your opponent. Stability as a gun platform. All those pointy headed things like roll rates, climb rates, top speeds, VNE, aerodynamic efficiency, fuel economy, cockpit visibility, control harmony, fuel and engine management systems, ease of egress in an emergency and even ability to absorb battle damage. All of those things in various combinations make or break a fighter. There are grand strategy matters, like the skill base in your industrial system, i.e.: whether or not you can build an advanced fighter, there is the matter of building the infrastructure to support the specific aspects of that type. There is the matter of what it is made out of (in this case there was very little difference between the P-47 and the P-51). The training schemes that need to be set up not just for pilots but for ground crews. There are the operational considerations, ranging from how you get them into the appropriate theatre of operations. There is the mission planning and the aircraft's ability to complete the mission - given expected pilot performance - effectively. Then there are the tactical considerations, ranging from group level to squadron level, to section level and finally to individual pilot level. P-47 Enemy aircraft shot down in the ETO: 3082 Total losses (all causes): 3078 Air combat losses: 1043 Ground fire/Flak: 1356 Combat exchange rate (K/D): 2.04 Loss rate: 0.73 P-51 Enemy aircraft shot down in the ETO: 4950 Total losses (all causes): 2520 Combat losses: 1100-1200 Ground fire/Flak: 700-800 Combat exchange rate (K/D): 3.60 Loss rate: 1.18 The higher loss rate of the P-51 is reflected in its range. The P-51 spent a lot more mission time over hostile territory than the P-47. Figures show that it was almost twice as likely to engage with the enemy because of that. Survivor bias must therefore be taken into account. My honest assessment after literally decades of reading about it is that the P-51 represented a substantial improvement in capability over the P-47 and that was largely the view of the pilots on both sides. Ultimately, the figures speak for themselves.
    1
  105.  @twolak1972  Ability to absorb battle damage is just one desirable attribute in a combat aircraft. There are dozens of others and they are not limited to the opinion of the end user either.
    1
  106. @ At least I’ve read history. You haven’t. I came into this believing the P-47 was under appreciated and the P-51 a bit overrated. After reading about the missions and the stats, not to mention the operational and strategic changes it brought about, I can honestly say I was wrong. Boy, was I wrong. So are you.
    1
  107. That's a game, FFS...
    1
  108.  @DenBed  You should read some history.
    1
  109.  @DenBed  "And You should mind your own business, Coming after people for liking games or whatnot, How old are you dude?" In case you hadn't noticed, the thread was titled "P-51 Mustang vs P-47 Thunderbolt: Best US fighter in Europe'. It didn't say anything about games. Perhaps it should also say 'P-47 fans are easily offended'. But hey, you've played War Thunder so you must know history, right? "Your personal opinions on games like War Thunder, That's your call, But its clearly apparent that games like these have a MASSIVE hand in striking up interest in history and preserving said history." Which is why I told you to read some history. You will learn absolutely nothing from playing games.
    1
  110.  @davidwood2205  LOL!!
    1
  111.  @davidwood2205  LOL!!
    1
  112.  @davidwood2205  You’ll forgive me for not believing your story. LOL!
    1
  113. And couldn't get to Berlin.
    1
  114. Ironically, the P-51 was more versatile. It may not have carried the same payload as the P-47 but it was very effective in pretty much any role assigned to it.
    1
  115.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  "And did go to Berlin." Evidence please. Look, there were long range P-47s which had 370 gals of internal fuel but by the time they were operational it was far too late. The USAAF had bases on the Continent and the Mustangs had done most of the major work to defeat the Luftwaffe. "It's also commonly glossed over that in the pacific p47's were flying 6 hr missions." Only the -N model and that only saw service in the last weeks of the war in the Pacific. It wasn't relevant to Europe. "Far further than England to Berlin." Yet the P-51, which had a higher cruise speed than the P-47, was flying up to seven hour missions. "And it's conveniently forgotten that the early p51b didn't have the fuel capacity of the p51D so it's really a game of dates not capability." Those don't matter. There ones that were sent to operate from the UK in December, 1943 had the extra 85 gallon tank behind the pilot. "But the 51 could do it far more cost effectively. It was a much cheaper plane and burned far fewer gallons of gas to cover the same distance" Cost was not a consideration in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Barney Giles in August, 1943. The only thing that mattered was range. The P-51 was half a generation ahead of the P-47. Those pilots, like Hub Zemke and Don Blakeslee, who had flown all three American types (Blakeslee had also flown Spitfires with Eagle Squadron) said that they wanted the P-51 because they knew it was the best aircraft for the job. Do you think they cared about cost? No. They just wanted the best. But the capability argument is largely irrelevant anyway. In fact, it's really just a distraction. The statistical argument makes it much clearer.
    1
  116.  @jacktattis  "I understand most however the P51 did not do most of the work against the Luftwaffe by the USAAF That was the P47" I don't know on what basis that would be. If you're talking purely in number of missions, well, yes, the P-47 flew 423,000 missions in the ETO, while the P-51 flew 213,000. On the basis of numbers shot down, the P-47 shot down 3,082, versus 4,950 for the P-51. Even allowing for over claiming - and I'm assuming that it will be approximately the same across the board - the P-51 likely did shoot down approximately 60% more than the P-47. So the Mustang had almost three times the likelihood of engaging with the enemy. The P-47 had an exchange rate of 2.04 vs the P-51 3.60. Remember that, also long as the USAAF relied on P-47s for escort, all the Luftwaffe had to do was wait until the escorts turned for home before attacking. Goering actually told his controllers to direct fighters only to attack after the P-47s had turned for home. With the Mustang, the Luftwaffe had no opportunity to ignore them. The P-51 simply forced the Luftwaffe to fight, something they simply could not afford. It wouldn't matter if the P-51 shot down fewer German aircraft. The fact is that it was the one aircraft that made it impossible for the Luftwaffe to avoid combat. In effect, the P-51 achieved what the Bf-109 could not achieve over England and the rest of the UK. If you recall, Luftflotte 5 attempted to fly raids from Norway and got seven colours of shit shot out of them. The only missions the 109 could fly in escort went about as far as London. If you want to put it into context, it would be like the Bf-109 being able to fly to John O'Groats in Scotland.
    1
  117.  @jacktattis  We’ve been over this already., Jack. I can’t imagine the USAAF making such an egregious accounting error, especially when you consider the rate at which the P-51 started scoring after March, 1944.
    1
  118.  @jacktattis  Until the P-51 arrived, the Allies could not take the fight to the Germans. Most P-47s could barely penetrate German airspace and Goering instructed the fighter controllers not to attack bomber formations until the P-47s had turned for home. By the end of 1943, P-47s, P-38s and Eagle Squadron Spitfires had accounted for a total of 451 German aircraft since their debut in April. The P-47 accounted for the lion’s share with 414. The Germans lost 22,000 aircraft that year, so without wishing to denigrate the performance of anyone, their impact was <2% of the total. After 14 October, 1943, long range bomber operations were suspended until the P-51 arrived. Even then, until it was available in significant numbers, its effects could not be fully appreciated. By April, 1944, the P-51 was out scoring the P-47 by a factor of eight. The reason is relatively simple: the Luftwaffe no longer had a choice. They had to engage and they got soundly beaten. The P-51 was involved in the war for approximately 17 months but its involvement was decisive. The P-47’s role was not.
    1
  119.  @jacktattis  Yes but by the middle of 1944, Flak was a bigger problem than fighters. This was a direct result of the P-51. Once the Allies had established bases in mainland Europe, the P-47’s range problem was diminished. But the Luftwaffe was already on the back foot by then and that was the result of the P-51. Ironically, the P-47’s finest hour was during February and ‘Big Week’.
    1
  120.  @jacktattis  I don’t know where you got this idea that the P-47 was more dominant than the P-51. If you read the German records you will find that they were much more impressed by the P-51 than they ever were by the P-47. This comes up time and again. Galland talks about interviews with pilots like Werner Schroer talk about the Mustang and it was the standard by which they judged their own mounts. So, in fact, the P-51 remained the dominant allied fighter until the end.
    1
  121.  @jacktattis  "And if you go into Ciel de Glorie Unites sit down for 3 days and go through all the F/Gs in the ETO you will find that the P51 did not get more kills than the P47" Yeah but I don't accept the explanation. Bill Marshall has gone through all of this and his figures are the ones I"m using.
    1
  122.  @jacktattis  "Of course they could They did it right through the War." Could what? Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to here.
    1
  123.  @jacktattis  Jack, I'm not doing this for any other reason than to find the best available version of the truth. The internet being what it is, you get accused of playing favourites or being a hater or a fanboi. All I did was read. When I first started, I was of the opinion that the P-47 had not been widely enough appreciated for its work. After reading - mostly history of missions or campaigns - I find that, not only was the gap between the two was wider than I previously thought but the P-51 was actually more decisive than most people today even accept. But what is needed here is reading. Among the books I have read over time which have made this clear are: ''The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission', by Martin Middlebrook, 'Big Week', by James Holland, 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethel and Dr Alfred Price, 'The First and the Last', by Adolph Galland 'Big Friend, Little Friend', by Lt Col Richard E. Turner, 'I Flew for the Fuhrer', by Heinz Knoke My numbers come from Francis Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand' and 'P-51B Mustang: North American’s Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force', by James William Marshall and Lowell Ford. I'm not saying you have to read all these books. The reason I posted it is to show you why I believe what I do. That's it.
    1
  124.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  That was six months later. By that stage Flak was more of a threat than fighters. The question is really about its use as an escort. In that capacity it was not really competitive. Sure, there were longer range Thunderbolts but they arrived in number far too late to do what was needed and had been handed over to the Ninth Air Force. As an attack aircraft, the P-47 did well over Northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands. But its finest hour as an escort fighter was probably during ‘Big Week’, in February, 1944. After that, the P-51 began to out score it very dramatically.
    1
  125.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  What do you mean by ‘very early on’?
    1
  126.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  Drop tanks were not the answer. Internal fuel capacity was the answer. That’s why the USAAC and later USAAF wanted manufacturers to increase internal fuel capacity.
    1
  127.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  "The truth is all of the above was the answer. The usaaf really dropped the ball early on slow rolling the use of droptanks on fighters" Well, this is an extremely contentious matter. Drop tanks are not the answer to range performance. That can only be improved by increasing internal fuel. The old saying goes that drop tanks use half of the fuel in them getting the other half there. Also Materiel Command sent out a directive even before Pearl Harbor that manufacturers should increase their internal capacity. So even if we accept that there was a memo instructing manufacturers not to make drop tanks, it is at least balanced by their other directive to increase capacity. So from my perspective, this is more a matter of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. I can see their point of view. "but all 3 Frontline escort fighters needed and were modified to hold more internal and external fuel within a month or two of each other...." Yes but Republic was much slower off the mark. Longer range P-38s and P-51s were available in December of '43 and the P-51B was available in numbers from March '44. The long range P-47s were not available until September '44, by which time they were no longer needed.
    1
  128.  @jacktattis  I don’t think anyone doubts that, Jack. But to be that effective, the 9th Air Force needed to operate in an environment of air superiority. That was established by the P-51.
    1
  129.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  This was not a problem caused by the USAAF. It was a problem caused by Republic. You could argue that Schweinfurt should not have been raided but it was deemed a priority target and opportunity was limited. I know Greg makes a big thing of this ‘ban on drop tanks’ but a bit of research and some critical thought shows that it doesn’t have a lot going for it.
    1
  130.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  "The same could be said for the fact that the usaaf sat on the p51 for two years doing nothing with it until they lost 100,000 men." So, would you say that getting 100,000 killed was part of their agenda? Would you say that they wouldn't have done anything until that happened? Was this their benchmark, their one Pomeranian Grnadier? Let's look at the history. On 9 October, 1942, Materiel Command ordered 1,350 P-51s and they were ready by mid-1943. But ready, as in built, and operationally ready, are two different things. Introducing a new fighter type is not a simple matter. Apart from thatchy had to modify it by fitting the 85 gallon tank behind the pilot to increase the internal fuel capacity before they could be deemed ready for service. hen, of course, there were pilots to train and support equipment to source.. The letter from Arnold was in August and the Mustangs started arriving in England in December. So, in fact, they acted very quickly but if Republic had responded to earlier directives to increase fuel capacity, the situation might not have been as serious as it was. Unfortunately they did not. So I fail to see how the USAAF can be blamed - least of all the way you are doing it - for one manufacturer failing to respond when everyone else did. Is this a bomber mafia conspiracy? No, it's not. I'm not sure what you think you're proving with this.
    1
  131.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  "he same could be said for the fact that the usaaf sat on the p51 for two years doing nothing with it until they lost 100,000 men." So, am I to conclude that this was their benchmark? Was getting 100,000 men killed part of their agenda, would you say? What would have happened if they had only managed to kill 50,000? Materiel Command ordered 1,350 P-51s on 9 October, 1942 and by mid-1943, they were ready. But ready and operational are two different things. Arnold's letter to Giles was in August and by December, P-51s were already arriving in England. In the meantime they had to be fitted with 85 gallon fuel tanks in place of the radio behind the pilot. They also had pilots to train and infrastructure equipment to source and send to the UK. That stuff doesn't just happen. So, in fact, they acted very quickly. But the situation might have been less serious or even averted, had Republic done what everyone else did and increased internal fuel capacity. I can't honestly see where you're hoping to go with this.
    1
  132.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  "he same could be said for the fact that the usaaf sat on the p51 for two years doing nothing with it until they lost 100,000 men." So, am I to conclude that this was their benchmark? Was getting 100,000 men killed part of their agenda, would you say? What would have happened if they had only managed to kill 50,000? Materiel Command ordered 1,350 P-51s on 9 October, 1942 and by mid-1943, they were ready. But ready and operational are two different things. Arnold's letter to Giles was in August and by December, P-51s were already arriving in England. In the meantime they had to be fitted with 85 gallon fuel tanks in place of the radio behind the pilot. They also had pilots to train and infrastructure equipment to source and send to the UK. That stuff doesn't just happen. So, in fact, they acted very quickly. But the situation might have been less serious or even averted, had Republic done what everyone else did and increased internal fuel capacity. I can't honestly see where you're hoping to go with this.
    1
  133. "The same could be said for the fact that the usaaf sat on the p51 for two years doing nothing with it until they lost 100,000 men." So, am I to conclude that this was their benchmark? Was getting 100,000 men killed part of their agenda, would you say? What would have happened if they had only managed to kill 50,000? Materiel Command ordered 1,350 P-51s on 9 October, 1942 and by mid-1943, they were ready. But ready and operational are two different things. Arnold's letter to Giles was in August and by December, P-51s were already arriving in England. In the meantime they had to be fitted with 85 gallon fuel tanks in place of the radio behind the pilot. They also had pilots to train and infrastructure equipment to source and send to the UK. That stuff doesn't just happen. So, in fact, they acted very quickly. But the situation might have been less serious or even averted, had Republic done what everyone else did and increased internal fuel capacity. I can't honestly see where you're hoping to go with this. @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS 
    1
  134.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  By December, 1943, that’s exactly what it was. No, I don’t remember that remark and it isn’t relevant. I have never mentioned the K model so I have no interest in any remark you’re complaining about that I didn’t make.
    1
  135.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  It was the P-47 that had to be modified to take wing tanks. That commenced in late ‘43 and had to be done in the field. The line mod, the D-11, did not become available until March and not in significant numbers. The first P-47s to carry more than 300 gallons internally were the D-25 that went into service in May, 1944, by which time it was clear that the Mustang was doing everything that was required of it. The first P-51Bs went into service at the end of 1943 but by March of 1944, they had already eclipsed the P-47 in terms of German aircraft shot down. In April, the P-47s shot down 82 German aircraft. That same month, the P-51s shot down 329, with half the force size. That means the P-51 was out scoring the P-47 by a factor of eight to one.
    1
  136.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  It also spent a lot more of its time in hostile airspace. A P-47, hit in the undercarriage, leaking hydraulic fluid and with an oleo dangling 20 degrees over Antwerp had a much better chance of getting back to England than a P-51 with the same problem over Cottbus. If you look at the stats from the ETO, the P-51 pilot was between two and three times more likely to engage in combat than a P-47 pilot.
    1
  137.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  I think your question is, ‘Why can’t you just tell me what I want to hear?’ I started this in the belief that the P-47 was underrated and the P-51 was overrated. My research - which I have undertaken independently - has led me to the polar opposite conclusion. I provide you with first rate statistics from reliable sources and you dismiss it as propaganda. Furthermore, you seem quite angry about this. That’s not my problem. It’s also not my job to confirm your personal prejudices. I can find almost no area where the pro-P-47 argument stacks up. It was a good aircraft. It actually did shoot down 3,082 German aircraft in the ETO and it performed extremely well as a Jabo. But stories of mighty high dives, coming home with cylinders shot away, ‘breaking the back of the Luftwaffe’ and out climbing Spitfires (!) have very little going for them. This is a historical debate, rather than a technical one. The aircraft can only be judged on what they achieved, against the numbers available. And whether that meets with your approval or not is no concern of mine.
    1
  138.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  I don’t know about moving the goalposts. I have addressed your point as directly as I can and with reliably sourced information. I don’t get a lot of information from YouTube. I get most of it from books. Would you like me to list a few of them?
    1
  139.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  ”Ya list the books with that ignorant comment about “mighty dives” wow that was a gem” ’Thunderbolt’’, by Robert S. Johnson and Martin Caidin. ”Bud Anderson stated Jimmy Doolittles pivot to let fighters free roam and take axis planes to the deck was the single most important step, you use it as a slight….” There seems to be no disagreement about the free roam tactic. What’s your beef? Doolittle’s strategy was to draw the Luftwaffe into a battle of attrition he knew they could not win. That was the point of Operation POINTBLANK. Free roam was a part of that. ”Something tells me that lack of understanding is why your in a tiny chat trying to convince me the p51 was as robust as a p47…rather than organising any organised public omission.” What? The P-47 and P-51 were built out of approximately the same gauges of Duralumin. They had approximately the same resistance to bullet (not much). What I was pointing out was that the units that switched from the P-47 to the P-51 did not suffer any worse casualties and in some cases did better with the P-51. I was also pointing out that the P-51’s loss rate was directly affected by survivor bias, when compared with the P-47. The P-51 pilot was also nearly three times as likely to engage in combat as a P-47 pilot. That’s what the figures show. I don’t know why you would have a problem with that.
    1
  140.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  The system was never absolutely one or the other. If you look at the relay system and the way groups were relieved, you can see that the P-47 was still very range limited, right up to mid-1944. That’s not theoretical either. It’s how the missions were planned…by people who knew more than we do about these things.
    1
  141.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  ”The loss rate was 40% higher….take all the time you need to actually wrap your head around that…” I have already addressed this. The P-51 - because of its range - spent a lot more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. This is also reflected in the numbers of aircraft shot down. The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft in the ETO, while the P-51 shot down 4,950. The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04, compared to 3.60 for the P-51. I also gave you an example of survivor bias, which is something the P-51’s critics never address. As for comparisons with the Typhoon… CAS is a dangerous mission, even today. Yet the units that transitioned to the P-51, on the whole, did better than when they were flying the P-47. The point is that the ‘one bullet in the cooling system and it’s all over’ argument has nothing going for it. Yet we are expected to believe that those P-51s did not come home because they were flimsy and had liquid cooled engines… A CAS pilot was vulnerable to three things: enemy aircraft, Flak and collision, either with another aircraft or flying into the ground. No pilot is going to be sweating a bullet in the radiator when he might be vaporised by a 37 mm in the next three seconds.
    1
  142.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  Okay, let me put it this way: with the P-51 the USAAF could carry out its strategic bombing mission and complete Operation POINTBLANK. Without it they could not. You won’t find memoirs from pilots claiming they coulda done it with the P-47. Pilots like Zemke and Blakeslee, both of whom had flown all three US types, were unequivocal in their support for the P-51. There’s no question about what they wanted. Further to that, the USAAF didn’t have the luxury of being able to wait for Republic to get their act together after two years of asking for greater internal fuel. Nobody did and certainly not without the extra casualties they could expect to incur in the meantime. Why do you think it wasn’t ‘the best’? Why do you think range was the ‘only thing it was good at’? The stats are pretty clear, for starters.
    1
  143.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  What has the 262 got to do with it?
    1
  144.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  I’m not even sure what your turbocharging comment has to do with anything.
    1
  145.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  My favourite aircraft is not in this discussion.
    1
  146.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  "Pilot reports in 1944 don't do much when the usaaf married itself to turbo charging and allision had no supercharging options in development in 1940 when it mattered......" But Johnson matters because he tells you what you want to hear.
    1
  147.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  "I heard Galland wasnt to happy when his leadership delayed the 262 by an entire year so it could drop bombs....by your logic maybe we should blame Fokke wulf." No, that's your 'logic'. You must tell me more about myself some time.
    1
  148.  @b6056tc  Not a chance. The P-47 was replaced by a better aircraft. But with the advent of the internet, we’re not allowed to say that lest we offend P-47 fanbois (who have a record of not reading history).
    1
  149. Rubbish.
    1
  150. The -N was only int the war for a few weeks and made no material difference.
    1
  151. I don't. I think they had some of the good looking ones.
    1
  152. This P-51 vulnerability thing has no basis in fact. In fact, it’s internet BS. If you look at the USAAF figures, you will find that the P-51 suffered only slightly higher casualties but spent a lot more time in enemy airspace than the P-47 and scored around 30% more ground kills. That should tell you a lot. And in fact, its air to air K/D was twice that of the P-47. The harder you look at the USAAF figures, the clearer it becomes. The P-51 was substantially better than the P-47 in pretty much every department and no less survivable.
    1
  153.  @richardmontana5864  That’s not an argument Richard and you know it.
    1
  154.  @richardmontana5864  Show us your proof Richard.
    1
  155.  @richardmontana5864  Come on Richard, chop, chop. Let’s see your figures. I’ll wait while you watch Greg’s videos again.
    1
  156. The USAAF could not have raided Berlin without the Mustang.
    1
  157.  @twolak1972  Has anyone ever told you that you’re a dick?
    1
  158. "P-47 for me please. The P-51 is an average fighter with very good range. Highly overrated imho." And the more you read and research this subject, the more obvious it is that the internet overrates the P-47 and does the P-51 a serious disservice. The P-51 shot down 60% more German aircraft than the P-47. The P-51 destroyed 30% more ground targets than the P-47. The P-51 enabled the USAAF to fly literally anywhere in Germany and many places beyond, with full escort cover, something no version of the P-47 could do. The P-51 wrecked the Luftwaffe. So much so that by mid-1944, Flak was a bigger problem than fighters. So, if anything, the reality is the other way around. The P-47 has become seriously overrated and the P-51 dismissed. The Americans could not carry out strategic bombing without the P-51. That was obvious by late 1943. No amount of twisting the story can change that.
    1
  159.  @xandyxcondax  "The P-47 pilots weren’t allowed to leave the bombers an go after the German fighters, after the P-51 arrived, they changed the rule. Without that, the P-47 kill score would have been even higher." No it wouldn't. The vast majority of P-47s couldn't get past the Dutch border, even with a 108 gallon centreline tank. Goering instructed his fighter controllers not to engage the bombers until the P-47s had gone home.
    1
  160.  @crusader5989  Greg is basically a hoaxer and conspiracy theorist. He never, ever cites actual operational examples and uses calculated figures instead of real world ones.
    1
  161.  @crusader5989  "The P-47 actually was faster, had longer range, better armament, better survivability and was both a better high altitude fighter and close air support aircraft than the P-51." That's pretty much all BS and easy to disprove. Where would you like to start?
    1
  162.  @crusader5989  "It looks that my comment has hurt a lot of P-51 hearts." I think you overvalue your knowledge of this subject. You also overvalue your opinion of who might be 'butthurt'. I'm interested in one thing only: the best available version of the truth. "So i am supposed to believe you right? Do yourself a 45 minute long video with graphs and charts etc and then we talk." Get stuffed. "Extensive evaluation of P-51B by R.A.F.'s AFDU against Me-109 and FW-190 says otherwise. This was done because having range doesn't mean much if you can't successfully combat the fighters going after the bombers you're escorting." They could and they did. Let's ignore the technical baloney and look at some data analysis because the proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. This is from Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand': P-47 Thunderbolt Sorties: 423,435 Combat Losses: 3,077 Air Kills: 3,082 Ground Kills: 3,202 Total: 6,284 Loss % per sortie: 0.73% Combat exchange: 2.04 P-51 Mustang Sorties: 213,873 Combat losses: 2,520 Air Kills: 4,950 Ground Kills: 4,131 Total: 9,081 Loss % per sortie: 1.18% Combat exchange: 3.60 So in other words, the P-51 shot down 60% more aircraft and destroyed 30% more ground targets in half the number of sorties. So, in fact, the P-51 was very good at combating the fighters who were attacking the bombers they were escorting. In April, 1944, P-47s shot down 82 German aircraft while the P-51s scored 328. In half the number of sorties. You can find this is the Luftwafffe records and the memoirs and interviews with German pilots. So you digest that then get back to me. I'm happy to discuss whatever topic you like. I started this with an open mind and the more I have read about the P-51, the P-47 and the missions they flew - yes, I read books and don't care much about YouTube videos - the more obvious it becomes. It was the P-51 that wrecked the Luftwaffe.
    1
  163.  @crusader5989  No butthurt here. I started this with an open mind with, if anything, a leaning towards the P-47, which I thought was something of a quiet achiever. But the more I have read, the clearer it is that the P-51 thoroughly deserves its stellar reputation. I have only one interest in this topic and that is the best available version of the truth. There is an old saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So let’s dispense with the technical blather and look at the P-51 v the P-47 in terms of statistics. The P-51 arrived in England in December, 1943. At that time there were eight fighter groups operating the P-47 and two operating the P-38. At this stage, the P-47 had shot down a total of 414 German fighters in the ETO since its combat debut in April. In February, 1944, the P-47 shot down about 250 German fighters, while the P-51 got about 50 (from memory). In March, the P-51 got around 250, compared to around 150 for the P-47. In April, the P-47 got 82. The P-51 got 329 with half the number of aircraft. In other words, the P-51 was - in that month - eight times more effective than the P-47. The figures remained this way for the rest of the war. By the end of the war, the P-47 had shot down 3,082 German fighters, while the P-51 accounted for 4,950. It had shot down 60% more in air to air and destroyed 30% more ground targets. It was, in fact, the P-51 that wrecked the Luftwaffe. And strategic bombing could not be carried out effectively without the P-51. The P-47 could not do it, despite the revisionist claims.
    1
  164.  @twolak1972  ”The P51 really was average.” Can you cite a reference for this that isn’t a YouTube video (i.e.: not Greg)? ”Its biggest claim to fame wss its range.” Which enabled the USAAF to carry out its strategic bombing campaign without sustaining undue or excessive losses. No P-47 variant did that. This is child’s play to prove. ”It did NOT defeat the Luftwaffe. THE P-47 DID.” The numbers don’t back this up at all. When the P-51 arrived in England in December, 1943, the P-47 shot down 414 German aircraft, from its combat debut in May. The Luftwaffe lost 22,000 aircraft in 1943. Ironically, the P-47’s best month was February, 1944, when it bagged around 250. Much of that happened during ’Big Week’. By April, 1944, the P-51, with half the force size, shot down 329 German fighters, compared to 82 for the P-47. The figures remained lopsided for the rest of the war. In the end, the P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft in the ETO. The P-51 got 4,950 and destroyed 30% more ground targets. So, yes, the P-51 defeated the Luftwaffe. It didn’t do it on its own but its arrival sounded the death knell.
    1
  165.  @twolak1972  ”What you fail to realize is that by the time the 51 came up the war for Germany was lost. The 47 pulled the weight at every situation and the 47,a stayed with the bombers where the glory hound 51 pilots deserted them to mix it up one on 1 with the enemy.” This is fantasy. My bet is that you can provide no specific evidence to back any of this up. By the time the P-47 had its combat debut in April, 1943, the war was already lost and the situation was not changed appreciably by the P-47. In 1943, the USAAF destroyed 451 German aircraft on the western front, with the P-47 getting 414 and the rest split between P-38s and Eagle Squadron Spitfires. But Germany lost 22,000 aircraft in 1943. How is shooting down less than 2% ‘pulling the weight at every situation’? The facts is that the P-47 was only a useful escort as long as the bombers didn’t need to go deep into Germany. Even equipped with a 108 gallon tank on the centreline pylon, the P-47 could not get past the Dutch border. This is very well documented and easy to prove. I would recommend you read ’Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1044’, by Jeffrey Ethel and Dr Alfred Price. They describe in detail the fueling and mission allocation for each type. Secondly, the Luftwaffe had suffered badly from over commitment and losses had become unsustainable from N about late 1942. Williamson Murray goes into this. By 1943, the average new pilot had 110-120 hours, with 10-15 on type. The average American pilot had about ten times that. You can find this in Martin Middlebrook’s book on the Schweinfurt-Regensburg raids. This imbalance remained similarly proportioned for the remainder of the war. So any claim that the P-47 did all the heavy lifting is rubbish and easy to disprove.
    1
  166.  @twolak1972  And you are so obviously wedded to emotional arguments there’s no point trying to convince you otherwise. The contest for which was the better aircraft isn’t close.
    1
  167.  @twolak1972  The P-47, whatever its merits, represents no threat to the P-51s status. The P-51 was just a better aircraft and could go where no P-47 could.
    1
  168.  @twolak1972  "BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role.. For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg. See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27. This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal. By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed. If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like. "Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe." Of course they did. Why wouldn't they? It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not. As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this? The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
    1
  169.  @twolak1972   "BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role.. For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg. See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27. This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal. By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed. If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like. "Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe." Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not. As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this? The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it. "THE UNBREAKABLE." The overrated. As good as the P-47 was - it did shoot down 3,082 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that smashed the Luftwaffe.
    1
  170.  @twolak1972  "BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role.. For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg. See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27. This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal. By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed. If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like. "Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe." Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not. As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this? The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it.
    1
  171.  @twolak1972  YouTube is deleting my replies again.
    1
  172.  @twolak1972  "BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role.. For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg. See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27. This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal. By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed. If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like. "Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe." Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not. As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this? The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it. "THE UNBREAKABLE." The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
    1
  173.  @twolak1972  "BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role.. For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg. See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27. This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal. By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed. If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like. "Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe." Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not. As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this? The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it. "THE UNBREAKABLE." The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
    1
  174.  @twolak1972  "BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role.. For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg. See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27. This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal. By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed. If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like. "Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe." Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not. As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this? The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it. "THE UNBREAKABLE." The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
    1
  175.  @twolak1972  "BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role.. For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg. See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27. This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal. By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed. If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like. "Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe." Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not. As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this? The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it. "THE UNBREAKABLE." The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
    1
  176.  @twolak1972  "BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role.. For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg. See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27. This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal. By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed. If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like. "Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe." Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not. As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this? The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it. "THE UNBREAKABLE." The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
    1
  177.  @twolak1972  "BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role.. For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg. See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27. This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal. By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed. If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like. "Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe." Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not. As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this? The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it. "THE UNBREAKABLE." The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
    1
  178.  @twolak1972  "BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role.. For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg. See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27. This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal. By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed. If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like. "Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe." Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not. As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this? The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it. "THE UNBREAKABLE." The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
    1
  179.  @twolak1972  "BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role.. For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg. See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27. This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal. By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed. If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like. "Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe." Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not. As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this? The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it. "THE UNBREAKABLE." The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
    1
  180.  @twolak1972  "BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role.. For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg. See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27. This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal. By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed. If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like. "Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe." Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not. As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this? The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it. "THE UNBREAKABLE." The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
    1
  181.  @twolak1972  "BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role.. For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg. See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27. This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal. By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed. If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like. "Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe." Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not. As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this? The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it. "THE UNBREAKABLE." The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
    1
  182. "BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. Drop tanks are wasteful because of drag. They say it takes about half the amount of fuel in the tank to get the other half there. That's for one tank. Eventually you run into the law of diminishing returns. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role. For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon and those aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s, equipped with two 108 gallon tanks, could not get beyond Magdeburg. See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27. This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal. By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed. If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like. "Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe." Of course they did. Why wouldn't they? It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry out its policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not. As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this? The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it. "THE UNBREAKABLE." The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, wrecked the Luftwaffe. @twolak1972 
    1
  183.  @twolak1972  "BS. With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." No, that is not true. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel, while the P-51, which drank about 30% less, carried 269 gallons internally. The P-47's internal fuel was not increased to over 300 gallons until the introduction of the P-47D-25. That did not see action until May, 1944, by which time the P-51 was starting to replace the P-47 in the escort role.. For the first major USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two types of P-47 used. Most had one 108 gallon drop tank fitted to the centreline pylon. That aircraft could not get beyond the Dutch border. The second type - about 20% of the total number for P-47s - had been re-plumbed so that tanks could be carried under the wings. Those P-47s could not get beyond Magdeburg. See: 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, pp.11, 26-27. This re-plumbing involved a long, slow process which included cutting metal. By the time any long range P-47s arrived, the Allies already had bases on the Continent and they were no longer needed. If you would like to hear how and why this came about, I'm ready to explain it any time you like. "Problem.was everyone had a hard on for the 51 and forgot what win them the air war over europe." Of course they did. It was the only aircraft with the range that allowed the USAAF to carry outfits policy of long range strategic bombing. With the P-51 they could go anywhere in Germany. Without the P-51, they could not. As for the P-47 winning the air war in Europe, what evidence can you provide to support this? The P-47 shot down 3,082 German aircraft and the P-51 got 4,950 and did so in literally half the number of missions. Again, if you would like more detail on this, I'm happy to provide it. "THE UNBREAKABLE." The overrated. Good as the P-47 was - it did actually shoot down over 3,000 German aircraft - it was the P-51 that, more than any other, smashed the Luftwaffe.
    1
  184.  @twolak1972  This comes from Francis Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'. P-47 Thunderbolt Sorties: 423,435 Losses (all causes): 3,077 Air Kills: 3,082 Ground Kills: 3,202 Total: 6,284 Loss % per sortie: 0.73% Combat exchange: 2.04 P-51 Mustang Sorties: 213,873 Losses (all causes): 2,520 Air Kills: 4,950 Ground Kills: 4,131 Total: 9,081 Loss % per sortie: 1.18% Combat exchange: 3.60 The Mustang wrecked the Luftwaffe.
    1
  185.  @twolak1972  "With twin drop tanks the P47 could go to Berlin and back." Please cite a mission prior to D-Day when this happened. Come to that, please cite a mission prior to 1945 when that happened.
    1
  186. This is straight from 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles'. It's simply not true. The Luftwaffe probably peaked in 1940/41 and it was all down hill from there. On top of that, plenty of German Experten met their maker on the Eastern Front and in the Mediterranean. Others had already been hacked down by the RAF, who had been fighting them for three years before the Yanks arrived. The only time the USAAF sent fighters to smash the Luftwaffe in a battle of attrition was during 'Big Week' in February, 1944. Greg is big on documents and charts and small on history. It doesn't take a lot of research to show he's full of it. Read Williamson Murray's book, 'Luftwaffe: Strategy for defeat, 1933-1945'. Murray goes way further into this than Greg's piss and vinegar.
    1
  187. This is about Europe.
    1
  188. P-38: Did well in the Pacific. Did well in the Mediterranean. Diid poorly over Germany. Was eventually replaced.
    1
  189. The biggest problem in air to ground missions is not a bullet in the radiator but flying into the ground itself. Not to mention that the pilots themselves would tell you that they didn't care as much about small arms fire as they did about a 37mm.
    1
  190.  @steveperreira5850  The Pacific theatre used totally different tactics and altitude. You’ve got it the wrong way around. There is FAR too much emphasis on speed in these threads.
    1
  191.  @akritasdigenis4548  The figures I’ve been crunching don’t support the claim that the P-47 was any more survivable than the P-51. Nobody is going to believe me but are raw these figures from the USAAF.
    1
  192. More food for thought. The P-51 arrived in England in December, 1943, at which time there were eight fighter groups of P-47s and one of P-38s. By the end of March, P-51 groups were out scoring P-47 groups handsomely. In April there were four fighter groups of P-51s against eight groups of P-47s but the P-51 groups shot down 329 Germans aircraft, compared to 82 for the P-47 groups. The P-51 was out scoring the P-47 by a factor of eight to one. There is simply no case for the P-47 being better than the P-51 or even that it was close. It wasn’t. The P-51 was just better in almost every way.
    1
  193.  @ScoopsTV  Oh pahlease… the stats give no support to your claim. P-51s shot down 60% more aircraft and destroyed 30% more ground targets than the P-47 in half the number of missions. What’s more important is that the P-51 could go where no P-47 could. It doesn’t matter how many excuses you make or how much you try to wave it away, without the P-51, the USAAF could not have prosecuted its strategic bombing campaign against Germany. Some people are just butthurt that arguably the best fighter of WWII had a British-designed engine in it. But no amount of revisionism can alter the basic facts. It doesn’t matter how good the P-47 was. The P-51 was just better and when you read as much history as I have it becomes patently obvious. More than any other type, it was the P-51 that trashed the Luftwaffe.
    1
  194.  @ScoopsTV  By the way, Goering realised early on that the best defence against the P-47 was to ignore it. He and his fighter controllers knew that the P-47s would have to turn for home as soon as they crossed the Dutch border so the Luftwaffe didn’t attack the bombers until the escorts had turned for home. What use is an escort fighter that has less range than the bombers it is supposed to protect? None.
    1
  195.  @ScoopsTV  They still destroyed 30% more than the P-47 did and aircraft were what mattered. Remember: Doolittle allowed pilots to count aircraft on the ground as kills.
    1
  196.  @ScoopsTV  ”The only thing special about the merlin was it beat Allison to the 2 speed 2 stage supercharger which would not have even worked without us feul , parts and metal .” So what? It worked. That’s all that mattered. It was still a British design and that’s what bothers you, isn’t it? History doesn’t care whether you like it or not. The P-51 achieved way more on a mission-by-mission basis than the P-47 did. It was about three times as likely to see combat and was the only fighter that could allow the USAAF to prosecute its policy of strategic bombing. Whatever it’s merits, the P-47 could not do that. So as an escort fighter it was only useful as long as the bombers didn’t go too deep into Germany. That’s only useful if the targets you want to bomb are close to home and that is no way to fight a war. ‘Feul’? LOL!!
    1
  197.  @ScoopsTV  ”You’re resorting to opinions now” Let me remind you of something you said: ”I agree their is no comparison because the p47 is by far the better plane” The difference is that your opinion was not shared by anyone else at the time. Yours is an opinion based on butthurt that’s been exploited by clowns like Greg for clicks. In fact, this is not really my opinion at all. You read what the Germans said. Galland talks about the Mustang, not the P-47, in his memoirs. RLM reports talk about the P-51, not the P-47. Luftwaffe pilots talk about the P-51 when assessing their own aircraft see: William Green, ’Warplanes of the Third Reich’, p. 214). In and interview for ’The World at War’ in 1973, Werner Schroer (114 victories) said of the P-51, ’We had nothing of the same effort. I think they really frightened us quite a bit.’ So it seems you’re allowing yourself an unsupported opinion while holding me to a higher standard, one which, I’m happy to say, I’m well capable of meeting. I actually came into this debate believing the P-47 was slightly underrated but after several years of reading and contact with historians and authors, I can say without a doubt that it is now severely overrated and the P-51 almost completely dismissed by the majority, basically because they (that’s you) don’t read and don’t research. Where, for example, are the photographs of P-47s with missing cylinders? I’ve found lots of pictures of extensively damaged P-47s but according to you in another post, it was basically a daily occurrence and ‘no big deal’. Yet there are no pictures. That’s the difference between you and me: I actually do my own research, rather than just agreeing with anyone who agrees with me. That’s called living in a bubble. When the facts change, my opinion changes. And my original opinion that the P-47 was underrated is now very different. It was reversed by the weight of evidence. Data block figures and impressive factoids are of extremely limited value. Operational history is what matters. You go back and look at how missions were planned and ask yourself why planners didn’t send P-47s to Berlin in 1943. Why didn’t the planners send P-47s to Schweinfurt and Regensburg? Why? Don’t tell me it was a doctrinal matter because that’s just too easy to disprove by anyone who has read about it.
    1
  198.  @ScoopsTV  ”Did you just say “ shared by no one at the time “ lol Except the entire wolfpack who refused to switch to the 51 , the 9th Airfoce who operated 80% 47 .Galland was shot down by a p47 , haha .” I was referring to those in charge. You know: the ones who make the big decisions, like moving the P-47s to the Ninth Air Force. Secondly, this ‘refusal’ you refer to in reference to the 56th is selective in its appraisal. If you bother to read Zemke’s comments, you will know that this is BS. Zemke, with Don Blakeslee, campaigned long and hard to get the P-51 because, in their words and having each flown all three US types, both knew it was the best aircraft for the job. Shortly after high command agreed to it, Zemke was called away and his stand in was persuaded by someone else to keep the P-47s. This was as much a supply matter as anything else. P-51s were so urgently required that Blakeslee trained his pilots en route to the target. This was widely known. Finally, the 9th Air Force was handed P-47s by the 8th in what historian and author James William Marshall describes as a ‘wholesale’ dump. They were of little use to the Eighth once the P-51 arrived in numbers - and it was out scoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one anyway - so they were simply moved to what was effectively second line duties, just as the British did with the Hurricane. In this capacity, they did very well. Galland’s brother was shot down by a P-47. So what? The P-47 shot down 3,082 aircraft in the ETO. Your link to Galland doesn’t prove anything and it’s certainly no laughing matter. By the way, how old are you? Your spelling, sentence structure and grammar are appalling and I get sick of decoding your rambling posts. If you want to be understood, at least make some effort or have the sense to use a spell checker.
    1
  199.  @ScoopsTV  You’re focusing on minutiae. The big picture was that the P-51 was not only the only fighter capable of escorting the bombers anywhere they wanted to go but it was also more capable than anything the Germans had to counter it. And before you go ‘262 lol’, there were never enough of them to make a difference. Why that was is not relevant to the story either. None of the German Wunderwaffe could have made any difference.
    1
  200.  @ScoopsTV  ”why do you always state facts that the most amature ww2 aviation enthusiast knows and act like you sad something special ?” Wow. There’s an admission, if ever there was one. ‘Why do you keep beating me over the head with facts?’ Because they are facts that, in your own words, every WWII aviation enthusiast knows. Why do you need to be reminded? Because I have a dedication to the best available version of the truth. Because people who live in a bubble, like you do, need to be be reminded of what is real and what is not. Because trying to rewrite history, based on your personal predilections, changes history to fantasy. Nobody is obliged to tell you what you want to hear.
    1
  201.  @ScoopsTV  Trying to distract again? I already made it clear the 262 isn’t relevant. How does this support your P-47 claims? It doesn’t.
    1
  202.  @ScoopsTV  Who cares what the octane ratings were? What matters is that the Merlin worked well and was widely available. That’s what matters.
    1
  203.  @ScoopsTV  ”wrong again and wrong again” Yes, I suppose it must be tough when you can’t stay on topic. I’m not interested in validating your opinion.
    1
  204.  @ScoopsTV  ”Your “historian” cancelled the debate with Greg last sat , lets see if he cancels again in 2 weeks .” His wife broke her hip and clavicle two weeks ago and is currently in hospital. He posted that well in advance. Greg will present no special problems for him because Greg doesn’t read history.
    1
  205.  @ScoopsTV  ”Your lack of technical knowledge on full display .” Oh my god… This is not a technical argument. It’s a historical one. And don’t wave octane wars at me. Read Calum E. Douglas’ book, ’The Secret Horsepower Race’. He scotches all that technical nonsense. The octane war argument is a non-starter. You’d know that if you read history instead of resorting to data blocks and ‘interesting facts’. By the way, anyone quoting ’Thunderbolt!’ as a source doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Both Johnson and Martin Caidin were spinning tall tales. I suspect half the things in that book are made up, like the mock dogfight with a Spitfire. Johnson was a fine fighter pilot and quite unpopular with a lot of his contemporaries because of his abrasive and self-promoting character. Caidin was not regarded by anyone as a serious historian. Having read three of his book - including ’Thunderbolt!’ when I was a kid, I can safely say that’s the most appropriate audience for it. He didn’t even meet Saburo Sakai yet he wrote the book on him and several incidents have been invented to sell copy. I’ve no reason to believe ’Thunderbolt!’ is any better in that regard.
    1
  206.  @ScoopsTV  I’ve already responded to this octane war red herring. It’s not pertinent to the argument.
    1
  207.  @ScoopsTV  ”How do you always miss the point ?” You’re not making any points. All you’re doing is presenting irrelevant factoids and skirting around the issues I raise without countering any of them. The P-51 could escort the bombers basically wherever they wanted to go. The P-47 could not. The P-51 out scored the P-47 by at least three to one on a mission-by-mission basis. The P-51 allowed the USAAF high command to wage its war of strategic bombing. The P-47 did not. These are the most important points. Nothing else here matters. You have provided no counter to any of those points.
    1
  208.  @ScoopsTV  Run away then.
    1
  209.  @ScoopsTV  Yeah, you made that excuse last time.
    1
  210. Yet the Mustang produced more aces.
    1
  211.  @adamtruong1759  I can’t argue with that. The only thing I would add is that the USAAF rarely fought in conditions where they did not have air superiority. The key to that was altitude, the effect of which was two-fold. First of all, it meant plenty of kinetic energy and tactical initiative for the Americans and secondly, it masked the P-47’s biggest weakness which was its poor rate of climb (a problem which was partially - but only partially - addressed with the introduction of the paddle prop).
    1
  212. This comes from Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'. P-47 Thunderbolt Sorties: 423,435 Combat Losses: 3,077 Air Kills: 3,082 Ground Kills: 3,202 Total: 6,284 Loss % per sortie: 0.73% Combat exchange: 2.04 P-51 Mustang Sorties: 213,873 Combat losses: 2,520 Air Kills: 4,950 Ground Kills: 4,131 Total: 9,081 Loss % per sortie: 1.18% Combat exchange: 3.60 The Mustang wrecked the Luftwaffe.
    1
  213.  @adamtruong1759  "I don't think anyone's denying that the Mustang is a good aircraft." Maybe you're not but a lot of others are. There are plenty of posts that say the only reason for using the P-51 was that it was cheaper.
    1
  214.  @jacktattis  It was also only as good as the pilot. Any hamfist can fly into the ground and that was the biggest problem.
    1
  215. It wasn't necessarily 'safer'. That's just internet hooey.
    1
  216. There are different kinds of survivability.
    1
  217. This is straight from 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles'. It's simply not true. The Luftwaffe probably peaked in 1940/41 and it was all down hill from there. On top of that, plenty of German Experten met their maker on the Eastern Front and in the Mediterranean. Others had already been hacked down by the RAF, who had been fighting them for three years before the Yanks arrived. The only time the USAAF sent fighters to smash the Luftwaffe in a battle of attrition was during 'Big Week' in February, 1944. Greg is big on documents and charts and small on history. It doesn't take a lot of research to show he's full of it. Read Williamson Murray's book, 'Luftwaffe: Strategy for defeat, 1933-1945'. Murray goes way further into this than Greg's piss and vinegar.
    1
  218. "While searching the internet one day I found a report on the Allison V1710. It was determined to be a more efficient engine than the Merlin." Who says the Allison was more efficient? It was a good engine. It had a somewhat smaller frontal area, ran smoothly - more so than the Merlin - and could arguably take more punishment. I'm not sure by what measure it was more efficient. "The difference came down to the two stage supercharger on the Merlin. Britain wouldn’t sell them to us, but agreed to let us build Merlin. So, it seems we were stuck. I wonder what things had been like if we put the Merlin’s supercharger on the Allison." Wouldn't sell them? What do you think the Packard Merlin was? Basically an Americanised Merlin 60 seres. It had a two-stage, two-speed supercharger. It was just slightly different and its critical altitude was 5,000 feet lower. USAAC policy favoured turbo supercharging, like in the P-38. Allison tried a German style supercharger but instead of running it across the axis of the crankshaft, as per the German engines, they did it axially, which made the engine unfeasibly long and awkward. I don't know the reason/s for this but I'm sure Allison knew what they were doing. The reason is unimportant.
    1
  219. "And the Roll rate of a P-47 is just unquestionably higher at all flight regimes" That simply isn't true.
    1
  220.  @kenneth9874  "talking foolish again huh Jackie boy, RAF test say otherwise.." Then it shouldn't be hard for you to find the documents and post them.
    1
  221.  @kenneth9874  "The merlin only came into it's own with American technology... " LOL!! The Americans had no influence on the Merlin until the 60 series and there had been quite a lot of water under the bridge before that.
    1
  222.  @kenneth9874  Do you think you could write with due deference to the conventions of grammar? I have no intention of wasting time decoding that. If you're going to talk about octane ratings, which was just one word I noticed, I refer you to the comments of Calum E. Douglas, who wrote the book, 'The Secret Horsepower Race'. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. Douglas has said in more than one interview (on YouTube) that there was no agreed standard on octane rating and it's basically a meaningless argument.
    1
  223.  @richardmontana5864  "They never needed to build the Mustang as the Thunderbolt could do it all." Total rubbish. The P-47 lacked the internal fuel capacity to do it. Towards the end of 1943, following the second Schweinfurt raid, Hap Arnold gave his assistant Lt Gen, Barney Giles six months to fix the problem of escort range. He was unaware of the range potential of the P-51 but everyone was aware that there simply wasn't the time for a second bite for the P-47. On Mission 250, the vast bulk of P-47s, using 108 gallon centreline tanks, could not get past the Dutch border. A small number - maybe 20% of them - had been re-plumbed in the field to carry two 108 gallon tanks under the wings but even that would not get them past Magdeburg. "Adolf Galland's J.G. 26 on page 214 he states "with the P-47D the allies have an airplane capable of driving the Luftwaffe from the skies"." And yet he, like so many from the Luftwaffe, talks mostly about the P-51. In any case, it makes no difference. The P-51 scored 1.6 times as many air kills in half the number of missions as the P-47, as well as 30% more ground kills.
    1
  224.  @SliceofLife7777  "And I didn't even mention that massive turbocharger, which made it the high altitude air superiority fighter it was designed to be." That's nice. Fact is though that the P-51 outscored the P-47 by better than 2:1. Before the P-51 the USAAF couldn't get to Berlin. Until the arrival of the P-51, strategic bombing was still a dream. After that the USAAF could reach any target in Germany any time they liked.
    1
  225.  @SliceofLife7777  "While the Mustang was the first fighter with the range for escorting our strategic raids, it wasn't long before Republic introduced the P47N & P47M models with better r2800s, paddle bladed propellers, and plumbing for additional drop tanks." Irrelevant. The P-47M/N was never a factor in Europe and the P-47 was being replaced by the P-51 anyway. "It could approximately equal the P51's range, and at 30 000 ft, it could out run and out rate-turn anything but the ME 262." Fantasy. Greg has conned you. "Engine power and prop output at that altitude, makes a difference." Anecdotes please. Real ones. "Any enemy plane that tried to dive out of combat was at a disadvantage against the Thunderbolt." The Mustang had a higher VNE than the P-47. "The P47 was an energy fighter, but could not climb with the P51." Only the nebulous -M and -N models. "Agreed, P47 was an underrated asset by some historians." Because historians rely on the best available version of the truth, not 'what if' or 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' or selective fact farming'. The P-51 was substantially better than the P-47 and everyone knew it. It may be underrated on the internet but it doesn't change the historical fact that it was the better aircraft and made strategic bombing a reality.
    1
  226.  @lqr824  Let me give you some basic facts and then we’ll see who is ‘utterly delusional’ and who has done the research. The P-47 made its combat debut in April, 1943. By the end of that year, eight Fighter Groups of P-47s had shot down 414 German aircraft (Wagner). Considering that the Germans lost 22,000 aircraft that year (US SBS), less than 2% is a fairly small contribution. The British alone accounted for 3,300. The first fighter group of P-38s arrived in December and the second arrived on the last day of the year. The first P-51 fighter group also arrived in December. In its first major test, Operation ARGUMENT, AKA: Big Week’, in February, two fighter groups of P-51s shot down 64.5 German fighters. Eight groups of P-47s got 78. So the P-51 was already out scoring the P-47 at a rate of about five to one. This was almost certainly helped by its long range, which allowed it a lot more opportunities for combat. The last day the P-47 outscored the P-51 was 18 March, 1944. In April, eight groups of P-47s shot down 82 German fighters. Four groups of P-51s shot down 329. There’s your eight to one right there. From May to July, the P-47 was handed over to the Ninth Air Force, all barring 56th FG. Most of this stuff comes from the extensive research of Ray Wagner in his book, ‘American Combat Planes’ but some of it comes from, ‘The P-51B: North American’s Bastard Step Child that Saved the Eighth Air Force’, by James William Marshall and Lowell Ford. Some comes from the US Strategic Bombing Survey.
    1
  227.  @lqr824  The idea that the P-47 ‘took on Germany’s toughest and beat them’ has little going for it, other than a surfeit of chest beating machismo. By the time the P-47 made its combat debut, the Luftwaffe was a shadow of its former self. Pilot quality, in terms of training and experience, along with relative aircraft quality, probably peaked in May or June, 1941 (though the fearsome FW-190 would not go into service until August). At that point, they had recovered their losses from the Battle of Britain, as well as those of Poland, France and the Low Countries. By early-mid 1943, the average new German pilot had a total of 110-120 hours, including 10-15 hours on type (Martin Middlebrook). That was what P-47 fanbois call ‘the cream of the Luftwaffe’. LOL!! The average new American pilot had 600+ and easily 100 hours on type. What ‘broke the back of the Luftwaffe’ was what Williamson Murray called an overcommitment on too many fronts. While few would regard the Red Air Force as being of a comparable standard, it remains true that, to a very large degree, the Luftwaffe was bled white on the eastern front. Nobody wants to believe it but it’s true and it’s the verdict of historians like Murray.
    1
  228.  @lqr824  The units who switched to the P-51 also did better in ground attack than they did in the P-47. Would you like some specific figures? I can get them quite easily since I have contacts who have researched this extensively. Describing the P-51 as a ‘death trap’ is simply wrong. There were many things that could kill a pilot in ground attack missions, ranging from Flak, to the presence of enemy fighters, collisions or CFIT, which was a lot more common than people realise. All of those will kill you, irrespective of what you fly. There’s not much point worrying that your engine might conk out in five or ten minutes because of a chance stray bullet in the radiator if you might be vaporised by a 37mm in the next three seconds. The P-47 shot down 3,082 enemy aircraft in the ETO in WWII for the loss of 3,078 to all causes. There were 1,043 combat losses, including 200 lost in ground attack. So clearly, two thirds were non-combat related.
    1
  229.  @lqr824  "Utterly delusional, no, absolutely not, step away from the drugs when you get on the internet to avoid embarrassing yourself." Hmm... another one of Greg Gordon's acolytes... Anyone with that level of over confidence clearly doesn't know and is motivated by something other than a quest for historical accuracy. But I'll humour you, even though I know I'm wasting my time. So let's see who's done the research and who hasn't. By the end of 1943 the P-47 had shot down 414 German aircraft, since its combat debut in April. Since the Germans lost 22,000 aircraft that year (US SBS), less than 2% was a valuable contribution but not war-winning in any respect. The British alone had shot down 3,300 that year. The first P-38 fighter group arrived in November and the second on the last day of the year. The first P-51 group arrived in December. In its first test - Operation ARGUMENT, AKA: 'Big Week - in February, 1944, two fighter groups of P-51s shot down 64.5 German aircraft. Eight groups of P-47s shot down 78 German aircraft. The P-51 was already outscoring the P-47 by a factor of five. This was almost certainly because its greater range conferred greater opportunity for combat. The last day the P-47 outscored the P-51 was March 18. In April, eight groups of P-47s shot down 82 German fighters. Meanwhile, four groups of P-51s shot down 329 German fighters for the same period. On a fighter-for-fighter basis, that's almost exactly eight to one. From May the July, the P-47s were handed over to the Ninth Air Force for reassignment, all except 56th. All these figures are from Ray Wagner's book 'American Combat Planes'. You can also find it in 'The P-51B: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force', by James William Marshall and Lowell Ford. "The P-51 certainly did have a higher kill ratio, due to 1) P-47 facing the best pilots in the most numerous and best-made German fighters and wiping most of them out, leaving easy pickings for the P-51, and 2) moving down to do ground attack for the last year of the war" The Luftwaffe peaked in about May/June 1941, in terms of training and experience. It had recovered its losses from the Battle of Britain and the fights for Poland, the Low Countries and France. By early-mid 1943, it was a shadow of its former self. The average new pilot in the Luftwaffe had 110-120 hours total time and about 10-15 hours on type. The average new American pilot had 600+ hours and at least 100 on type. Martin Middlebrook talks about this in his book 'The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission'. The Germans had figured out that the Achilles Heel of the American fighter in 1943 was its short range. The P-47 had only 256 US gallons of internal fuel. With a 108 gallon tank under the fuselage. That was enough to get it to the Dutch border. So the Germans simply waited until the fighter escort went home before attacking. In the Schweinfurt mission, the Germans actually deployed night fighters, which gives some idea of how desperate they were. So much for the P-47 taking on the best the Luftwaffe had and beating them before the P-51 arrived. As Williamson Murray said, the Luftwaffe was suffering from massive over commitment on too many fronts. And while few would regard the Red airforce in the same light as the Western allies, they still managed to bleed the Germans white. "which the P-51 was a death trap for, and thus not really shooting at enemy aircraft much at all." This is not true. I can provide plenty of statistical evidence because I am in contact with people who have researched this meticulously. Would you like me to do that? Nah, didn't think so. Most groups that transitioned to the P-51 actually did better than with the P-47. My guess is because it was much smaller. It was certainly not a 'death trap'. Statistics don't care about hyperbole. In fact, if you bother to read about it, you'll find it was very highly regarded. Airfield attack, in particular, was extremely dangerous for any pilot, regardless of what he flew. There were three main dangers: Flak, of which there was always plenty in the last year of the war, enemy fighters in the area and collisions, either with other aircraft of CFIT. The old trope about the single bullet in the radiator is hooey. There's not much point in worrying about your engine conking out in five or ten minutes from a damaged cooling system when you might be blown to bits by a 37mm in the next three seconds. Ask any pilot. The P-47 ended the European war with 3,082 kills against 3,078 lost to all causes. That wasn't as bad as it sounds because only a third - 1,043 - were actual combat losses. That includes 200 lost performing ground attack. But if any single aircraft 'broke the back of the Luftwaffe', it was undoubtedly the P-51 and the figures I provided are not my only reason for believing that.
    1
  230. This started off well with your very sensible decision to use the -D models of both aircraft as the standard. Where you went wrong was to deviate from that by including the -N model of the Thunderbolt. The first problem was when you started talking about range. You went through the various range figures for both types and should have left it at that. But then you added the ferry range of the P-47 and not the P-51. In neither case would this be relevant because ferry tanks were unsuitable for combat. The second mistake you made was perpetuating the myth of the 'liquid-cooled death trap' that has been put about by so many other videos. This argument is basically a non-starter. There were many very successful liquid cooled aircraft that were used in roles that - on the basis of this claim - should really have been flown by air-cooled types. The Hawker Typhoon was probably the best ground attack fighter of the war, if the P-47 wasn't, yet it used a liquid-cooled Napier Sabre. The Il-2 Sturmovik could easily have been built with an air-cooled engine but it wasn't. The Ju-87 Stuka wasn't either. While it's true that there are stories of radial-engined fighters returning to base with a cylinder or two shot away, these were incredibly rare events that have taken hold and been advanced to the status of 'normal'. Most single-engine aircraft - liquid-cooled or not - suffering that level of damage were doomed. 'It only takes one hit through the radiator' is another argument we hear a lot, yet the most vulnerable parts of the aircraft - and the parts the pilots were taught to shoot at - were the fuel tanks. The biggest risk of ground attack was misjudging proximity to the ground. I think you also overstated the ditching and belly landing aspects. Both aircraft were survivable, more so than many others, like the Typhoon and Tempest, which definitely did have a tendency to overturn. 'Obviously more guns firing simultaneously increased the possibility of a direct hit'. The old 'more is better' argument. That's almost endless. Put enough of anything on an airframe and eventually you'll have something that will barely get over the airfield fence. But if you read the pilot's memoirs, like those of Richard E. Turner (12 victories), you will find that 6X .50 cal. machine guns, fired at reasonably close range, would shred any German fighter. Anyone shooting at longer range and hoping that more bullets would hit was probably just wasting ammunition. So the point is that the difference really wasn't a difference. It might have mattered if the USAAF were trying to shoot down German bombers but that wasn't ever a factor. Thunderbolts didn't go to Korea because there were already more advanced options for ground attack aircraft available. It wasn't a P-47 v P-51 argument. It isn't even relevant to the debate which was 'the best fighter 'in Europe'. Your conclusion is mostly accurate. Where you're wrong is the comment that 'the Thunderbolt could go further with more'. This simply isn't true. Yes: there's no question the P-47 was a superb ground attack aircraft, with a heavier bomb load. It was also probably one mission where the extra two machine guns made a difference. But when it came to range and endurance, the P-51 was a clear winner. Anyone who doubts this needs to read about the missions the P-51 flew. Start with Mission 250, the first USAAF raid on Berlin on March 6, 1944. The only aircraft that could provide cover for the bombers over Berlin was the P-51 and that's precisely how the mission was planned (by people who understood a lot more about endurance than most of us).
    1
  231. They were replace because they were not as good as the P-51.
    1
  232. Then tell me why Hub Zemke and Don Blakeslee both campaigned hard to get the P-51. I’ll tell you why: because they both thought it was the best aircraft for the job amd they said so.
    1
  233.  @stevenfrederick2315  Liking your own posts… that’s just sad.
    1
  234. "Who cares the P51 could be downed by a single hit." Then you may be interested to know that the P-51 accounted for 30% more ground targets than the P-47 in half the number of missions. The P-47 loss rate was 0.73 while the P-51 was 1.18. But remember that the P-51 spent a higher percentage of its time in hostile airspace the P-47. A P-47 after a hit in the undercarriage, leaking fluid over Antwerp was a lot more likely to make it home to England than a P-51 with the same problem over Cottbus. So the P-47's reputation for toughness is at least partly influenced by survivor bias. The P-51 shot down 1.6 times as many German aircraft as the P-47 in literally half the number of missions. The P-51 wrecked the Luftwaffe.
    1
  235.  @jacktattis  What about it?
    1
  236.  @jacktattis  Sigh. What about the P-51? I just asked what you want to know about it.
    1
  237.  @jacktattis  This is a bit pointless then.
    1
  238.  @jacktattis  RAF Mustangs didn’t generally have the 85 gallon fuselage tank behind the pilot so their range wasn’t as good as the P-51B/D. I can check but they may never have had it. Six .50 cal. machine guns was enough to shred any Luftwaffe fighter, especially once they started using API. You can find this in the memoirs of pilots like Richard Turner.
    1
  239.  @jacktattis  I’m trying to reconcile those figures right now, so I don’t have a complete answer. But in any case, it makes little difference. Accounting for only about 2%, the P-47 could not be said to have broken the back of the Luftwaffe’s best pilots.
    1
  240.  @jacktattis  The RAF shot down approximately 3,300 German aircraft in 1943 but I can get no readily available detail of the makeup of those numbers. Either way, the claim that the P-47 got rid of the Luftwaffe’s most experienced pilots or broke the back of the Luftwaffe in 1943 is fantasist nonsense. The previous figure of 451 German fighters claimed by the USAAF also included those shot down by P-38s and Spitfires (presumably flying with Eagle Squadron).
    1
  241.  @jacktattis  I think they’re there but I would have to sift through thousands of pages to reconcile them. On top of that, if you want to access the UK National Archives, you have to pay for it. It doesn’t matter. The claim that the P-47 broke the back of the Luftwaffe is a joke.
    1
  242.  @jacktattis  Yeah well those guys haven’t spent half a century reading about it. They’ve picked their favourite aircraft and all they do is watch YouTube videos that confirm their prejudices. Then they tell you that you don’t know what you’re talking about… There’s an American writer called James William Marshall who has written a book about the P-51 which I must read. His YouTube handle is drgondog. He has challenged this Greg character to a debate. It’s due to happen in April but I suspect Greg will make his excuses.
    1
  243. "P51 was the better fighter, but the P47 valued the pilot's life better." Coincidence.
    1
  244. In that case you are going to have to prove your claim with numbers. George Preddy was one example. Furthermore, his loss proves nothing about the assumed fragility of the P-51. Preddy overflew an anti aircraft battery and died of his wounds, not because the cooling system was vulnerable or the aircraft was fragile. How many P-47s were lost to ground fire? It would have been just as vulnerable to the kind of fire that shot Preddy down. This idea that the P-47 was some kind of flying tank that resisted bullets only really comes from people who don’t realise that weight is everything in aircraft design. Even the skin on the B-17 was only as thick as a credit card. FYI, the P-51 scored 33% more ground kills than the P-51 in half the number of missions (USAAF figures). Not bad for an aircraft that is supposed to have had a glass jaw.
    1
  245. No, that was a manoeuvre kill. The credit for the first Me 262 to be shot down by gunfire belongs to five pilots from 401 Squadron RCAF flying Spit IXs.
    1
  246. "The P-47, according to American fighter ace Robert Johnson, had a superb roll rate." Compared to what?
    1
  247.  @Splattle101  Yeah, they sure do. It was also ghost written by Martin Caidin, whom I have found to be less than reliable. I read it about 50 years ago and found it very 'Boy's Own'. It's good reading if you're an impressionable kid. But Johnson was a pretty opinionated guy and Caidin was quite happy to run with the 'never let facts stand in the way of a good story' approach and these days, not much of that book stands up to scrutiny.
    1
  248. @ I don’t think anyone denies that (including me). Sorry for not making that clear. I’m just saying he was something of a BS artist.
    1
  249.  @jacktattis  "It matters not one iota what they put up but what the Groups numbered" That's a bit of a non-starter. You're putting on-paper strength over actual availability.
    1
  250.  @jacktattis  That's your logic, not mine.
    1
  251.  @jacktattis  I think you’re missing the point. On paper strength is unimportant if half your aircraft are unserviceable.
    1
  252.  @jacktattis  Blakeslee thought the same thing and he had combat experience in the Spitfire. There’s more to air warfare than dogfighting. In fact, pilots avoid that if they can.
    1
  253.  @JimmySailor  "Knocking down daylight bombers, BF110’s, and ME109’s short on fuel is a different task than escorting bombing raids." What's the difference? Shooting down German interceptors was part of escort duty.
    1
  254. I have seen a P-51 that belly landed at Point Cook Air Base in 2008. There was no problem with the scoop, other than that it was badly damaged.
    1
  255. Republic was simply too slow to extend the P-47's range. Even before the war, Materiel Command sent letters to all the manufacturers insisting on improved range performance. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and Bell all addressed the problem. Republic did not. The same request was made before the first USAAF bombing raids were undertaken in Europe. Republic still failed to respond. So whatever the P-47M/N's capabilities, they were simply too slow. I don't know what Republic thought they were doing. They seemed to think that building a technically impressive fighter was enough. But they were too focused on guns and simply not reading the room on what the USAAF needed. There is a pretty good argument that the October 1943 crisis was as much Republic's fault as anyone else's. That was why the US Eighth AF was happy to divest itself of the Thunderbolt. And this was why, in early 1944, it was handed over wholesale to the 9th AF while the P-51 made strategic bombing possible all over Germany. It was the P-51 that took the war to the Germans and beat them.
    1
  256.  @kentl7228  I don’t care as long the bullshit gets filtered out.
    1
  257.  @kentl7228  He’s also entirely theoretical. Greg doesn’t ever relate any of his claims to specific missions. It’s all ‘on paper’ stuff. He also assumes that what was true for one mark was true for the entire fleet. He’s not a reader of history. Unfortunately, in his recent debate with Bill Marshall, it devolved into a technical argument when it should have been a historical one.
    1
  258.  @kentl7228  His on-paper stuff relates to the way he presents range performance. As a baseline for comparison, it’s peripherally useful but in practice it’s not very helpful. Greg’s figures are all about optimum altitude and throttle settings. In practice, escort missions were flown at sub-optimal settings and that consumed fuel greedily. A P-47 with a 108 gallon tank could theoretically get within about 75 miles of Schweinfurt but in reality, it could barely get past the Dutch border. I can give specific examples of this. The example from the Pacific is very vague. Is he talking about an escort mission or something else? If it was an escort mission then what were they escorting? The point is that just because he makes a generalised comment that such missions were flown that doesn’t mean that such a thing was always possible. For the record, I’m Australian so I’m quite aware of the ‘Brisbane’ tank. Greg also misses the point that the very existence of this tank actually scotches his claim about the pre-war directive not to build drop tanks. If a theatre commander could initiate a program like that then that directive wasn’t worth much.
    1
  259.  @kentl7228  "It shows that older razorback models had the required range that was needed in Europe, because the same distances were flown in the Pacific." And I reiterate. The P-47 with 256 gallons internal and 108 gallons on the centreline pylon - the standard until March, 1944 - could not get past the Dutch border in practice. If you want to read a specific example, look at 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price. The authors show how the relay system worked with only a small number of converted P-47s (D-9) being able to go any further and even they could not get beyond Magdeburg. I'm not making this up and neither were they. The only fighters that flew over Berlin that day were P-51s. P-38s got to within about 40 miles. When Greg can come up with a specific example like that, I will take him more seriously. "His point is that they could make drop tanks in Australia to give the needed range on standard early P47s, but the bomber mafia stopped the making of drop tanks for the European theatre." Greg is dead wrong about this. As a professional pilot, I think he actually knows but he's happy to keep the ball rolling in a quest to prove that 'my favourite plane' was hard done by. He should know perfectly well what I explained in my first reply: drop tanks were not the answer and never could be. First of all, there is the drag penalty, the rough rule of which is that it takes half the contents of a tank to get the other half there. Eventually you run into the law of diminishing returns. If one tank gave you a net increase of 100 miles, two tanks might only give you a net of 150 and three might not give any increase at all. As for blaming all of this on the so-called 'bomber mafia', that assumes that such an entity even exists. In the context of what he's saying, he's wrong again. This is what I call a God approach: throw enough cherry-picked examples and you might be able to prove your case. That is disingenuous and indefensible in historical terms. Here's how the logic goes: Step 1: The P-47 had a theoretical capability of a certain range performance. Step 2: The tanks existed to improve that performance. Step 3: Those tanks were not used because of a pre-war directive (which would no longer have applied once the US was involved). Step 4: A political entity - let's call it 'the bomber mafia' - didn't want it, therefore it wasn't done. Step 5: The 'bomber mafia' blocked 'my favourite plane' from being the greatest fighter of WWII and lots of bomber crews died. F*cking Uncle Sam always trying to do it on the cheap and getting young men killed in the process of trying to prove a 'doctrine'. I'm not exaggerating. Virtually none of Greg's adherents can see any possible alternative explanation to this crackpot conspiracy theory because most have little exposure to history beyond watching YouTube videos. This has zero support among real historians. This is the God theory that says; 'I can't find a rational alternative explanation (because I don't have enough information), therefore it must be divine intervention'. In this case, it's a matter of finding an explanation that conforms to someone's personal prejudices and that is not history. Their response? Real historians have been hoodwinked by the official government line and are therefore biased in favour of 'the bomber mafia' and against 'my favourite plane'. Dismiss everything because it doesn't conform to my personal prejudices and put all your faith in Greg. But, like any good conspiracy, it has an element of truth in it and gained a lot of traction because he has collected well-selected documentation. I have already explained earlier why this is basically Republic's fault. Everyone increased their internal capacity except Republic. But somehow it's the bomber mafia's fault.* "The bomber mafia blamed the P47 as an excused for their failed doctrine that cost so many bomber crews." See? You just did it. In the absence of better information, fall back on a government conspiracy. Where is the litany of P-47 pilots complaining? Where is the litany of group commanders complaining that the P-47s were being hard done by? The fact was that the bombers got to the Dutch border and the P-47s turned for home. The pilots might have hated that fact but they had no choice. That would be a big enough motivator to complain loud and long. I modestly suggest you read the book I just mentioned and follow it up with James Holland's 'Big Week'. Knowing more cannot hurt you. Blind faith can. Greg is now the outstanding supplier of misinformation on this subject anywhere in the world. He's not a historian and he knows he only telling half the story (unless he's now deluded himself). Now, if you don't mind, I have other things to do. I'll get back to you later. * The explanation of bomber theory is the one thing Donald Miller got right in his book 'Masters of the Air'. It's not that he explains how it worked because everyone already knows that. It's that he takes the trouble to examine why the theory existed and the personalities of people like Billy Mitchell and why he was so passionate about it, even if he was later proved wrong (by which time he was dead anyway).
    1
  260.  @kentl7228  "None of what you say addresses that required European ranges WERE flown in the Pacific." Under totally different circumstances. It's so easy to be dismissive but you can't just write this off. The Pacific was primarily a campaign dominated by vast expanses of water. That's why P-38s were valuable. The probabilities of interception were completely different. And you don't mention which version of the P-47. The P-47C carried 256 US gallons internally. The early D models carried 305. It wasn't until the D-25 that they had 370 gallons and even then, they needed 150 gallons under each wing (this had become a line mod at last) in order that they could have flown an escort mission to Berlin. What's interesting to note is that the P-47 did not overfly Berlin until 1945. "It was accomplished with a 200 gallon tank. Not a 108 gallon" Didn't you see the bit about the P-47s that had been converted to carry 108 gallon tanks under their wings? That was, in part, my counterpoint. 256 internally and 216 externally and they could not quite get to Magdeburg. Do you want to see the mission planning and intercept points for the relay system? As I have already said, the true determinant of range is not drop tanks. It's internal fuel. To quote an example: a P-51 had a combat radius of 375 miles on internal fuel alone. To go as far, a D model P-47 require 150 gallons on the centreline. The point is that just because it had the theoretical range, that doesn't mean it could fly the mission. I should also point out that I'm Australian. Of course I know about the 'Brisbane tank'. But I also know that Kenney was furious with Republic for not increasing internal capacity. "You can say conspiracy or whatever, but history shows there was a blind faith to the bombers flying in tight formation with huge numbers of turrets to bare, which was a failure but stubbornly stuck with for too long." It wasn't as simple as that and if Greg had any history in his background - other than cherry-picking the bits to build his argument - he'd know that the USAAF was actually achieving pretty reasonable results without incurring unacceptable losses until about mid-1943. Then came the need to raid Schweinfurt. Nobody had time to fix the P-47's problems because Schweinfurt was a priority target that had to be raided and the opportunities to do it were closing. Because they couldn't do it with fighter escort all the way, they tried to time it so that the Regensburg force would go through first and the Schweinfurt force would go through half an hour later, catching the Luftwaffe on the ground. It was risky and it had to be tried. Who knows? They might have pulled it off. In the end though, the raid was botched not because of drop tanks but because of unnecessary delay in the second wave taking off because of the weather. Greg does not address this. The weather also affected the rendezvous with the fighter groups. There were poor decisions made that day that had some harrowing effects. The point is that the raid has to be considered from something other than a technical point of view. It’s too simple. In war there are plenty of strategies that have been persisted with for too long. In fact, the USAAF was pretty quick to acknowledge that the bomber theory wasn't working. That's why they suspended deep penetration raids from October. The RAF, for example, persisted with the 'Big Wing' theory for several years in the post Battle of Britain era, despite mountains of evidence that it didn't work. This was a result of Trafford Leigh-Mallory and Sholto Douglas winning a political struggle with Dowding and Park. Compared to that, the so-called 'bomber mafia' looks pretty tame.
    1
  261.  @kentl7228  "You can write a novel but you miss the point." Really? What else were they going to use 205 gallon tanks for? We made 3,000 of them, you know. As I said, you give no context. Without knowing the specifics of the mission, it's impossible to make any meaningful comparison. "They used a 200 gallon tank in the Pacific. A 200 gallon tank could have been used in Europe." And would have made little to no difference. Once your 200 gallon-equipped P-47 gets bounced at the border, all the theory in the world won't help. It's tanks away. This is why internal capacity is so important. That's why Materiel Command and the USAAF wanted it. "How much further would the P47 go with a 200 gallon tank instead of 108 gallon?" I don't know. It depends on the drag performance figures. "This isn't blind faith. A logical and compelling argument was put forward and I see that you are failing to counter the logic and evidence." It's a compelling argument but logic is irrelevant, especially when it's someone else's version of it. This was why I illustrated the thinking process that most people use. Unless you are well versed in history, everything looks pretty simple. The overwhelming majority of arguments about this are technical/performance/data related. Look at some of the other posts here. 95% are about things like top speeds, climb rates, maximum ceilings and the like. Or they're pseudo anecdotes from some pilot that highlight one feature that everyone thinks must have been decisive. Yet history shows that 80% of air combat isn't decided that way. It shows that the vast majority of victims never sw their attacker. I'm just finishing a book called 'Darwin Spitfires', by an Australian author called Anthony Cooper. It's hard to imagine how he could have done a better job. The real story is totally different from what most people think. War is not logical, it's just what happens. And there are always outside factors. Greg relies on an incredibly narrow focus and it's one that actually impedes people's understanding of history. This is because everyone gets all their information from one of two things: YouTube videos and playing games like WarThunder. Nobody reads books. I came into this a few years ago thinking the P-47 had been a bit hard done by. How wrong I was. The internet had blown it up into something it wasn't. The more I read the more I realised that there's probably more bull talked about it than any aircraft in history. It is now massively overrated.
    1
  262.  @kentl7228  Just get a better reference than Greg. He doesn’t read history.
    1
  263.  @kentl7228  I have watched many of his videos. How many books have you read by any particular author? Come to that, how many books have you read on any subject? I have authors I don’t like (Beevor, Ambrose) so I don’t read them. So you’re right: I don’t like him. But it would be mindlessly stupid to assume I automatically think the opposite and do it blindly.🙄 Maybe that’s what you do. It’s not what I do. You need to read books. History is about nuance and depth. It’s not about stupid black and white, ‘us v them’ political trench warfare. All that shows is just how easy it is to con people and Greg has been capitalising on it for years. If that’s what you think then you’re wasting your time and mine. Greg should not be your only source on this subject and YouTube should not ever be your sole source on any (historical) subject.
    1
  264.  @kentl7228  Greg. Doesn’t. Read. History. That tells you everything about him. Without history, none of his videos are anything more than (occasionally useful) background. They cannot be considered history, nor can they be considered conclusive. Greg has consistently used this narrow focus with the sole aim of proving a point (which is historically invalid anyway). No honest historian would ever do that. That is why I regard his videos as disinformation. There are even videos he’s done that I agree with, like his Beaufighter video but it’s so far from complete that it’s nothing more than background information and data block figures which I can look up for myself. Greg says the Beaufighter was a good aircraft. I already know that but the difference is that I have read about the campaigns it was involved in. He’s just scanned the horizon and drawn a simplistic conclusion.
    1
  265.  @kentl7228  Asymmetrically. He’s using examples out of context to engineer an outcome in Europe. I’ve already had the argument with Greg. If he’s found a mission in the Pacific that demonstrates a particular range capability, he can’t conclude that the same mission could be flown in Europe. The contexts - and the missions - are completely different.
    1
  266.  @kentl7228  ’Geography and terrain define the nature of a battlefield and are major factors shaping the outcome and duration of hostilities.’ - Eric Bergerud, ’Fire in the Sky’. page 1. Greg cannot seriously argue that the demands of the Pacific were the same as those of Europe.
    1
  267. Not even close. If you want to say it's your favourite, be my guest. Combat record and achievements are 100% with the P-51. I know this because I've done the reading.
    1
  268.  @rustysphotography  Not opinion. Supported by fact and historical evidence.
    1
  269.  @rustysphotography  That sounds like an irrational argument to me.
    1
  270.  @rustysphotography  Go to a site called ‘WWII Aircraft Performance’ and see for yourself. The P-51 was better by virtually every metric; climb, dive, roll, turn. The only one it wasn’t better on was range. This was because the British spec P-51 did not have the fuselage tank the IS P-51 had. Yes, I read. I rarely get my information from YouTube videos and certainly not from partisan YouTubers like Greg Gordon. That’s the difference between you and I: I make an effort to educate myself. I’m constantly updating my information and I spend days reading, rather than watching a 30 minute video that may or may not be well researched and may or may not have a partisan view.
    1
  271.  @rustysphotography  Yes, I read stuff. I make no apologies for it. Do you ‘read stuff’? Probably not. I think I know which of us is making more of an effort to be informed and it isn’t you. It takes no effort to sit and watch a YouTube video. It takes an effort to read and one of us os making the effort while the other one is brushing it off because of inverted snobbery. It also allows me the luxury of making a value judgement based on critical thinking, rather than personal prejudices because I have a much more nuanced view than most people here.
    1
  272.  @rustysphotography  All of your comments need clarification. Go to a website called ‘WWII Aircraft Performance’ and see for yourself. The P-47 was out performed by the P-51 in every metric that matters. Then get off YouTube and try reading some history. You know, stuff that gets published by real authors who do it for a living.
    1
  273.  @rustysphotography  Yes, I’m reading books. Someone has to hold a flag for the best available version of the truth.
    1
  274.  @rustysphotography  So no rational response from you then. Don’t worry: I’m not offended.
    1
  275.  @rustysphotography  Incidentally, if you take the trouble to find the best available version of the truth, you will see from post war British testing that contemporary models of the P-51 were better than the P-47 in almost every metric. Go to a site called ‘WWII Aircraft Performance’ and look it up for yourself. Remember though that the British Mustangs did not have the 85 US gallon tank fitted behind the pilot. In climb, speed, roll and pretty much everything else, the Mustang was superior. About the only thing the P-47 was better at was roll rate below 200 mph. Also, due to its much more sophisticated aerofoil design, the P-51 could be safely dived at higher speeds than the P-47 while maintaining better controllability.
    1
  276. Rubbish.
    1
  277. The P-47 scored 3,000 ground kills, while the P-51 scored 4,000 in half the number of missions.
    1
  278.  @marklittle8805  ”The Mustangs, like the Spitfire were vulnerable to ground fire being Liquid cooled.” Let’s get this old shibboleth out of the way first. All aircraft are vulnerable to ground fire and the P-47 was no exception. If you read anecdotal reports from the time, you will find that Germany, by 1944-45, was awash with anti-aircraft guns. This was the environment into which the P-51 flew. Secondly, those who talk about this vulnerability don’t seem to realise that the P-47 was vulnerable too. They seem to focus on vulnerability to small arms fire, yet the biggest risk to strafing fighters was either flying into the ground or Flak. Not much point in worrying about a lucky 7.92 round when your biggest threat was a Flakvierling or a 40mm. As for the perception that the P-47 broke the back of the Luftwaffe, that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny either. The total number - all types - shot down by the Allies in Western Europe in 1943 was 451, with 414 claimed by the P-47. The lion’s share, for sure, but to put that into perspective, the Germans lost 22,000 aircraft to the end of 1943 so the P-47 only accounted for about 2%. It also doesn’t explain why the USAAF lost so many bombers in early 1944. You’d have to look pretty closely to find that (I already know why). It also doesn’t explain why the Germans were still able to fight back so effectively throughout 1943. Again, there are reasons for this that are not necessarily related to the P-47.
    1
  279.  @marklittle8805  The Mustang’s assumed vulnerability to ground fire because of its liquid cooled engine has been massively overstated. This is why I pointed out the number of ground kills. This assumed vulnerability didn’t stop the P-51 racking up more ground kills. Remember too that Germany in 1944-45 was awash with Flak batteries. Pilots were a lot more worried about flying into the ground or being hit by a 40mm than a stray rifle bullet. Furthermore, the P-51 spent a lot more of its time over hostile territory than the P-47 because of its range. Read the anecdotes/memoirs. I have a copy (signed) of Tom Hall’s book ‘Typhoon Warfare: confessions of a rocket-firing Typhoon pilot’. I also have the unabridged version of Clostermann’s book, ‘The Big Show’. Their biggest concerns were Flak. Clostermann clearly had PTSD from Flak, after seeing so many of his mates lost to it. The point is that a 40mm with shred any fighter, regardless of whether it was a P-51 or a Spitfire or a P-47.
    1
  280.  @marklittle8805  The Mustang’s assumed vulnerability to ground fire because of its liquid cooled engine has been massively overstated. This is why I pointed out the number of ground kills. This assumed vulnerability didn’t stop the P-51 racking up more ground kills. Remember too that Germany in 1944-45 was awash with Flak batteries. Pilots were a lot more worried about flying into the ground or being hit by a 40mm than a stray rifle bullet. Furthermore, the P-51 spent a lot more of its time over hostile territory than the P-47 because of its range. Read the anecdotes/memoirs. I have a copy (signed) of Tom Hall’s book ‘Typhoon Warfare: confessions of a rocket-firing Typhoon pilot’. I also have the unabridged version of Clostermann’s book, ‘The Big Show’. Their biggest concerns were Flak. Clostermann clearly had PTSD from Flak, after seeing so many of his mates lost to it. The point is that a 40mm with shred any fighter, regardless of whether it was a P-51 or a Spitfire or a P-47.
    1
  281.  @marklittle8805  The Mustang’s assumed vulnerability to ground fire because of its liquid cooled engine has been massively overstated. This is why I pointed out the number of ground kills. This assumed vulnerability didn’t stop the P-51 racking up more ground kills. Remember too that Germany in 1944-45 was awash with Flak batteries. Pilots were a lot more worried about flying into the ground or being hit by a 40mm than a stray rifle bullet. Furthermore, the P-51 spent a lot more of its time over hostile territory than the P-47 because of its range. Read the anecdotes/memoirs. I have a copy (signed) of Tom Hall’s book ‘Typhoon Warfare: confessions of a rocket-firing Typhoon pilot’. I also have the unabridged version of Clostermann’s book, ‘The Big Show’. Their biggest concerns were Flak. Clostermann clearly had PTSD from Flak, after seeing so many of his mates lost to it. The point is that a 40mm with shred any fighter, regardless of whether it was a P-51 or a Spitfire or a P-47.
    1
  282.  @marklittle8805  The Mustang’s assumed vulnerability to ground fire because of its liquid cooled engine has been massively overstated. This is why I pointed out the number of ground kills. This assumed vulnerability didn’t stop the P-51 racking up more ground kills. Remember too that Germany in 1944-45 was awash with Flak batteries. Pilots were a lot more worried about flying into the ground or being hit by a 40mm than a stray rifle bullet. Furthermore, the P-51 spent a lot more of its time over hostile territory than the P-47 because of its range. Read the anecdotes/memoirs. I have a copy (signed) of Tom Hall’s book ‘Typhoon Warfare: confessions of a rocket-firing Typhoon pilot’. I also have the unabridged version of Clostermann’s book, ‘The Big Show’. Their biggest concerns were Flak. Clostermann clearly had PTSD from Flak, after seeing so many of his mates lost to it. The point is that a 40mm with shred any fighter, regardless of whether it was a P-51 or a Spitfire or a P-47.
    1
  283.  @marklittle8805  The Mustang’s assumed vulnerability to ground fire because of its liquid cooled engine has been massively overstated. This is why I pointed out the number of ground kills. This assumed vulnerability didn’t stop the P-51 racking up more ground kills. Remember too that Germany in 1944-45 was awash with Flak batteries. Pilots were a lot more worried about flying into the ground or being hit by a 40mm than a stray rifle bullet. Furthermore, the P-51 spent a lot more of its time over hostile territory than the P-47 because of its range. Read the anecdotes/memoirs. I have a copy (signed) of Tom Hall’s book ‘Typhoon Warfare: confessions of a rocket-firing Typhoon pilot’. I also have the unabridged version of Clostermann’s book, ‘The Big Show’. Their biggest concerns were Flak. Clostermann clearly had PTSD from Flak, after seeing so many of his mates lost to it. The point is that a 40mm with shred any fighter, regardless of whether it was a P-51 or a Spitfire or a P-47.
    1
  284.  @marklittle8805  The Mustang’s assumed vulnerability to ground fire because of its liquid cooled engine has been massively overstated. This is why I pointed out the number of ground kills. This assumed vulnerability didn’t stop the P-51 racking up more ground kills. Remember too that Germany in 1944-45 was awash with Flak batteries. Pilots were a lot more worried about flying into the ground or being hit by a 40mm than a stray rifle bullet. Furthermore, the P-51 spent a lot more of its time over hostile territory than the P-47 because of its range. Read the anecdotes/memoirs. I have a copy (signed) of Tom Hall’s book ‘Typhoon Warfare: confessions of a rocket-firing Typhoon pilot’. I also have the unabridged version of Clostermann’s book, ‘The Big Show’. Their biggest concerns were Flak. Clostermann clearly had PTSD from Flak, after seeing so many of his mates lost to it. The point is that a 40mm with shred any fighter, regardless of whether it was a P-51 or a Spitfire or a P-47.
    1
  285.  @marklittle8805  YouTube is deleting my replies again. The Mustang’s assumed vulnerability to ground fire because of its liquid cooled engine has been massively overstated. This is why I pointed out the number of ground kills. This assumed vulnerability didn’t stop the P-51 racking up more ground kills. Remember too that Germany in 1944-45 was awash with Flak batteries. Pilots were a lot more worried about flying into the ground or being hit by a 40mm than a stray rifle bullet. Furthermore, the P-51 spent a lot more of its time over hostile territory than the P-47 because of its range. Read the anecdotes/memoirs. I have a copy (signed) of Tom Hall’s book ‘Typhoon Warfare: confessions of a rocket-firing Typhoon pilot’. I also have the unabridged version of Clostermann’s book, ‘The Big Show’. Their biggest concerns were Flak. Clostermann clearly had PTSD from Flak, after seeing so many of his mates lost to it. The point is that a 40mm with shred any fighter, regardless of whether it was a P-51 or a Spitfire or a P-47.
    1
  286. Food for thought: The P-51 scored 60% more air kills and 30% more ground kills in half the number of missions as the P-47. It suffered only a marginally higher loss rate - 1.18 v 0.73 - but spent a much higher percentage of its time in hostile airspace. These are facts and come from the USAAF audits. The P-51 was at least twice as effective as the P-47 and did not suffer excessive or exceptional casualties and the harder you look, the better the argument for the P-51 stacks up.
    1
  287. You'll need to back that up with statistics... Because the stats in this video say otherwise.
    1
  288. "The main reason that P-51 was highly favored, wasn't anything except simple economics, P-47s ($82K) and P38s ($120K+) were more expensive than the P-51 ($50,000) ." This is just Greg nonsense again. God damn it, I wish he'd stop posting this drivel. Go to a site called 'WWII Aircraft Performance' and look at the comparative testing. The P-51 outperformed the P-47 almost everywhere; climb, roll, turn, etc. Remember though that the aircraft used were British spec. Their 'Thunderbolt II' was basically a D-25 and their 'Mustang III' was a P-51C with a Malcolm hood and no 85 gallon tank behind the pilot so it didn't have nearly as much range as US spec P-51s. Economics was never a factor in the choice of the P-51. It's Greg conjecture. He'd know it wasn't true if he'd ever read anything but technical notes. I can back this up quite easily. "P-47 Razorbacks were flying and fighting greater distances than into Germany and back in the Pacific." Really? When? Again, this is Greg nonsense. You have to realise that the P-47, prior to the D-25, carried less internal fuel than the P-51 and drank it at a 50% greater rate. That's not a problem that could be cured with drop tanks, merely offset. Yes, I've heard of the 'Brisbane tank'. I'm Australian. It was made here. "P-38's after Lindbergh went further...however, when both P-51 and P-38 when kept with the bombers and not released to attack airfields, the results were only slightly better." No way. First of all, whatever its merits in the Pacific and the Mediterranean, the P-38 was a failure as an escort fighter over Germany. It was too easy to recognise and counter and too unreliable. Secondly, without the P-51, the USAAF did not have air superiority deep into Germany. With it, they did. With the P-51, the USAAF could go where ever it wanted and bomb what ever it wanted without fear of excessive losses. That is power projection. The spike in losses in early 1944 can be traced not to an increased number of interceptions by German fighters but to an increased number of successful interceptions. This was largely because the Germans started using 30mm cannon. There is a channel called 'WWII US Bombers' which has done a good video on this. The P-51s basically swept the Luftwaffe from the sky. After D-Day, Flak was more of a problem than fighters. To give you some idea of how effective the Mustang was, with two fighter groups in Feb, 1944, they scored almost as many air-to-air kills during 'Big Week' as the eight fighter groups of P-47s. They overtook the P-47 in March, scoring around 250 v 150 for the P-47. In April, the eight FGs of P-47s shot down 82 German aircraft while four FGs of P-51s shot down 329 German aircraft. That means the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. Whatever the merits of the P-38 and P-47, it was the P-51 that wrecked the Luftwaffe. So any claim that the P-51 was only used because it was cheaper is, itself, a cheap shot at best. It's actually total nonsense.
    1
  289.  @Renshen1957  Is calling me ‘another P-51 fanboy’ all you’ve got? The losses changed when the P-51 could escort the bombers all the way to any target in Germany and back again. Doolittle’s plan, if you ever bother to read about it, was to draw the Luftwaffe into a battle of attrition both knew it could not win. And that battle could not be fought with the P-47 and P-38 alone. The P-47 lacked range and the P-38 lacked reliability. The P-38 performed well in the Pacific and the Mediterranean but was unsuccessful over Germany, due to spectacular unreliability. I’m not interested in the -N model or -K models. They are an irrelevance. If you want some comparative performance data, I recommend ‘WWII Aircraft Performance’ website. It has everything you could want. The Spitfire out rolled the P-47 easily and above 200 mph, so did the P-51. Unlike the P-47, the P-51’s roll rate actually improved with speed. Virtually everything else you said was irrelevant. Even this detail stuff is of limited importance. You can’t deduce history.
    1
  290.  @Renshen1957  Greg Gordon is a liar. I know this because I have been a pilot. No, I’m not a professional pilot but I did spend more than 2,000 hours in helicopters. What about you? Greg is deliberately misleading people because he’s pissed off that his favourite plane was not the best fighter of WWII and now he’s made it his life’s work to rewrite history. Let’s look at his claim about Critical Mach Number (MCrit). The P-47’s MCrit was 0.71 and I don’t care what he says, nothing will change that. First of all, Greg doesn’t tell you what MCrit is. I know what it is but you can look it up for yourself. Instead, Greg tries to delude people into thinking that somehow the Republic S-3 section could, with changes, propel its MCrit to 0.82. He talks about flight test data which show that it was dived at whatever number he claims. That makes no difference. The S-3 section was pegged at 0.71, whatever was done to it and whatever speed it was dived at. He even seems to be trying to sell the idea that by adding dive flaps, the speed went up. This is simply impossible. Has he never heard of Drag Divergence Mach Number? MCrit does not change and he should know that. If he doesn’t then he’s talking from a position of ignorance. If he does then he’s lying by omission. This is a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty. The S-3 simply does not have the characteristics necessary to have a MCrit of 0.82. All of its basic properties are wrong for it. There’s too much camber too close to the leading edge, the point of maximum thickness is too far forward and it’s too asymmetrical. The P-51 aerofoil was 0.78 (this has nothing to do with the laminar flow design) and the Hawker Tempest was about the same. Both were near-symmetrical, both had their point of maximum thickness further aft and both had small amounts of camber that were at least half way back from the LE. For reference, the NACA 2213 of the Spitfire (2209 at the tip) had a MCrit of about 0.73. Mathematically, this is easy to back up. The speed of sound at 20,000 feet is about 709 mph. The P-47s MCrit was 0.71 which is about 503 mph. The VNE was 500 IAS. QED. Greg also does not read history. He never, ever comments on specific missions, especially the planning. I have debated Greg and he backed down. Then he deleted my comments. This is not and never has been about ‘my favourite plane’ and no student of history can ever afford to be influenced by such rubbish. I came into this believing the P-47 had been slightly overlooked and having now read about the history of the USAAF over Germany, pilot memoirs from both sides, mission histories, campaign histories and flight performance data, I now believe the P-47 is massively overrated by the internet and the P-51 actually maligned. He’s spinning you a line and a bunch of lemmings are happy to go over a cliff for him. Martin Caidin is not worth the paper his stuff is printed on. I have his book on the Bf-109 and on Saburo Sakai. He’s not a serious historian.
    1
  291.  @Renshen1957  None of that changes anything I said. I even pointed out that I wasn’t talking about laminar flow. Can you not read?
    1
  292. Load of rubbish.
    1
  293. Too bad the facts don’t bear it out.
    1
  294.  @SoloRenegade  You again.🙄
    1
  295.  @jacktattis  Ignore that guy Jack. He’s a liar.
    1
  296.  @akritasdigenis4548  "The only real main point of P51 is being much cheaper." Total nonsense. The most important point of the P-51 was its range and no, the P--47 could never have matched it. The more you read about the P-51, the better it gets. When it arrived in December, 1943, there were eight P-47 fighter groups and on, later two P-38 groups. P-47s outscored the P-51s in January and February, 1944 but after that it was no contest. The P-51 outscored the P-47 in March and in April, 1944, shot down 329 German aircraft to the P-47's 82 and they did it with half the number of aircraft. In other words, the P-51 was eight times more effective than the P-47. The stats remained that way until the end of the war. Oh, and it also destroyed 30% more ground targets than the P-47. "Had i lived that time, i'd prefered the radial engine's fighter without hesitation." Well, that's your prerogative but it would have put you out of step with everyone else. The stampede was going in one direction - towards the P-51. Everyone wanted it because it was a better aircraft at virtually every level and by any measure. You'd have had no trouble laying your hands on a P-47 if you wanted one. There was only one fighter group left flying P-47s at the end of 1944.
    1
  297.  @akritasdigenis4548  "1. if your goal is saving pilot's life at all cost, P47 is the only option." If that's your only concern then don't go to war. "Considering the lost ratio, US would have saved many pilots if using only P47. They preferred saving money, that may sound from a strategic perspective." That is not true. This has been beaten up by the internet to such an extent that it's now an article of faith that you couldn't shoot a P-47 down, whereas everyone knows the P-51 could be brought down by a school kid with an air rifle because... insert dramatic music... it had a radiator so it was a death trap! The fact is that the P-47 had a loss percentage of 0.73 per mission, whereas the P-51 was 1.18. But that doesn't show you the realities. A P-47 hit in the undercarriage, leaking fluid and with an oleo strut down 20 degrees over Antwerp had a much better chance of getting back that a P-51 with the same problem over Cottbus. The point is, of course, that the P-51 spent a lot more of its mission time in hostile airspace. This is simply a matter of survivor bias. And if you care to read it, Arnold's directive to find a solution to the escort problem of 1943 makes no mention of cost whatsoever. The only thing he stipulated was a time limit - six months. Cost was no object. "2. If you only need 1 type of fighter for every missions, then again, P47 is the only way to go. P51, although a very good bank for the buck is overall for me inferior because he lacks versatility. If US had not built the P51, they still could use P47 but if they did'nt have P47, they'd have lacked something." Then please explain why the P-51 ended up with 30% more ground kills in half the number of sorties, while out scoring the P-47 in air-to-air by 60%. The P-51 was, in fact, more versatile than the P-47, while scaring the shit out of the Luftwaffe. The USAAF could not prosecute strategic bombing without the P-51. It's an immutable, immobile fact. Forget all of Greg's drivel about drop tanks. They could not have solved the basic problem: a lack of internal fuel capacity. Most of this information can be found in Francis Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'.
    1
  298. Price was no object.
    1
  299.  @SubParFlyFisher  "The death spiral of the Luftwaffe began much sooner than that." And wasn't started by P-47s. Luftwaffe fighter pilots had been fighting and dying since 1939. More were killed on the Eastern Front but that was contributed to by the Mediterranean from too. "the P-47 could and did fly to Berlin and back." Nope. Read, 'Big Week', by James Holland and 'Target Berlin', by Jeffrey Ethel and Dr Alfred Price. Attacking Berlin wasn't a possibility until the arrival in Europe of sufficient numbers of P-51s. "The P-47 was the only plane capable at the time of doing what it did. The fact that the P-47 did its job so well, DIRECTLY led to the P-51 kill-loss ratio." This is straight from Greg's video. It's wrong. Greg seems to think that these things exist in isolation. The fact is that more Germans were killed on the Eastern Front and the Mediterranean than in Western Europe. Until the bombers could be escorted all the way to targets deep in German territory, everything else was pretty minor, which is why the Luftwaffe stayed where it did. Only limited amounts of damage could really be done. Once the bombers could get to places like Magdeburg and later Berlin and Munich, the situation became much more critical. And that could only be done when they had the range to do it. That meant the Mustang. Schweinfurt was an experiment that failed (in no small part due to the weather). The German pilots and commanders don't talk much about the P-47. They talk about the P-51 and the Mosquito. That should tell you most of what you need to know.
    1
  300.  @SubParFlyFisher  "You are sticking by your claim the P-51 outperformed the P-47 is every aspect of combat? Firepower, pilot survivability, dive speed, ordnance capacity, just to name a few." Every aspect? Those are your words. I can't see how just those three things represent every aspect of combat, unless you're trying to prove something by sneaking in a dodgy term of reference first. There were a number of areas where the P-51 was better. Aerodynamics was one of them and I don't mean the much-vaunted laminar flow wing. It was half a generation ahead, once the Allison was replaced with the Merlin.
    1
  301.  @SubParFlyFisher  The P-51 shot down more German aircraft than the P-47 in a third of the number of missions and much deeper into enemy territory. The P-51s survivability was down to its more advanced design that made it simply a better aircraft. And that’s what the vast majority of the pilots say. Sure, you’ll find guys who preferred the P-47. Humans are all different and it’s not like it was a completely black and white issue. But the P-51 was the next generation in design.
    1
  302.  @SubParFlyFisher  ”I am simply arguing the P-47 started the death spiral for the Luftwaffe.” This is highly questionable because it appears to make a number of assumptions that may or may not be supportable. If you read Williamson Murray’s book ‘Luftwaffe: Strategy for defeat’, you will find that it’s very hard to nail down any one single factor. The Luftwaffe peaked in 1940-41 in terms of over all size and quality of pilots. After that it was all down hill from there, making the claim that the P-47 took on the Luftwaffe and defeated it when it was at its best rather questionable. The P-51 scored more kills than the P-47 in less than half of the number of missions and far deeper into enemy territory. When the P-47 escorts were limited to the Dutch border, Goering simply ordered his fighters to attack the bombers once the American fighters had gone home. If there is one single factor in the defeat of the Luftwaffe, it was over commitment. The Germans were simply fighting on too many fronts and were too thinly spread. There’s no way breathing it comes down to a single aircraft, much less the P-47. I’m sorry but it just doesn’t.
    1
  303.  @SubParFlyFisher  I read Johnson/Caidin’s book 40 years ago. The claim that they defeated the cream of the Luftwaffe is Johnson’s. It’s not really supported by others who wrote campaign history, like Williamson Murray (he’s far from the only one). It’s also difficult to reconcile with the types of raid the USAAF were conducting in that period. Until January, 1943, they had never bombed German soil. Throughout 1943, the Germans were committed to North Africa and the Mediterranean and the huge expanses of the Eastern Front. It is not true to say that the Luftwaffe was at its best in 1943 because it actually peaked in probably early 1941, between the Battle of Britain and Operation Barbarossa. I know about ‘Big Week’. I have already read and recommended James Holland’s book on it so you’re singing to the choir. By the way, as I recall, Johnson made the claim the he went on the first Berlin raid in such a way that you would think he was actually overhead Berlin. In fact, at that time (March, 1944), only a few P-47s could get beyond the Dutch border. Even they couldn’t get within 75 nm of Berlin.
    1
  304.  @SubParFlyFisher  Those quotes are from the Pacific theatre and do not reflect the situation in Europe. They just don’t. Furthermore, I would challenge the claim that external tanks were the answer to the range problems of the P-47. It’s a rough rule of thumb that it takes half the contents on an external tank to get the other half there. With three tanks the drag penalty would be ridiculous. The law of diminishing returns makes those kinds of comments rather questionable and I doubt they actually flew those missions or flew them in the same conditions as were flown in Europe. The P-51 scored 60% more kills in half the number of missions of the P-47. It did a lot more fighting deeper in German territory than did the P-47. By the end of 1944, the P-47 had been replaced by the P-51 anyway.
    1
  305.  @SubParFlyFisher  ”Cope all you want, miles are miles, numbers of aircraft are numbers of aircraft, training hours are training hours and quality of pilots are quantifiable as well.” And platitudes won’t help you here. ”The facts are with me that by Spring 44’ the Luftwaffe was in a state it could not recover from if sustained pressure was applied.” Nobody doubts this. That was the primary objective of ‘Big Week’: to draw the Luftwaffe into an attrition battle that everyone knew they could not win - see James Holland’s book ’Big Week’. But now you are mixing 1943 and 1944. There were a lot of changes in that period. ”I am making an argument that the P-47 was the only aircraft at the time in NW Europe to do what it did, and this coincides with the point of no return death spiral of the Luftwaffe.” And you would be wrong. Correlation doesn’t equal causation. The use of the word ‘only’ is a giveaway. You want to exclude the work of all other types. The British had been fighting the Luftwaffe for three years and the Soviet Union for a year before the USAAF even turned up. You’re saying the work of the RAF doesn’t even count. Yes, you are saying that. You then tried to back out by saying… ”I am not diminishing the contributions toward the other theatres of war or the men and machines who fought in those, my argument is the P-47 is the fighter most responsible (NOT SOLEY) for initiating the death spiral of the Luftwaffe.” In other words, you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. There are many people I come across who make these claims without having read anything about it. They have seen a few YouTube videos on ‘Greg’s Airplanes and Automobiles’ and think they’ve got the whole picture. You want to talk about Rhubarb or Ramrod? It wasn’t me who was talking about the Spitfire but now that you mention it, you’re simply refusing to acknowledge that anything even happened before the P-47 got to Europe.
    1
  306.  @SubParFlyFisher  ”How many German planes showed up on D-Day? Could the Spitfire and low numbers of P-38s make that happen?” No but that doesn’t make you right. This is the God argument: ‘I can’t explain it so it must be divine intervention’. But now you’re mixing the timeframes. Actually, you did this when you mentioned ‘Big Week’. Because you were conflating it with 1943, when you say the Luftwaffe was at its peak (you were referring to Military Aviation History when you mentioned that). The P-47 was a major contributor. Nobody denies this. Not anyone with any brains anyway. But I totally reject the P-47 fanboi claim that it was ‘the only aircraft at the time in NW Europe to do what it did’. You’re spreading your claim from all the way through 1943 to early-mid-1944, by which time the P-51 was able to get all the way to Berlin and back, which the P-47 could not do. It was the P-51 that took the fight to the Germans anywhere and everywhere the USAAF wanted. That gave them the strategic initiative they didn’t quite have. They could bomb literally anywhere in Germany because they had an escort fighter that could go wherever the bombers went. They already had the tactical advantage because they had air superiority (in this case, a combination of numbers and altitude).
    1
  307.  @SubParFlyFisher  "How many German planes showed up during D-Day? Could the Spitfire and low numbers of P-38s make that happen? You know the answer to this." No, of course not. Nobody with a brain says they would have. But that doesn't suddenly mean the P-47 did it all by itself (we're not even talking about pilots here...). After the Battle of Britain, RAF Fighter Command went on the offensive with operations like Rhubarb, Ramrod, Circus or Rodeo. It wasn't me who was talking about Spitfires but yes, they really did take on the Luftwaffe at its best and the Luftwaffe - those who were left in the West - did suffer. You seem to be suffering under the illusion that anyone who doesn't say 'the P-47 - AKA; 'my favourite plane' - was the greatest fighter of WWII' must ipso facto believe the opposite. And 'the opposite' can or could be anything you imagine. I see this all the time. The idea that the P-47 was the only fighter in North Western Europe to do what it did is simply wrong. You're dismissing Spitfires - even those flown by people like Don Blakeslee in Eagle Squadron - as having no contribution and that idea is absurd. The P-51 made strategic bombing a reality because the USAAF could bomb Germany at any place it liked, any time it liked and not suffer unacceptable losses.
    1
  308.  @richardmontana5864  "The P-47 was the fighter that did all the difficult work to win the war. It was the P-47C that regained control of the air over German occupied France .The FW-190 was destroying the Spit Mk.V. P-47 killed off the bulk of the experienced German pilots cutting a swath thru the "Abbeville Boys"." This is straight up Greg nonsense.
    1
  309.  @SoloRenegade  "the POTENTIAL of the Allison if given a proper high altitude forced induction system is Far superior to the Merlin at altitude and this is a known and documented fact." Hoo boy... where to start with this... A 'well known fact' is meaningless. I agree with you about the Allison Mustang at low altitude. That's why the British suggested the Merlin for it. However... It was not just the engine and the Allison had a lot of other problems in the P-38, mostly, I think from oil starvation. It comes up in Miller's book 'Masters of the Air'. They suffered notoriously under conditions of high boost and this was a major factor in the European theatre that did not present itself in the Pacific. But a few mathematical calculations will show that the basic engines had the same basic figures (BMEP, etc.). What Allison didn't have was a supercharger design maniac like Stanley Hooker. "Had the Allison gotten the 2 stage supercharger forced induction system applied as North American desired, the P-51 with Allison would have curb stomped the P-51B/C/D at all altitudes. It would have been faster, longer ranged, and capable of flying higher." This is rose-tinted optimism at best. 'Coulda, shoulda, woulda' and tough guy talk like 'kerb stomped' doesn't get it done. If you read Calum E. Douglas' book 'The Secret Horsepower Race', you will find that the supercharged Allison was a dead duck from early on. The designers tried to make it run on a hydraulically-powered supercharger, similar to the German implementation but axially, rather than at 90 degrees to the crankshaft. This made the engine unfeasibly long and never produced the results expected of it before development was terminated. '300lbs heavier'? Heavier than what? A Merlin III or a Merlin 61? Which Allison variant? There were many. Let's try comparing apples with apples before jumping to conclusions.
    1
  310.  @SubParFlyFisher  Yes and I’m showing you how that claim is both wrong and disingenuous.
    1
  311.  @SubParFlyFisher  ”I am not claiming the P-47 did it alone” Alright then, let me ask you this: what was the RAF doing between late 1940 and mid 1943? Because German pilot quality peaked in 1940-41 and that’s what the RAF were facing. We also know that if you look at pilot losses on the eastern and Mediterranean fronts in that period they were actually pretty bad. The number of Luftwaffe pilots killed in flying accidents was also alarming. But you want to credit it to one aircraft alone. And yes, that is exactly what you’re doing. You pretend you’re not but it’s not hard to see through you. Your claim that you have provided facts and quantifiable numbers is disingenuous. You mixed years and made generalisations you can’t prove. You claim to have provided a timeline, yet you failed to provide even the most basic dates. Meanwhile, I provided you with direct references, like Williamson Murray and you didn’t even acknowledge it. You’re getting your information from ‘Greg’s Airplanes and Automobiles’, like everyone else and one thing we know about Greg is that he gets everything from the spec sheet and doesn’t read history. That’s why it’s not that hard to disprove him. You’re choosing to ignore the work done by the RAF - and Americans flying with the RAF - simply because it suits you. It’s just confirmation bias. The P-47 could not have taken the USAAF to Berlin. I have referred you to books that directly show this, down to flight planning. But again, you think it’s okay to dismiss this because it doesn’t suit your own confirmation bias. The P-38 was unsuitable as an escort fighter for a raft of reasons which are unimportant to this debate. What you’re actually claiming is what I call the existence of God argument: in the absence of any other explanation - due to your lack of information - it must be this. It’s a logical fallacy. ”Enjoy your day good sir.” Oh, passive/aggressive, eh? Gee, never seen that before.
    1
  312.  @SoloRenegade  "Wrong, Allisons were putting out 1800-2200+HP at 70-75" MAP as early as 1942 and verified by Allison." No, not wrong. The Allison in service P-38s suffered multiple examples of throwing rods and dropping valves. While failures like these are invariably associated with lubrication problems, the Allison failures were mostly associated with high levels of boost. Now correlation doesn't prove causation but there was no denying the failures and from memory, they are cited in 'Masters of the Air'. I'm a little hazy on where I read it but either way, it's not wrong. "agreed. but had they gotten the proper supercharger, we know full well what the engine did at high altitude with sufficient boost." Once again, coulda, woulda, shoulda didn't get it done. The engine was troublesome in development and impractically long. For these reasons, as well as the available supply of the Merlin, the program was cancelled. "This only reinforces what I've said. nothing wrong with the engine, simply a lack of creativity by the engineers to make a proper supercharger. Most Allison V12 in WW2 had superchargers, just not optimized for high altitude. Proving it could be done. They just never did it right, and never got enough time to figure it out." There were a number of fallacies spread about the Allison, mostly in the UK. It was said to be rougher-running and three feet longer than the Merlin. In fact, the Allison was smoother running than the Merlin and less prone to block failure than early Merlins and I suspect the length matter included the supercharger we are talking about. But the fact remains that there simply wasn't the need for a sort of 'super V-1710'. But not doing it right and taking too long are problems that have faced and finished any number of engine development programs. "300lb heavier that the Merlin installed in the P-51. Many sources other than myself point this out, not just me. Pull the stats and have a look. Obviously I'm comparing engines for the same airplane, but I guess you have to be an aerospace engineer to logically deduce that." Not really. Logically, I could deduce that we are talking about the basic engine from the P-38, exclusive of the supercharging system; what's often known in car enthusiast terms as a short motor. It's not clear. The supercharger on the back of the Merlin, even the Packard Merlin, is enormous and if it doesn't at least make up the difference, I'd be very surprised (and I was looking at a Packard Merlin only recently in the Deutsche Museum, in Munich) if it didn't.
    1
  313.  @SoloRenegade  ”You provide no proof the P-38 engine problems were due to boost.” You provide no proof of your claims either. ”Masters of the Air is not a primary source of infor for Allison engine facts.” LOL!! If this was an argument about engine minutiae, I might care but it’s not. It’s an argument about operational needs, for which engine minutiae is relatively unimportant. In any case, I can certainly back up what I said about the Allison hydraulic supercharger because it’s in Calum E. Douglas’ book, ’The Secret Horsepower Race’. The fact is that the Allisons in P-38s were troublesome and whether I read it in ’Masters of the Air’ or ’The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission’, by Martin Middlebrook or ’Big Week’, by James Holland is unimportant. What is important is that it’s widely known as one of the reasons the P-38 was not particularly successful in the European theatre. I’ll respond to the rest later. As for your claim that ‘the Allison was the better engine’, all I’ll bother with on that score is that better is as better does and what was suitable at low to medium altitude was not what was required for medium to high altitude.
    1
  314.  @SoloRenegade  Yeah, that’s wrong. According to Carlo Kopp from ausairpower, ’“Many of the P-38s assigned to escort missions were forced to abort and return to base. Most of the aborts were related to engines coming apart in flight … [due to] intercoolers that chilled the fuel/air mixture too much. Radiators that lowered engine temps below normal operating minimums. Oil coolers that could congeal the oil to sludge.’ ’On June 30, 1944, more testing was being carried out on the Allison V-1710-89 engine to try to push the power output as high as possible in the P-38. ”Results of a series of War Emergency tests conducted by repeating the standard 7.5-hour War Emergency schedule until a major failure occurred I; the engine.” ’The engine was run at 70” manifold pressure (+19.7lb in British convention) until, after 19 hours, a magneto driveshaft failed. At first glance this appeared to be a rather innocuous failure until a full strip-down occurred and it became apparent that the pistons and rings were severely worn and appeared to have suffered ring sticking. This was a typical result of pistons running too hot and the engineers were forced to conclude: ”Since the piston and ring combination is the critical assembly with operations at or above 1425bhp a number of of piston ring designs and combustion chamber designs be investigated to reduce the ring and piston operating temperatures and obtain improved engine reliability at high output.” ’The Allison engineers could take some solace from the fact that they had not expected the connecting rods to survive. It is likely that the ring-sticking and piston temperatures could have been reduced significantly had Allison earlier adopted the 30/70 water/glycol coolant with high pressure system relief valves in place as Rolls Royce had done.’ - The Secret Horsepower Race, Calum E. Douglas, p.379.
    1
  315.  @SoloRenegade  ‘Woke’? Seriously? Does this really mean so much to you that you need to resort to that? My god. Sucks to be you.
    1
  316.  @SoloRenegade  LOL!! And proving mine that the engine was prone to failure in service, simultaneously scotching your claims it wasn’t. You can’t use the old ‘your argument proves mine’ tactic here. Do you deny, against this welter of evidence, that the Allison was a problem for the P-38 and any other higher altitude implementation it was chosen for? Because this is the essential question, not silly and obsessively trivial details. If the P-38 could not be made reliable in service in Western Europe then it was of little value. The fact that it was down to the engine is all that matters. I have given you direct quotes, not nebulous ones. I have excellent reasons for believing what I believe and so do the writers of the material I read. You can diss it all you like. I’m under no illusion that you can be persuaded. That’s your problem.
    1
  317.  @SoloRenegade  By the way, you’re wrong again. The engine test reports show quite clearly that the Allisons still failed - catastrophically - at 70” boost so there’s no point you pretending they could do it reliably in service. They couldn’t. Q.E.D.
    1
  318.  @SoloRenegade  You didn’t answer the question.
    1
  319.  @SoloRenegade  Feminist? Is this about manhood for you? Wow. Sucks to be you.
    1
  320.  @SoloRenegade  No I’m not. As I said earlier, with a backup quote, Allisons threw rods and dropped valves . Both are catastrophic failures. Now you are insisting that I’m talking about a turbocharger failure or a failure due to a flawed turbocharger. To this I simply reply, ‘so what?’ The quote I gave you from Douglas (who quotes from the US National Archives) shows quite clearly that while it started with a magneto driveshaft failure, the strip down revealed a number of other problems with piston and ring overheating. In any event, these failures - whatever they were - directly impacted the performance of the P-38. Obsessive engine trivia doesn’t make any difference to that fact. If command couldn’t rely on the P-38 then it would directly impact their ability to fulfil mission objectives. And that is the whole point. If the engine was struggling to hold together at high boost pressures in the north west European theatre then why should anyone believe it could manage even higher boost pressures and more power at even higher altitudes? Why? Trying to make this about me won’t make you right. You can’t hurt me so it doesn’t matter what you think about me. I’m just surprised that you would feel this strongly about an issue like this that you’d start to use words like ‘woke’ and ‘feminist’ to describe me in the vain hope that I might be offended.😂🤡
    1
  321. "The P-47 was complex and expensive, the P-51 much less so " No, the P-51 was more complex aerodynamically than the P-47 and it was a tie on engine complexity, since they were two ways of solving the same problem. Overall, the P-51 was about half a generation ahead of the P-47. The P-51 used a new approach in its wing section to delay the drag rise and shock formation. This is different from the much-vaunted 'laminar flow wing', the efficacy of which was debatable anyway. This new wing section was proportionally thicker than the P-47 but had better drag properties. This was because the point of maximum thickness was at 38.9% instead of the 30% that was common at the time and used by both the P-47 and the Spitfire. That's why the Mustang had a higher tactical and critical Mach number than the P-47 and could be dived at higher speeds without losing control. It also used flush riveting with filling for a smooth surface. The Meredith effect of the radiator provided about 70 lbs of extra thrust, which translates to about 130 hp at maximum speed. As a result, the P-51 could also cruise at a higher speed and with lower fuel consumption, irrespective of the difference in engine size. It was just simply more efficient.
    1
  322.  @richardmontana5864  Who gives a rat’s about book figures when the balance sheet shows that the P-51 was at least twice as effective in terms of aircraft shot down per missions flown. Seriously, is THIS your argument? Really?
    1
  323.  @richardmontana5864  As for dive performance, you’re wrong there too. Look at the VNE of both types. Then tell me why the P-51 VNE is higher. The P-47 suffered from compressibility problems that made it difficult to control. So yes, there’s no reason a P-51 could not put dive a P-47, whatever the legend says. The previously mentioned wing profile delayed shock wave formation and consequently maintained control for longer with later drag rise. This is laughable. The P-51 was demonstrably at least twice as effective as the P-47 and had the range to make sure the bombers could hit targets anywhere in Germany, at any time.
    1
  324.  @richardmontana5864  Rubbish. The Luftwaffe was under extreme pressure, with losses on all front: the Mediterranean, North Africa and the Eastern Front. Even ten seconds of thought about campaigns like Kursk, Sicily and Italy and Tunis, make the Western European theatre look like a fairly minor affair. The Luftwaffe simply couldn’t afford the losses in those other places. Williamson Murray goes into great detail on this. The losses in the East were unrecoverable. The assumption that the P-47 alone was responsible is absurd. At the very least it was a combination of forces. You need to familiarise yourself with the RAF cross Channel operations which were well underway before the USAAF even got there. This is more Greg nonsense.
    1
  325.  @richardmontana5864  Who gives a shit about training exercise against Spitfires?
    1
  326.  @richardmontana5864  When are you going to stop sidetracking and address the fact that the Mustang shot down more aircraft in half the number of missions and destroyed 30% more ground targets? All you’re doing is focusing on things that don’t matter.
    1
  327.  @richardmontana5864  "The P-47's combat loss per sortie was much lower than the P-51 and the P-38. Yet it flew more missions than both of those combined." Which is why I used rates. Rates compute for total missions versus total losses. But in the case of the USAAF - and unlike the US Navy - no cause is given. P-47 was 0.73 and P-51 was 1.18. It’s not even half a percent! One is slightly more than one in a hundred, the other slightly less. That is offset by the fact the the P-51 spent a much greater proportion of its time over hostile territory than the P-47 because of its range. I have already said this. How do you not get it? Of course you're going to incur a lower loss rate if you spend less time over enemy territory. You get less wet if you only put your toe in the water than if you jump in. Most P-47s barely got beyond the Dutch border. You can read about this in books like 'Target Berlin by Jeff Ethel and Alfred Price (they give the actual mission planning) and 'The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission' by Martin Middlebrook. You can also read about it in 'Big Week' by James Holland. "And in the Pacific Theater,if the war would have went on a little longer you would have seen the P-47N totally replace the 51 D." The P-51 was mainly used in Europe, which is what this is about. So who cares what happened in the Pacific? D'uh! Second division. By 1945, the P-51 was replacing the P-47 as the standard USAAF fighter in Europe.
    1
  328.  @TheAneewAony  And the Germans implied the same thing in their memoirs and their RLM reports.
    1
  329. @ewAony "Doolittle never said he needed a low cost fighter to achieve air superiority." Congratulations on being probably the only person in this thread to mention the critical matter of air superiority. With everyone else bogged down in arguments about who knows what about minutiae, it's refreshing to see and I'm amazed more people don't understand this. In fact, as long as the bombers had top cover, the USAAF basically had air superiority. When the fighters peeled off - usually at the Dutch border - that air superiority evaporated, the Luftwaffe could do pretty much as it pleased and the bombers suffered casualties. The P-51 changed that simply because it could go anywhere in the Reich and the bombers would have protection. It's not that they no longer suffered casualties but they weren't taking 20%, like they did at Schweinfurt and Regensburg. That's before we start talking about the kills the P-51 was scoring...
    1
  330.  @jacktattis  "The P47 pilots did NOT go up against the best Luftwaffe pilots . That was the Spitfires and Hurricanes of the RAF RBAF RCAF RAAF RNZAF F/F SAAF RNAF Czechs Poles" Either way, Martin Middlebrook makes this abundantly clear in his book about the Schweinfurt-Regensburg raids. By 1943, the average new pilot in the Luftwaffe had 110-120 total hours and 10-15 hours on type. The average American had 600+ hours and 50-100 hours on type. P-38 pilots needed 300-400 hours on type before they were combat ready. It was a much more complicated aircraft to fly. Furthermore, by the time of the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission on 17 August, 1943, the Luftwaffe was forced to use twin engine and night fighter types, including but not limited to the Ju-88 and Bf-110 types. There is even a record of a Dornier - probably the least useful of the German night fighters - attacking American bombers that day. So desperate was the Luftwaffe that they needed to get aircraft down from Denmark to bolster the fleet. There were something like 60 of these slow and unmanoeuvrable types flying that day out of a force of around 600. Furthermore, since the Luftwaffe lost 22,000 aircraft in 1943, the P-47's total of 414 that year comprises less than 2%. The proposition - that the P-47 'broke the back of the Luftwaffe' - is ridiculous. Anyone who claims that 'the P-47 went up against the cream of the Luftwaffe' and defeated it has never read any history. They have no idea what they are talking about and should just STFU.
    1
  331.  @jacktattis  Jack, those are brochure figures and you need to be specific on model number. The P-47C and early D models had only 256 gallons of internal fuel. The P-51B had 269 and drank it at 2/3 the rate. The D-9 (field modified) and D-11 were the first Thunderbolts to be plumbed for underwing tanks. The early D-25 had 305 gallons and did not reach squadrons until May, 1944. The 370 gallon Thunderbolts were not available until well after D-Day (September, from memory). The 108 gallon tanks could only get them as far as the Dutch border. If you read ’Target Berlin’, it actually shows you how the USAAF planned their staging system of escorts and where the handovers happened on that mission. Those equipped with a single tanks could barely get beyond the Dutch border. The others (D-9 and D-11) could get to about 20 miles short of Magdeburg. These are not generic figures. They are from an actual mission. Only the late model P-47s, like the D-27, had those ranges you are quoting. Then we have to take into account the fact that those are brochure figures, calculated for optimum altitude and throttle settings. Escort fighters were required to weave to stay with the much slower bomber formations and at less-than-optimum altitude. This swallows fuel greedily.
    1
  332.  @FlatOutMatt  That is total bull. Unless someone actually says Americans are inferior then you can’t know. I can tell you that nobody was more grateful to the United States than Australia, following the Battle of the Coral Sea. So what we are seeing here is your personal inferiority complex coming out and your claim that the only other country that did anything in the SW Pacific was Britain is just wrong. I have one of my uncle’s campaign ribbons that prove you wrong. I didn’t say it and he’s only making arguments against a specific American position that may not apply to all. If you want to look at a paradigm on that scale, consider the American opinion of the Soviet Union. There is zero respect there at all and no acknowledgment that there were ever any decent commanders or that their troops were any good. Yes, they could have done a better job but Americans do consider Soviet soldiers inferior (and constantly - and incorrectly - refer to them as ’Russians’). And if anyone has not forgiven someone else for winning their part of the war, it is Americans not forgiving Soviet soldiers.
    1
  333.  @jacktattis  By the way, the 370 gallon P-47 would have had a combat radius of around 350 nm on internal fuel. The P-51B, with 269 gallons had a combat radius of 375 nm but drank fuel at 2/3 the rate (Marshall). I think Mike Spick must have been drinking Kool Aide or something. Not sure about Bill Gunston. Both are normally pretty reliable but this is not a one-size-fits-all argument.
    1
  334.  @jacktattis  Well, if you do some fuel burn calculations, I think you’ll find those figures are doubtful. Furthermore, I have cited a real-world example of the Thunderbolt’s practical range. In any case, as I said, they don’t take into account the differences in internal capacity of different marques and this varies considerably. I should also point out that either you - or they - are talking about combat radius or point-to-point. I assume they mean point-to-point. I’m using radius because, except for ferrying, it’s the only figure that matters.
    1
  335.  @jacktattis  What are you talking about, Jack? I’m Australian.
    1
  336.  @jacktattis  I think you’re replying to the wrong person.
    1
  337.  @jacktattis  ”Well my friend you seem to be a very avid US fan” Ask anyone who was alive during WWII in Australia whether they were US fans or not. That said, Australian efforts in the SW Pacific were never properly recognised and in the end, America’s treatment of Australian pilots was what led to the Morotai Mutiny. MacArthur always trumpeted American successes and blamed any failures on Australia. Apparently he wasn’t watching Kokoda or Milne Bay.
    1
  338.  @jacktattis  "I apologise. " Accepted. "John Curtain was the worst PM we could have had at the time. He was completely under MacArthurs thumb He allowed Blamey to sack Clewes, he allowed the US to have almost carte blanch to everything." Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Curtin was placed in a particularly difficult situation. The previous government had done nothing to prepare for war, particularly in respect of fighters. The most potent aircraft we had was a squadron of the universally hated Brewster Buffalo, based in Perth. Curtin also had to deal with Churchill, in the wake of his Battle of Britain speeches. Churchill wanted to send Australian 6th Division to protect British interests in Burma. Australia needed them to defend against the Japanese in New Guinea. So Curtin stood up to him and 6th Division was returned. Curtin was faced with having to find something with which to defend Australia. He started the Beaufort and Boomerang programs but we needed something a bit more potent. We had traditionally sourced our defence materiel from the UK but requests for Spitfires or Hurricanes - and even Australian pilots - were ignored or not well received. Curtin turned to FDR and asked for Kittyhawks. The rest is history. Eventually, we would get the much-vaunted Spitfires and even experienced Australian pilots to fly them. So we got John Jackson, 'Bluey' Truscott, Adrian Goldsmith and eventually, Clive Caldwell. In the meantime Jackson and Truscott would fly and fight in the most critical air battles in Australian history.. We won those by an even narrower margin than the Battle of Britain. I have little doubt that the same situation would have existed had Australian General staff served alongside British officers. Furthermore, Australian political and military command was different from that of the British. Furthermore, since as far as the South Pacific was concerned, we were very much under the jurisdiction of the Americans, it's hardly surprising. There was a lot of animosity between Clowes and MacArthur. MacArthur was a narcissist and expected daily reports trumpeting Australian victories over Japanese forces. He thought Clowes too passive, yet MacArthur - who had overseen defeat in the Philippines - was completely unfamiliar with the situation in New Guinea and would remain that way until the end of the war. Either way, Curtin had no power to do anything about it. "There were no Australian Generals on his General staff and Blamey did not complain." Again, I would have expected the same behaviour from the British. MacArthur did not like Australians and we did not like him. "His Gen Staff were those failures that came out here with him " Not all of them. Sutherland, his Chief of Staff was a bully and a management suck. George Kenney was not and he managed to talk his way into a bigger and better command, simply by bullshitting MacArthur. Kenney was one of the more effective commanders of the Pacific war and would play a key role in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. "MacArthur hardly went out in the field in New Guinea when he did he was a long way from the front." Exactly. But there was nothing Curtin could have done about it.
    1
  339.  @FlatOutMatt  If you don’t want to be thought of as having an inferiority complex then stop saying things like, ‘Everyone resents us because we won.’ Jack is Australian. So am I but I am of British heritage. The only Americans I avoid are those who lecture me. There are a lot of Americans who are still saying, ‘We saved your asses’, at every turn. I meet an awful lot of them on the internet and they get short shrift from me. But I make no assumptions about ALL Americans, in the same way that I don’t make assumptions about all Australians or all British. I modestly suggest you don’t either.
    1
  340.  @richardmontana5864  "It was the P-47C that regained control of the air over German occupied France .The FW-190 was destroying the Spit Mk.V. P-47 killed off the bulk of the experienced German pilots cutting a swath thru the "Abbeville Boys"." The 'Abbeville Boys' were a myth. Second cousins to Harvey the Rabbit. It started in the Battle of Britain. RAF pilots who saw Bf-109s with yellow noses believed they were part of an elite unit based around Abbeville. In fact, many units painted their noses yellow but this practice eventually faded from use. The RAF told the Americans and they were happy to believe it. Any conclusion that this was because of the P-47 or solely due to the P-47 is frankly delusional. The 'Abbeville Boys' did not exist. See Martin Middlebrook's book, 'The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission', for more detail. "Remember the kills the P-47 achieved,3,752 represent the best the Germans had to offer,while most of the Mustangs kills were "students pilots"." This is simply not true. For a start, the P-47 shot down around 3,082 in the ETO, which is a perfectly respectable total (see: Francis Dean, 'America's Hundred Thousand). But anyone claiming that it faced down the best the Luftwaffe had to offer simply doesn't know what he's talking about. The Luftwaffe peaked probably just before Barbarossa and suffered unsustainable losses thereafter (see Williamson Murray, 'Luftwaffe: Strategy for Defeat'). Even by 1943, the average new pilot in the Luftwaffe had 110-120 hours total and 10-15 on type. The average American pilot had 600+ and 50-100 on type. (See Middlebrook). So much for 'facing down the Luftwaffe's best pilots'. Furthermore, if you bother to read about it (and I have no illusions that you will), the Luftwaffe put up something like 600 aircraft against the first Schweinfurt mission, of which between 10 and 20% were night fighters. These slow and unmanoeuvrable types we only able to intercept when there was no fighter cover. Other types, including the Me-410 were also flown on that day with little success. There was even a Dornier, probably the least useful night fighter in the German inventory, which is reported to have tried to intercept the bombers without success. (Middlebrook) So much for facing down the best the Luftwaffe had. They did the same thing on 6 March, 1944 when the USAAF performed its first major raid on Berlin. On that occasion, however, the bombers were escorted all the way to and from the target and the night fighters got seven colours of sh!t shot out of them. Very little of this had anything to do with any contribution made by the P-47 in 1943. From its combat debut in April, 1943 to the end of the year, the P-47 shot down 414 German aircraft out of a USAAF total (in the ETO) of 451. The rest were shot down by P-38s and Eagle Squadron Spitfires. The Germans lost 22,000 aircraft that year. The RAF shot down 3,300 in all theatres, so how anyone can claim that the P-47 faced the best the Luftwaffe had or how it 'broke the back of the Luftwaffe' on the basis of <2% with a straight face is simply beyond credulity. The P-47's finest hour was during 'Big Week' when it made a substantial contribution but was also by far the most numerous US type. You need to do more research and it cannot be found in Greg's silly and unsubstantiated videos. Greg is semi-useful on technical detail and appallingly uniformed on historical accuracy. His conclusions are not only incorrect, they are irrelevant and uninformed.
    1
  341.  @richardmontana5864  That’s just a cheap shot. I have provided resources so that you can check everything I said. I don’t lack knowledge. You do. And I don’t believe Johnson because both he and his co-author, Martin Caidin were spinning a line. Johnson was a fine fighter pilot and an expert BS artist who rankled a lot of his fellow pilots. This was the man who claimed to have shot down a 190D, despite the fact that it did not go into service until October, 1944, some five months after Johnson had gone home. This was the same man who claimed to have flown over Berlin on March 6, despite the fact that no P-47 got there that day. Johnson is not a reliable source on much and while a lot of that could be traced to Caidin, it’s still his name on the book. Where is the evidence that this mock dogfight with a Spitfire ever even took place? Until I see a British report on it, I’m not buying. The story about his combat with Egon Mayer has no evidence to back it up and there is actually circumstantial evidence that it didn’t happen. You need to do more research and less smoking of mind altering substances.
    1
  342.  @ScoopsTV  "The loss rate per sortie Is comparing apples to oranges as the p47 flew much more ground attack missions but per sortie the .7% loss rate of the 47 is almost twice as good as the p51s 1.2%.Your math aint mathing bud this is not at all an insignificant difference" 'Mathing'? Jesus...🤦‍♂ The P-47's ground attack missions were flown over Northern France, Belgium and Holland. The P-51's ground attack missions were flown over Germany. and that was a different proposition As the Germans retreated behind their own borders, the density of Flak increased dramatically. This is commented on by virtually every pilot memoir you care to read. So the P-51's ground attack missions were flown in more heavily defended airspace than those of the P-47. Furthermore, the P-47 was more favourably affected by survivor bias. As I have already illustrated: a P-47 with a hit in the undercarriage, leaking hydraulic fluid and with an oleo strut down by 20 degrees, has a much better chance of getting back from somewhere over Antwerp than a P-51 with the same problem over Cottbus. You should read something about that. The GA missions flown by the P-51 were flown in more heavily defended airspace, further from home base, thus the figures are directly affected by survivor bias. Therefore the difference between 0.73 and 1.18 is easily explained. "The gauge of metal is irrelevant ...The Metal used in consrtuction has little to due with a planes ruggedness and is not armor The pilot protection in the p47 comes from all its secondary armor," Ruggedness refers to topography, not 'consrtuction' strength and anyone who thinks skin thickness doesn't contribute to construction strength doesn't understand monocoque construction. The structural strength of any monocoque is compromised by holes. The P-47 carried about 85 lbs of armour, which was roughly the same as the Spitfire. By contrast, the F6F had about 220 lbs of armour. The P-51 had about 65 lbs. Gauge of metal is very important when fanbois start talking about bullets bouncing off P-47s. And yes, they do say this. "The 47 had the huge turbo supercharger in the belly of the plane with all the strong steel pressurized ducting which the 51 did not have," There is absolutely no way I'm believing the ducting was steel. Nor am I believing the turbo supercharger was there for pilot protection. A couple of hits from a 37mm and it's going down, regardless of whether we're talking about a P-47 or P-51. "The 47 had 3 wing spars which made much stronger wings then the 51 ." That problem was solved early on. "The highest scoring American Ace Francis Garboski did just fine in a 47 until he switched to a 51 and the wings fell off then he was taken prisoner." That was Hub Zemke. Gabreski was shot down. "Infact you wont find reports of a 47 ever falling apart from storms, or g force with the exception of early tails in wind tunnels but this was fixed." I'm not really interested in finding 'evidence' of freak accidents, especially when they had no material affect on the outcome. Then there's this: "The 18 cylinder r2800 losing a cylinder was not that big of a deal , it could even lose 2 and the pilot wouldnt even notice ." This is complete fantasy. First of all, P-47 fanbois talk about this as though it was a regular occurrence. It wasn't. Everyone claims to know someone it happened to. This is BS. They made the same claims about the FW-190. Try finding a picture of this. Good luck. There isn't even one in any of the P-47 books I have. Losing one or more cylinders is likely to be catastrophic, even in an air-cooled radial. The first thing that happens is the loss of oil pressure and probably all the lubricant. If you can't land in a matter of minutes, the engine will seize. So having cylinders shot off is an emergency. The ones who survived that were not only extremely lucky but extremely rare. Again, I have no interest in finding supporting material for freak events. As for 'wouldn't even notice'... You're not a pilot, are you? That kind of catastrophic damage will bring an aircraft down. I will address the rest of this later.
    1
  343.  @ScoopsTV  ”we know this because the r2800 was on the Thunderbolt , Corsair and Hellcat and we have examples of all these aircraft returning home missing one or 2 cylinders , its ruggedness is legendary .” Link to photograph please. ”The fact that air cooled radials could take more battle damage then water cooled radials is well understood and confirmed by USAAF battle damage tests .” Link please. ”One bullet to the coolant system of the of a water cooled type and its all over , “ Oh yes, the old 'one bullet and it's all over' argument again. That didn't stop a large number of liquid cooled aircraft from being entirely successful in WWII, even in ground attack missions. No, I'm not going to make a list. Look it up for yourself. It also didn't stop the P-51 from racking up 4,131 ground kills, versus 3,202 for the P-47. It did that in half the number of missions, too. So much for the 'one bullet and it's all over' trope. You won't find it in pilot memoirs, like those of Col. Richard Turner. ”The radials have this same weakness in their oil coolers but these are much smaller and protected by the engine itself .” Smaller, yes. Protected by the engine itself? No. They're underneath it. ”This is not a rare occurrence with the r2800 .USAAF Optimal caliber tests show that shooting a cylinder or two off a radial is very unlikely to cause an A or B kill” This is total BS. Absolute nonsense. I don't believe a word of it. You shouldn't either. As they say in science, outrageous claims require outrageous amounts of proof. If you think losing a cylinder is no big deal then you absolutely have no idea what you're talking about. Once all the lubricant is gone, the engine will seize and the only options are to bail out or find a field to land in. ”There is a photo of a p47 landing with a 500 pound bomb still attached, the bomb went off ...exploded and shredded the airplane but the pilot walked away .Also the wings are shredded but still attached to the plane .” Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to document it. A 500lb bomb – which was enough to overturn a King Tiger tank – would blow a P-47 and its pilot into the next county. Digging up these one-off examples of pure luck (if, indeed, they are true) as typical of the strength of the P-47 is facile and irrelevant. These things are so rare that – if they did happen – they had no material impact on the war and they should not be used as any kind of typical situation. ”We have robert S johnson being attacked by fw190s and taking no less than 21 ...twenty-one 20mm cannon hits and well over 200 bullets and stilll getting him home .With 3 other 47s being written off and scrapped when they got home from that mission.” Ahh, yes, Johnson. Every P-47 fanboi's go-to source. That's probably one of the least reliable memoirs ever written and Martin Caidin had pretty good form on this too. This guy claims he shot down a 190D, yet he left Europe in May and the 190D came out in October. This is the guy who claims to have defeated a Spitfire – without saying which marque – in a mock dogfight which may or may not have happened. It's all big swinging dick stuff. Johnson was undoubtedly a fine pilot but an expert BS artist and he pissed off a lot of people. ”After the war a p47 hit the side of a factory coming to rest on the factory floor ....the pilot walked away.” You can keep quoting freak accients until you turn blue. They don't matter. ”There are photos of p47s with holes in the wings and the crew chiefs sticking their head through them , the pictures of battle damaged p47s taking insane amounts of punishment and still returning home are numerous. there are many of them .There are relatively few of the 51 and relativly few stories of pilots nursing baddly damaged p51s home .” Actually, there aren't that many of them. I know because I have looked. And the one that's most notable for being missing is the one of the R2800 with missing cylinders. You find one. As for P-51 photos, why don't you have a look? There a few. But I've seen something you've never seen: a P-51 that was belly landed. The prop was bent and the radiator was written off but the pilot walkd away and the aircraft was rebuilt and is still flying today. So you can give all the examples you like: I've seen a real life one and I'd take a bet you haven't. ”The top 10 P47 ACES in the ETO ALL survived the war ,this is not true of the 51 or any other fighter.” That's just a matter of luck. But when you go where the Mustangs did, the risks were higher. Survivor bias. But let's look at something else, lest you forget what this is about. The P-47 had an exchange rate of 2.04, while the P-51 had an exchange rate of 3.6 and was at least twice as likely to see action as the P-47 pilots. So yeah, if you wanted to survive, being in a P-47 was no bad thing. You were less likely to see action anyway. The Luftwaffe didn't even start attacking until the P-47s went home.
    1
  344.  @ScoopsTV  ”There is a reason the 56th fighter group chose to stay in their p47s rather then switch to the 51s .Its ability to take punishment had already been proven.” Myth. Interesting that nobody else wanted it. Read what Zemke said about it. See, this is the trouble: I don't get all my information from “Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles”. I do this old fashioned thing called reading books. It used to be popular once. When you read what Zemke says you find out there was more to it. I will leave you to research that by yourself. And it's noteworthy that leaders like Zemke and Don Blakeslee both campaigned long and hard to get the P-51 because, in their own words, it was the best fighter for the job. Neither believed the P-47 was upt to the job. It simply didn't have the range that was needed for the USAAF to carry out its campaign of strategic bombing. ”The poor climb performance was remedied with the new paddle blade prop giving the 47 comparable climb performance to the smaller fighters ,ace Gabby Gabreski stated in his book that after the paddle bladed prop his p47 could escape german fighters by performing a wide circliar climb ,Ace roberet s. johnson stated in his book that after the paddle prop no german fighter eas able to escape his guns by climbing again .” That's total BS. You don't have to look very hard to find the optimum climb rates for the P-47. Check out Chuck Hawks website. They were showing comparative performances for the -D-25 and it was never competitive with any other type. Not even the -M/N could climb with a Spitfire Mk IX. Against an Mk XIVe it was downright unfair. Anyone with a brain can see why. A seven ton aircraft with a 2,400 hp engine was never going to be able to climb with a four ton Spitfire and 2,350 hp. But it never mattered. The P-47 invariably had the advantage of altitude so Zoom and Boom ruled anyway. ”The 47s performance at 25k feet and above was unrivaled by any other large scale operational fighter .The ta 152 could outperform it but very few were built and the dora 9 had a better tested service ceiling but the had to fight at 25k feet as it was an interceptor ,its role to shoot down bombers .” So what? How much combat took place at that altitude? How much of it involved Zoom and Boom tactics? A smart fighter pilot doesn't get into a turning dogfight. He ends it before his opponent knows he's there. He does this by attacking from altitude and out of the sun. These examples you talk of are either exaggerated or out of context. In Johnson's case it is almost certainly both. He was a known BS artist. ”The 47 mach limit of .82 made it overall the fastest diving propeller driven aircraft of the war .(the spit was faster between 23k and 20k feet but at all other altitudes the the 47 is king.) This is confirmed by NACA and the RAF which tested to .83 with no problems .” Well, we know that isn't true. If it was then you should have no trouble providing that report. The P-47 wing was thin but old and had its point of maximum thickness at 30% of chord. It suffered from what was known as 'Mach Tuck', when shockwave formation over the upper wing caused a low pressure section to form aft of the MAC. This happened at Mach 0.71 on the P-47. The addition of dive flaps... God, what to say about this. Since when is adding complexity a good thing? If you know anything about this, you'd realise that all it does is make the whole thing more cumbersome. That's the last thing a pilot wants in combat, not to mention the possibility of failure. And I would seriously question your revised Mach number. I certainly wouldn't take it at face value. Since when does increasing drag make an aircraft faster, let alone by that much? ”Eric browns .72 claimed tactical mach limit is nonsense and not supported by ANY contemporary data or even pilot reports” Says some joker on the internet. So you've read all the reports yourself, have you?Eric rown was a great test pilot. You are not. ”There are no pilot reports stating that german fighter were able to dive away from the 47, trying to dive away from a 47 at any altitude was suicide.“ So what? In the context of this, all your interesting facts are meaningless. You will find out why soon enough. ”The p47 flew more missions {740k} then the p38,p40 and p51 combined.” That's nice. The P-47 flew 423,435 missions in the ETO v the P-51 with 213,873 (See Francis Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'). But the inescapable fact is that in half the number of missions, the P-51 shot down 60% more German aircraft and destroyed 30% more ground targets in a more hostile environment than the P_47 and further from home than the P-47. This makes a nonsense of pretty much everything you're saying. The P-51 was more than twice as likely to engage in combat and more likely to win, as evidenced by the exchange rates I gave earlier.
    1
  345.  @ScoopsTV  ”The 47 achieved an arial kill ratio of 4.6 to 1 this when the Luftwaffe was at its strongest facing much better pilots , in fact the 47 probably broke the back of the luftwaffe by the time the p51 got there . Luftwaffe experienced pilots were being killed in droves by the 47s on escorts and fighter sweeps .” These are just conjecture and lies. Total bulldust. In 1943, the USAAF shot down 451 German fighters in the ETO, with the lion's share going to the P-47: 414. The total for the USAAF was 3,300 and the same number for the RAF. The Luftwaffe lost 22,000 aircraft in 1943. So tell me this: how is shooting down less than 2% of the Luftwaffe 'shooting them down in droves'? Because anyone with a brain can see that unless all the very bets Luftwaffe Experten were concentrated over Holland, Belgium and Northern France, that <2% was going to make bugger all difference. So the P-47 'breaking the back of the Luftwaffe' is just a lie. Total rubbish. As for pilot skill, the Luftwaffe peaked in skill and experience probably between May, 1940 and June, 1941. At that time their training hours were high and their experience was unmatched, other than by the RAF and Commonwealth pilots. By 1943, the Luftwaffe were actually calling on nightfighter units for support. They could get away with this because there were no escorts, due to the P-47's lack of range. By 1943, he Luftwaffe was a shadow of its former self. Pilots generally had 100-120 hours experience, with maybe a dozen hours on type. American pilots generally had 600+ hours and probably 50-100 on type (see Martin Middlebrook, 'The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission'). ”So in conclusion , there is ample evidence that the p47 was stronger and more rugged than the p51” There's also a lot of evidence of survivor bias. ”there is plenty of data supporting the fact that radial engines can absorb more battle damage than a water cooled v type ,this is also supported by surviving aircraft , pilot reports let alone by the data from the USAAF tests.” Until you can produce those nebulous reports, 'it don't amount to a hill o' beans', to use your idiom. I might agree with some of this if I thought you were capable of a nuanced argument – and it has plenty of nuance – but after your attempt to promote the P-47 to a status it neither had nor deserved, I'm disinclined. ”This is the reason kurt tank went with a radial on the fw190 , he was building a rugged plane and rugged planes used radial engines .” No it isn't. Tank used the BMW because he was not allowed access to the Daimler Benz. ”The PER SORTIE loss rates are statistically significant and show a rate almost twice as good for the p47 ,you stating this is insignificant shows a lack of statistical understanding. “ Total rubbish. You're clutching at straws. Your argument of 'never mind the quality, feel the width' holds no water. The P-47 could never have won the war on its own. Anyone who dismisses that kind of information so flippantly because it doesn't conform is an idiot. Total per sortie rates absolutely do matter. In exactly the same way as per sortie kill rates matter. How do you even think this is an argument? What makes you right and everyone else wrong? Exchange rates are what matters. That's how you defeat your enemy. The best example of this was 'Big Week' in February, 1944, when Spaatz and Doolittle engaged the Luftwaffe in an attrition battle they knew the Germans could not afford. In that week, the Germans lost something like a third of their fighter strength. (see James Holland's book 'Big Week'). ”The 47 flew twice as many sorties, dropped 2000% more bombs and suffered only 58% of the losses that the p51 suffered. “ Easy to explain. Different missions and survivor bias. (see 'P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force' by James William Marshall, Lowell F. Ford and Robert W. Gruenhagen). ”You saying there is no evidence that the 47 is stronger shows you dont now what evidence is or you didnt look for it” WTF are you talking about? No, don't bother. You're rambling. I don't think even you know what the question is! ”P51 Fanboy?” Realist and an educated one at that. Mosquito and F6F fanboi, if anything. You should read a book if you're ever going to learn anything, instead of getting all your information from a charlatan like Greg.
    1
  346.  @ScoopsTV  "Yes "mathing"" There's no such word. And the American term 'math' is wrong. 'Mathematics is a plural and therefore, the abbreviation must be 'maths', not 'math'. No, I'm not British. "its an english language jab when some one is clearly making a mistake with math " No mistake on my part. "The 47 flew twice and many sorties and took 58% of the losses compared to the p51 ." I've already explained this: different missions and survivor bias (see 'P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force' by James William Marshall, Lowell F. Ford and Robert W. Gruenhagen). "after you claim there is no evidence the p47 is Tougher when if you knew how to math , you would never have stated that ." Nothing wrong with my maths, son. Once again, different mission parameters and survivor bias cover almost all of the difference (see 'P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force' by James William Marshall, Lowell F. Ford and Robert W. Gruenhagen). "LOL, i never stated the turbo super charger was there for pilot protection , a secondary consequence of all the steel ducting happened to be a layer of protection .It was a lot of steel in the belly of the airplane . The pressurized turbocharger ducting is in fact steel. You can look this up ." Don't play 'I never said' games with me, sonny. What was the purpose of including it if not to imply protection? Furthermore, the turbo supercharger was considerably further aft than either the pilot or the centreline pylon so it's BS anyway. "The pressurized turbocharger ducting is in fact steel. You can look this up" You're the one making the claim. You look it up. "The huge self sealing feul tanks are not there directly for pilot armor protection either but they do a good job at stopping bullets from hitting the pilot ." We have a saying here; 'pull the other one'. A high velocity round - or more likely a cannon shell - will go straight through a self-sealing tank. That's how they were designed work. They were not designed to stop bullet. They were designed to fill the hole and the less stopping they did, the smaller the hole. (see 'The Hardest Day' by Dr Alfred Price). "Rugged="[of a machine or other manufactured object]Strongly made or capable of rough handling" " Co-opted by the American advertising industry in the 1990s. Not recognised anywhere else. It's like the expression 'begging the question'. I doubt you know what that really means. Or 'fulsome', which also doesn't mean what it sounds like. Just because everyone gets it wrong, that doesn't make everyone suddenly right. "Is English your first language ?" Yes. Not so sure about you though.
    1
  347.  @ScoopsTV  So let's address the elephant in the room: range. As long as the bombers had fighter cover, they basically had air superiority. Without fighter cover they were vulnerable. But in October, 1943, the USAAF had a major problem: without fighter cover, they could not carry out their mission of strategic bombing without suffering unacceptable losses. The problem was that the fighter that the USAAF was counting on had short legs. The P-47 fanbois would have you believe that drop tanks were the answer and that Greg's conjecture that the USAAF leadership had a plan to nobble the P-47 and kill all the bomber crews to prove a point is true. They call it 'doctrine', which is basically used as a pejorative, along the lines of 'communism'. But... Newsflash! It's BS. External tanks were not the answer to the P-47's problem. The only thing that could improve the situation was internal fuel. Drop tanks simply create too much drag. They say it takes half of the contents of a drop tank to get the other half there. The P-47C, which comprised the vast majority at the beginning of 1944, was plumbed only for a centreline tank. A small number had been replumbed for wing tanks. This was a very slow process carried out in the field by sweating, swearing ground crews and involved cutting metal. When the USAAF carried out its first major raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, the vast majority of P-47s couldn't get past the Dutch border, even with a 108 gallon tank under the centreline. The small number equipped with underwing tanks could get to a point just north west of Magdeburg. That's with 216 gallons of external fuel. (see Jeff Ethell and Alfred Price 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944'). All the fighters over Berlin were Mustangs. No P-47s. The problem was that the P-47 carried only 256 gallons internally and this didn't change until the D-25 went into service in May, 1944. By that time, the horse had bolted and the P-51 was not only becoming the standard fighter of the USAAF but had also begun to establish itself as the USAAF's best fighter. When the P-51 arrived in December, 1943, there were already eight fighter groups operating out of England. That's about 650 aircraft. They also had one fighter group of P-38s and added another at the end of December. During Big Week in February, the P-47 was the dominant fighter, scoring about 250 German fighters, more than half of what it got in 1943, the year the P-47 was supposed to have 'broken the back of the Luftwaffe'. in March the P-51 got 250 to the P-47's 150. By April, there were four groups of P-51s and eight groups of P-47s. That month the P-47 shot down 82 German fighters and the P-51 got 329. So the P-51 was already out scoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. And it remained that way for the rest of the war (see 'P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force' by James William Marshall, Lowell F. Ford and Robert W. Gruenhagen). And the problem was caused by Republic. The problem of internal fuel was recognised before Pearl Harbor. At least a year before the USAAF began operations in he ETO, Material Command told the manufacturers that they needed to increase their fuel capacities. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and even Bell, did as they were told. Republic didn't do anything about it. Gen. George Kenney is reported to have been furious with Kartveli for simply failing not only to act on Material Command''s directive but for failing to read the room at all. This compromised his plans in the Pacific. The P-47 carried 256 gallons of internal fuel. The P-51 carried 269 and used it at 2/3 the rate. Furthermore, whatever the test charts say, escort work is thirsty work. All the calculations everyone quotes are just that. They have the following passage at the bottom of the page that nobody ever pick up on: 'RED FIGURES ARE PRELIMINARY: SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER FLIGHT CHECK'. And anyone who can't see the implications of this simply isn't looking. They were calculated, not flown. Furthermore they were calculated for optimum altitude and throttle settings. Escort work was carried out at less than optimum altitude and throttle settings and involved weaving all over the sky. The P-51 took the fight to the Germans in their own airspace. The P-47 could not do that. And whatever the technical differences and advantages/disadvantages of either type, it was the P-51 that did the most to wreck the Luftwaffe. That's a fact, whatever anyone's favourite aircraft is. All those technical details and brochure figures are not the story. In fact, they are barely relevant. The impact of the P-51 is a matter of historical record. That record judges the P-51 as the best fighter of WWII. And objectively, that record is correct. When you have done as much reading as I have, it becomes clear. Conspiracy theories never tell you the whole story.
    1
  348.  @ScoopsTVtools  So what? That doesn’t change the numbers. Do you have any idea what survivor bias is? No, looks like you don’t. And my maths is a lot better than anything you’ve offered. I have checked them myself with James William Marshall and he agrees. So are you going to address anything specific or are you just going to keep throwing random ‘interesting facts’ around? Because most of what you’re saying is hearsay or is so non specific as to have no possible relevance. If you think my ‘math’ is terrible, then you show me where I’m wrong. Because, given your record of citing freak accidents or irrelevant factoids, I’d say you don’t know what you’re talking about.
    1
  349.  @franklinstone7678  All those numbers come from Francis Dean’s ’America’s Hundred Thousand’, or the other books I cited, kid. And I’ll take them over you throwing bananas any time. If you have better stats, let’s hear them, with some citations.
    1
  350.  @ScoopsTVtools  Your problem is that I so obviously have looked it up that it’s actually you who is embarrassing himself, not me. Here’s a statistic for you to play with. A P-47 with 364 gallons (256 internal, 108 on the centreline pylon) could not get past the Dutch border. A P-51 with 419 gallons (269 internal, 2 x 75 gallon external) could get to Berlin and do the necessary escort work on the way. Show me where that’s wrong. I have already cited a source for this.
    1
  351.  @ScoopsTVtools  Here's something else for you to chew on. The 355th Fighter Group had the highest number of ground kills for the entire USAAF. With the P-47, they destroyed 8 for the loss of 4. With the P-51 they destroyed 493 for the loss of 85. That's a K/D of 5.5:1. The 56th FG had 320 destroyed for 50 lost, yielding 6.4:1. When the 78th FG had the P-47 it destroyed 152 and lost 51 for a K/D of 3:1. With the P-51, the 78th destroyed 190.5 and lost 32 lost, yielding a KA/D of 5.9:1. So statistically, the P-51 was no more vulnerable in ground attack mode than the P-47. Pilots were more worried about flying into the ground or copping a packet from a 37mm than they were about the deadly 'stray bullet in the cooling system and it's all over.' We know this because they tell us. They weren't worried about their coolant draining away when they might meet a sudden and dramatic demise in the next couple of seconds. These figures are from my direct correspondence with author and historian James William Marshall. You must be feeling a right Charlie.
    1
  352. ”meneuveralbel” What the fuck is this?
    1
  353. Another Greg myth that needs to be put to bed.
    1
  354.  @Reylock118  "the 8th AF fighter command destroyed the luftwaffe. it wasnt the RAF fighter force" Don't get emotional about it Kyle. Luftwaffe pilots had been fighting and dying against the RAF for three years before the USAAF even got to Europe. "look at any luftwaffe loss record. late 43 they started skyrocketing, newsflash it wasnt a spitfire doing it." I don't think anyone claimed it was. Not on its own anyway. This is Greg all over again. More German pilots were killed on the Eastern Front but Greg doesn't talk much about that. This is an engineered argument that's based on spec sheets and raw numbers and takes zero account of strategy. Mostly because Greg's view of military history is actually history of military equipment. Nothing wrong with that but they are not the same thing. The Spitfire was a major contributor to the rapid decline of the Luftwaffe fighter force. The death knell came when the Allies gained aerial superiority over Germany. And that was not due to any one, single type. But if you really want to understand this, read what the Germans have to say about it. Their pilot reports, their interviews, their memoirs and even the RLM reports, mainly talk about two types that gave them the screaming meemies: the de Havilland Mosquito and the P-51. Neither the Spitfire nor the P-47 rate that much comment (except for the Spitfire early in the war).
    1
  355.  @jacktattis  I was talking about the original post. Greg has it that the Luftwaffe was defeated in 1943 by the P-47. This is his deduction after mixing and matching a few figures. He claims the P-47 was responsible for the destruction of the 'Abbeville Boys' but he doesn't even acknowledge that most German pilots weren't operating in Western Europe in the period he's talking about. Luftwaffe pilots had been fighting and dying since 1939.
    1
  356.  @frodonifinger2628 Only near the coast. In fact, even by the first half of 1944, the vast majority of P-47s couldn’t get beyond Holland. Zemke wasn’t the only one doing this either.
    1
  357.  @jacktattis  What?
    1
  358.  @jacktattis  Aaaah… no they didn’t. There were a few that were replumbed in time for Big Week but the P-47, even with a 108 gallon drop tank on the centreline pylon couldn’t get to Schweinfurt and back. You can find this in James Holland’s book, ’Big Week’. Another book which is much more specific about this is ’Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944’, by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price. They actually show the mission planning, including the intercept points. For that mission, only a relatively small number - something like 20% - had be replumbed and even they couldn’t get as far as Magdeburg. The problem was not drop tanks. It was internal fuel capacity, something Republic took its sweet time to address. Let’s take Schweinfurt as a case example. It’s the one everyone knows and always the lightning rod for criticism. The trouble is that not a lot of people who talk about Schweinfurt have anything more than a basic understanding of the raid and that makes them easy prey for a guy like Greg, who appears on the surface to have done his homework. In fact, most of his hypothesis is a bit naive and it’s my belief that this is what led him to his (mostly inaccurate) conclusions. The Schweinfurt-Regensburg raid was expected to encounter its stiffest opposition once it crossed the Dutch coast. That would have been no problem for even the shorter-ranged P-47s. They could cover that. The problem was that British weather and a similar patch covering the Dutch coast and inland meant that many of the escorts never even saw their charges. The result was predictable and drop tanks wouldn’t have made any difference. The weather was what it was. The next problem they hit was over the target. Having just come back from that part of the world last month, I can assure you that both Schweinfurt and Regensburg are a long way from the Dutch coast and this was where the bombers suffered more casualties. The only fighter in the US inventory at that time which could have made it that far was the P-51. ‘But!’ I hear you cry, ‘the P-51s weren’t in service then.’ That’s right. Due to an oversight, they weren’t. So I am always of the opinion that, when faced with the choice of conspiracy or incompetence, choose the latter. I have more on that if you want it.
    1
  359.  @richardmontana5864  Johnson’s book is BS. He claims all kinds of things, many of which are demonstrably untrue. The simulated dogfight, if it actually happened, makes no comment about which version of Spitfire he claims to have flown against. His claim that he flew on the first raid to Berlin may be that he simply flew on the raid but it’s unlikely he ever went there, since only P-51s were capable of getting that far in the escort role. Theoretical ranges are meaningless. Johnson, or perhaps his co-author Martin Caidin, was spinning a line.
    1
  360.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  "On the first bombing mission of the P51A several planes were lost due to the wings folding up when the pulled out of the dive.....they were strengthened but these to planes were not comparable build quality or ruggedness" No aircraft is entirely bug free. No amount of modification could change the fact that the P-47 was an overweight, over-armed aircraft with insufficient range. It was never competitive with any contemporary fighter. There is plenty of documentation about this. Chuckhawks' site has the figures established by Sen Ldr Wade, RAF, in post war testing. Trying to make the case that the P-51 had a glass jaw because of a couple of early incidents is pointless. It was no more vulnerable than any other type. Once the P-51 was established in the USAAF, it wrecked the Luftwaffe. In January, 1944 it probably didn't score more than a dozen kills but there was only one group operating it. Big Week was a good time for the P-47 which got about 250, while the P-51 got (from memory) around 50. By March, the P-51 overtook the P-47, getting around 250, compared to around 150. In April, when there were four Fighter Groups operating the P-51, versus eight for the P-47, Mustangs shot down 329 German aircraft compared to the P-47's 82. In other words, the P-51 was scoring at eight times the rate of the P-47.* The P-47 was a good aircraft. It did shoot down 3,082 German aircraft, after all. But the P-51 shot down 4,950 and destroyed 30% more on the ground.** The P-51 made true strategic bombing - attacking the Germans anywhere on home soi and a few other places besides - a possibility. That was not the case for the P-47. That's why the 8th Air Force happily handed over their P-47s to the 9th Air Force for troop support missions. *Via Historian and author James William Marshall in personal correspondence. **From Francis Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'.
    1
  361. ​ @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  "Just as in the p38's fuel leaning techniques power setting, fuel margins, and speeds were all optimized over time aswell as equipping the drop tanks p47's were capable of utilizing from early 43. In the pacific p47's were flying 6 hour missions so the notion that they couldn't make it to Berlin is dead on arrival. But the p51 could do it for far less money and it's fits a narrative that shields the bomber mafia from having to answer for all the b17 shot down because they were idiots that didn't equip the 47 to escort them." Drop tanks were not the answer to the P-47's range problems. The only way to increase range is internal fuel. The P-47C, which was the dominant model at the end of 1943, carried 256 gals of internal fuel. The P-51 carried 269 gallons and drank it at two thirds of the rate. At the time of the first USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two versions of the P-47. The first - and by far the most numerous - was fitted with a single 108 gallon drop tank on the centreline pylon. That aircraft could barely penetrate German airspace and on that raid, turned for home at the Dutch border. The second model had been re-plumbed in a slow laborious process by swearing sweating crews who actually had to cut metal, to carry drop tanks on the wing pylons. Equipped with 2 x 108 gallon tanks under the wings, they could not quite reach Magdeburg. At that point they were relieved by P-51s. If you have better information on this - I mean actual mission examples - I'm all ears. The documentation for this can be found in 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1943', by Jeffrey Ethel and Dr Alfred Price. The P-47's short range caused a major crisis in USAAF bomber command and forced them to curtail any further long range missions. It wasn't just the Schweinfurt missions either. In the same week as Black Thursday, the USAAF launched abortive raids on Bremen, Osserschleben and Anklam. This was not the USAAF's fault. It was Republic's fault. Even before the war, Materiel Command sent out a notice to all manufacturers to increase the internal capacity of their fighters. Because a rough rule of theumb says that you use half the fuel in a tank getting the other half there, they didn't want drop tanks, which are a band aid solution. They wanted internal fuel. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and even Bell all responded. Republic did not. After Pearl Harbour, the USAAF also again told the manufacturers to increase their fuel capacity. Again Republic did not respond. So people like Greg can try to spin this conspiracy that some 'bomber mafia' was addicted to doctrine and determined to get people killed to prove a point. The fact is he doesn't have a leg to stand on. The problem was caused by Republic, who seemed to think an 8 ton aircraft with too many guns was a good idea because it looked good on a spec sheet. But an aircraft is only as good as its mission fit and the P-47 was not a good fit. The P-51 was. Gen George Kenney was known to be furious with Republic over this failing because it constricted his operations in the Pacific. In fact, the first P-47 to carry more than 300 gallons did not reach squadron service until May, 1944.
    1
  362. "On the first bombing mission of the P51A several planes were lost due to the wings folding up when the pulled out of the dive.....they were strengthened but these to planes were not comparable build quality or ruggedness" No aircraft is entirely bug free. But that problem was fixed. No amount of modification could change the fact that the P-47 was an overweight, over-armed aircraft with insufficient range. It was never competitive in climb with any contemporary fighter. There is plenty of documentation about this. Chuckhawks' site has the figures established by Sqn Ldr Wade, RAF, in post war testing. Trying to make the case that the P-51 had a glass jaw because of a couple of early incidents is pointless. It was no more vulnerable than any other type. Once the P-51 was established in the USAAF, it wrecked the Luftwaffe. In January, 1944 it probably didn't score more than a dozen kills but there was only one group operating it. Big Week was a good time for the P-47 which got about 250, while the P-51 got (from memory) around 50. By March, the P-51 overtook the P-47, getting around 250, compared to around 150. In April, when there were four Fighter Groups operating the P-51, versus eight for the P-47, Mustangs shot down 329 German aircraft compared to the P-47's 82. In other words, the P-51 was scoring at eight times the rate of the P-47.* The P-47 was a good aircraft. It did shoot down 3,082 German aircraft, after all. But the P-51 shot down 4,950 and destroyed 30% more on the ground.** The P-51 made true strategic bombing - attacking the Germans anywhere on home soil and a few other places besides - a possibility. That was not the case for the P-47. That's why the 8th Air Force happily handed over their P-47s to the 9th Air Force for troop support missions. *Via Historian and author James William Marshall. **From Francis Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'. @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS 
    1
  363.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS   "On the first bombing mission of the P51A several planes were lost due to the wings folding up when the pulled out of the dive.....they were strengthened but these to planes were not comparable build quality or ruggedness" No aircraft is entirely bug free. No amount of modification could change the fact that the P-47 was an overweight, over-armed aircraft with insufficient range. It was never competitive with any contemporary fighter. There is plenty of documentation about this. Chuckhawks' site has the figures established by Sen Ldr Wade, RAF, in post war testing. Trying to make the case that the P-51 had a glass jaw because of a couple of early incidents is pointless. It was no more vulnerable than any other type. Once the P-51 was established in the USAAF, it wrecked the Luftwaffe. In January, 1944 it probably didn't score more than a dozen kills but there was only one group operating it. Big Week was a good time for the P-47 which got about 250, while the P-51 got (from memory) around 50. By March, the P-51 overtook the P-47, getting around 250, compared to around 150. In April, when there were four Fighter Groups operating the P-51, versus eight for the P-47, Mustangs shot down 329 German aircraft compared to the P-47's 82. In other words, the P-51 was scoring at eight times the rate of the P-47.* The P-47 was a good aircraft. It did shoot down 3,082 German aircraft, after all. But the P-51 shot down 4,950 and destroyed 30% more on the ground.** The P-51 made true strategic bombing - attacking the Germans anywhere on home soi and a few other places besides - a possibility. That was not the case for the P-47. That's why the 8th Air Force happily handed over their P-47s to the 9th Air Force for troop support missions. *Via Historian and author James William Marshall in personal correspondence. **From Francis Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'.
    1
  364. "Just as in the p38's fuel leaning techniques power setting, fuel margins, and speeds were all optimized over time aswell as equipping the drop tanks p47's were capable of utilizing from early 43. In the pacific p47's were flying 6 hour missions so the notion that they couldn't make it to Berlin is dead on arrival. But the p51 could do it for far less money and it's fits a narrative that shields the bomber mafia from having to answer for all the b17 shot down because they were idiots that didn't equip the 47 to escort them." Drop tanks were not the answer to the P-47's range problems. The only way to increase range is internal fuel. The P-47C, which was the dominant model at the end of 1943, carried 256 gals of internal fuel. The P-51 carried 269 gallons and drank it at two thirds of the rate. At the time of the first USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two versions of the P-47. The first - and by far the most numerous - was fitted with a single 108 gallon drop tank on the centreline pylon. That aircraft could barely penetrate German airspace and on that raid, turned for home at the Dutch border. The second model had been re-plumbed in a slow laborious process by swearing, sweating crews, who actually had to cut metal, to carry drop tanks on the wing pylons. Equipped with 2 x 108 gallon tanks under the wings, they could not quite reach Magdeburg. At that point they were relieved by P-51s. If you have better information on this - I mean actual mission examples, rather than theoretical range - I'm all ears. The documentation for this can be found in 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethel and Dr Alfred Price. The P-47's short range caused a major crisis in USAAF bomber command and forced them to curtail any further long range missions. It wasn't just the Schweinfurt missions either. In the same week as Black Thursday, the USAAF launched abortive raids on Bremen, Oserschleben and Anklam. This was not the USAAF's fault. It was Republic's fault. Even before the war, Materiel Command sent out a notice to all manufacturers to increase the internal capacity of their fighters. Because a rough rule of thumb says that you use half the fuel in a tank getting the other half there, they didn't want drop tanks, which are a band aid solution. They wanted internal fuel. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and even Bell all responded. Republic did not. After Pearl Harbour, the USAAF also again told the manufacturers to increase their fuel capacity. Again Republic did not respond. So people like Greg can try to spin this conspiracy that some 'bomber mafia' was addicted to doctrine and determined to get people killed to prove a point. The fact is he doesn't have a leg to stand on. The problem was caused by Republic, who seemed to think an 8 ton aircraft with too many guns was a good idea because it looked good on a spec sheet. When Materiel Command wanted range, Republic added more guns instead. But an aircraft is only as good as its mission fit and the P-47 was not a good fit. The P-51 was. What good is an escort fighter that can’t provide an escort? Gen George Kenney was known to be furious with Republic over this failing because it constricted his operations in the Pacific. Republic seemed not to be reading the play. In fact, the first P-47 to carry more than 300 gallons, the -D25, did not reach squadron service until May, 1944. @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS 
    1
  365.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  "Just as in the p38's fuel leaning techniques power setting, fuel margins, and speeds were all optimized over time aswell as equipping the drop tanks p47's were capable of utilizing from early 43. In the pacific p47's were flying 6 hour missions so the notion that they couldn't make it to Berlin is dead on arrival. But the p51 could do it for far less money and it's fits a narrative that shields the bomber mafia from having to answer for all the b17 shot down because they were idiots that didn't equip the 47 to escort them." Drop tanks were not the answer to the P-47's range problems. The only way to increase range is internal fuel. The P-47C, which was the dominant model at the end of 1943, carried 256 gals of internal fuel. The P-51 carried 269 gallons and drank it at two thirds of the rate. At the time of the first USAAF raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944, there were two versions of the P-47. The first - and by far the most numerous - was fitted with a single 108 gallon drop tank on the centreline pylon. That aircraft could barely penetrate German airspace and on that raid, turned for home at the Dutch border. The second model had been re-plumbed in a slow laborious process by swearing sweating crews who actually had to cut metal, to carry drop tanks on the wing pylons. Equipped with 2 x 108 gallon tanks under the wings, they could not quite reach Magdeburg. At that point they were relieved by P-51s. If you have better information on this - I mean actual mission examples - I'm all ears. The documentation for this can be found in 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1943', by Jeffrey Ethel and Dr Alfred Price. The P-47's short range caused a major crisis in USAAF bomber command and forced them to curtail any further long range missions. It wasn't just the Schweinfurt missions either. In the same week as Black Thursday, the USAAF launched abortive raids on Bremen, Osserschleben and Anklam. This was not the USAAF's fault. It was Republic's fault. Even before the war, Materiel Command sent out a notice to all manufacturers to increase the internal capacity of their fighters. Because a rough rule of theumb says that you use half the fuel in a tank getting the other half there, they didn't want drop tanks, which are a band aid solution. They wanted internal fuel. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and even Bell all responded. Republic did not. After Pearl Harbour, the USAAF also again told the manufacturers to increase their fuel capacity. Again Republic did not respond. So people like Greg can try to spin this conspiracy that some 'bomber mafia' was addicted to doctrine and determined to get people killed to prove a point. The fact is he doesn't have a leg to stand on. The problem was caused by Republic, who seemed to think an 8 ton aircraft with too many guns was a good idea because it looked good on a spec sheet. But an aircraft is only as good as its mission fit and the P-47 was not a good fit. The P-51 was. Gen George Kenney was known to be furious with Republic over this failing because it constricted his operations in the Pacific. In fact, the first P-47 to carry more than 300 gallons did not reach squadron service until May, 1944.
    1
  366.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  YouTube is deleting my replies again. That's why I'm having to post several times.
    1
  367.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  The only P-51s I am referring to had the extra 85 gallon tank behind the pilot. Those were the ones that arrived in December of 1943. The other P-51s, those without that extra tank, were mostly handed over to the RAF and are irrelevant. The 200 gallon tank is a furphy. Greg talks about it but he doesn’t tell you everything about it. First of all, it was a ferry tank and not combat rated. Secondly, it may have been tested to 30,000 feet but if you look at the chart he’s using, it notes that the tank was empty. From memory, that tank couldn’t carry 200 gallons above 10,000 feet or 100 gallons above 18,000 because it couldn’t be pressurised. Who were they going to be escorting at 10,000 feet? Nobody. On top of that, it couldn’t be jettisoned in an emergency. Greg’s 200 gallon tank is a non-starter. Greg also waves a lot of charts around but he doesn’t show you the fact that at the bottom of the range charts it says that the ranges are calculated, not flown. He also doesn’t tell you that these are best case scenarios at optimum altitudes and throttle settings. Escort work meant a lot of weaving and slow flying which was hell on fuel consumption. In short, Greg is a liar and he’s trying to reconstruct the facts to fit a narrative that makes the P-47 look better. There are two kinds of lies: lies of commission and lies of omission. Greg is guilty of the latter. He simply doesn’t tell you everything. I have already detailed the Materiel Command and USAAF directives to increase internal fuel capacity that predate the first USAAF raids in August, 1942. In fact, the Materiel Command directive is pre-war, as was the one about drop tanks. I have also detailed why they were told not to concentrate on drop tanks. The 370 gallon P-47s did not arrive until late 1944, by which time they were not needed. I have given you specific references and examples of specific raids to illustrate how the P-47 and P-51 were integrated into the escort stream. I have also explained the problem of re-plumbing the P-47, something that didn’t become a line modification until 1944. As far as casualties were concerned, this needs to be looked at in context. You might want to look at the RAF raid on Peenemuende on the night after the Schweinfurt-Regensburg raid. The British lost a similar number of aircraft but something like twice as many aircrew were killed. Everyone expected similar casualty levels from daylight bombing but the early raids - even the unescorted ones - did not suffer as badly as expected. So what you refer to as a ‘stupid number of B-17s’ wasn’t actually that unusual. Drop tanks were not the answer. They can only supplement internal capacity. Eventually the drag penalty puts you into the law of diminishing returns. One drop tank might give you an extra 100 miles. Two might give you 150 but three might not give any increase beyond 150 at all. Drop tanks would not have made any difference on the Schweinfurt raids. The P-47 simply did not have the necessary range and there were other factors at play. Add delays due to poor weather and it’s no wonder the raid didn’t go to plan. The leader of 1st Bomber Wing also decided to fly his formation below cloud, rather than above it, which meant that the P-47 escorts couldn’t find their charges.
    1
  368.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  ”The p51 did have a glass jaw…..every single in-line did.” This is the old ‘one stray bullet in the cooling system and it’s all over’ argument again. If you look at the records for the units that re-equipped from the P-47 to the P-51 you will find that they did at least as well with the P-51. In nearly every case, they did better. I can provide specifics later. The point being that statistically, the cooling system made no difference. The dangers in ground attack missions - which is what most people are talking about here - were 1) enemy aircraft in the area, 2) Flak, 20mm and above and 3) collision, either with other aircraft or the ground. It’s not like the Germans had squads of people directed to shoot at the P-51’s radiator and the average pilot was a lot less worried about not making it home due to a deadly stray bullet in the cooling system than he was about being vaporised by a 37mm in the next three seconds or crashing into the target. This is why ground attack was so dangerous, not because you might get a stray bullet in the radiator. Zemke’s wing breakage was a freak accident. As for the P-47 defeating the cream of the Luftwaffe, it had very little to do with it. In terms of training and experience, the Luftwaffe peaked in 1941, before Barbarossa. By 1943, the average new Luftwaffe pilot had about 110-120 hours total, including a paltry 10-15 hours on type. The average American pilot had 600+ hours and 50-100 hours on type. P-38 pilots needed a lot more. In 1943 the USAAF shot down 451 German aircraft in Western Europe, with the P-47 getting the lion’s share at 414. That’s not surprising because there were about eight times as many P-47s. The rest were shot down by P-38s and Eagle Squadron Spitfires. The Luftwaffe lost 22,000 aircraft in 1943 so how anyone could claim that shooting down less than 2% of that total equates to shooting down the majority of Germany’s experienced pilots beggars belief. ALL prop fighters were called spam cans, not just the P-51.
    1
  369.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  By the way, the USAAF placed its first order for P-51s on 9 October, 1942. By the middle of 1943, they were ready. The long range potential was already being developed by a team under Thomas Kindelberger, replacing the radio fitted behind the pilot with an 85 gallon tank. By the time Arnold made his directive to Giles, this potential was already a known quantity. The problem was that, because it was a British-American cooperative project, it had no father figure in the USAAF to support it and it suffered from a certain amount of ‘not invented here’ sentiment. However, it had an ally in government circles (his name escapes me for the moment) and it was persevered with. This was just as well because there was no clear alternative. Republic’s response would not appear until six months after the P-51 arrived in the UK and still wasn’t up to the specified task: to fly escort to literally anywhere in Germany. Arnold seems to have forgotten about the P-51. That might sound unforgivable but he had a lot on his plate. He was losing the air war over Germany and he had done a lot of travelling in 1943. He also suffered two heart attacks that year.
    1
  370.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  "amongst many of its detractors there is one thing the 47 didn't do.....come apart." Given enough punishment, they all come apart eventually. "Unlike the 51 when the d model came out with its shiny new 6 gun config.....it had to be grounded for a time because the 6 gun weakend the wing and in one early mission 75% of the planes suffered wing failures pulling out of there dives....and that was on dronescape so you don't have to do much digging" That was a combination of problems, some of which were fixed much earlier. You're conflating things. I suggest you find a better reference than a YouTuber.
    1
  371.  @MAYDAYSIMULATIONS  Yes, I had them the other way around.
    1
  372. Bullshit.
    1
  373.  @steveperreira5850  "Winkel was wrong, see Greg’s airplanes. That idiot test pilot didn’t know what he was talking about. He always favored British aircraft. No piston engine aircraft at fought significantly in World War II out dived The P 47 thunderbolt, that includes the mustang." LOL!!! Do you realise what you are saying? By the way, the VNE of the Mustang was higher than that of the P-47. You should stop listening to Greg. He's got lots of nerdy charts but he appears to think everything exists in a vacuum. He applies his logic asymmetrically too. He doesn't appear to read history either. Just aircraft performance charts. As a result, his conclusions are wildly inaccurate. I've had the argument with him. Then he deleted my posts. He's just another punter on YouTube with a bee in his bonnet because the best aircraft of WWII had a British engine. Stiff shit. No excuse to try to rewrite history. It's just too bad his videos have gained so much traction.
    1
  374.  @steveperreira5850  Winkle knew a lot more about it than Greg does. I will be taking his word, even if that offends.
    1
  375.  @ross.venner  Exactly.
    1
  376. Sorry to say it but Greg is full of shit.
    1
  377.  @treyriver5676  "will take gregs data over most YouTube." That's exactly the problem: Greg relies on data, where all things are equal and it's possible to live in a vacuum. Greg is very long on nerdy charts and well short on historical fact and he's not hard to prove wrong. But if you only get your information from YouTube then you're probably not nearly as well-informed as you might think. There's this old fashioned thing called reading books...
    1
  378.  @treyriver5676  My point is that data is not the same as history. Greg is strong on data but he relies far too heavily on it and largely ignores historical fact. There are other factors too. The problem is that data can be manipulated to fit a particular narrative and that’s what Greg is doing. It’s kind of like an extension of the kid’s argument that says, ‘this one had the most guns so it must have been the best’ and then building a supporting case around it. The problem is - and I’ve had the argument with him - Greg likes to ignore things that don’t support his argument or, as happened with me, he applies things asymmetrically.
    1
  379. You might want to reassess that, once you've looked at the F6F. Great as the Corsair was, it was the Hellcat that won the war in the Pacific.
    1
  380. "For the year of 1943 luftwaffe attrition was 140%." This is a bullshit line you're taking and you know it because I've already countered it. From its combat debut in April 1943 to the end of December, the P-47 shot down 414 German aircraft. That year the Germans lost 22,000 aircraft. The P-47s accounted for less than 2%. "This is all before the p51 b was flying in any meaningful numbers....." In February, 1944, during 'Big Week', eight fighter groups of P-47s shot down about 30% more German aircraft than two fighter groups of P-51s. Think about that for a second. The last day the P-47s outscored the P-51 was 18 March, 1944. In April 1944 eight fighter groups of P-47s shot down 82 German aircraft. Four fighter groups of P-51s shot down 329 german aircraft. In other words, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. So whether the Luftwaffe attrition from 1943 was 140% or not, it didn't have a lot to do with the P-47. "So without discounting some very brave flying, of course the p51's enjoyed running up kills on far less experienced pilots. It's a real shame this is glossed over in nearly all recounts of these aircraft and the 51 is shown as a far better war plane than it actually was" Oh for f*cks sake. Read about the Luftwaffe reaction on 17 August, 1943 - the infamous Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission. People here always talk about it but none of you SOBs has ever read about it, have you? If you had you wouldn't be counting this endless BS. By this time the average Luftwaffe new pilot had 110-120 hours total, with 10-15 hours on type. The average new American pilot had 600+ with 50-100 on type. The Luftwaffe, which had probably peaked just before Barbarossa, had been worn down by a couple of years of attrition they could not afford, spread too thinly on fronts they didn't need to be fighting on. On 17 August they were actually reduced to using twin engined night fighters for interception. The only reason they could do that was because the USAAF fighter cover had already turned for home. They did the same thing on the first major raid on Berlin on 6 March, 1944. Only this time, because of the Mustangs it was a massacre. Read Martin Middlebrook's 'The Schweinfurt-Regensberg Mission'. Then read 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price. By March very little had changed. The war of attrition, mostly against the Soviet Union, had worn the Luftwaffe dow to a shadow of its former self. For more on that read Williamson Murray's 'Luftwaffe: Strategy For Defeat'. You're just pissed off that the best fighter of the war was powered by a non-American engine. Now you have to invent a cherry-picked narrative to make 'my favourite plane' better than it was. The P-51 was the only fighter to make a strategic difference and I couldn't give a rats about claims of 'ruggedness' or firepower or exaggerated climb, dive and roll speeds. The only thing that matters here is the best available version of the truth. And my information is a hell of a lot better than yours (which is only a rehash of Greg Gordon's drivel anyway).
    1
  381. Nothing exists in vacuum.
    1
  382.  @raymonortiz3084 Those faults were fixed early on. Richard Turner, in his book ’Big Friend, Little Friend’, says that the P-51s armament was enough to shred any Luftwaffe fighter they were likely to come across. Awesome survivability’ has to be something of an exaggeration. All these things are relative and the P-47s survivability is no exception. The stories of Thunderbolts coming back from missions with two cylinders shot away are very much the exception, rather than the rule. Any single engine fighter suffering that much damage would have been extremely unlikely to make it across the Channel, even if some did. It also comes at a price. The gross weight was one of its Achilles heels. The Il2 Sturmovik was a tough aircraft to shoot down. It had armour plating everywhere. It also had a liquid cooled engine.
    1
  383.  @jacktattis  "He who hasrthe height has the fight and that my friend was the Spitfire" Not over Germany.
    1
  384.  @jacktattis  The Spitfire wasn’t over Schweinfurt unless it was performing PR duties.
    1
  385.  @jacktattis  It doesn't matter. They weren't there.
    1
  386.  @jacktattis  Doesn’t change the fact that those under Leigh Mallory’s command were not suddenly doing it. It doesn’t change the fact that whatever they could do, they were not at Schweinfurt. You are talking about a potential arc range at optimum speed and altitude, not what the operational range would have been like when escorting bombers.
    1
  387.  @jacktattis  On the Schweinfurt raid? I don’t think so. The bombers got pretty badly shot up but the fighters didn’t see a lot of action, in part because the weather nixed the rendezvous with the bomber fleet. I can check this and get back to you.
    1
  388.  @jacktattis  I have several of Mike Spick’s books. I’m referring specifically to the Schweinfurt mission and the performance of the P-47. As far as I know, they barely made any contact with the Luftwaffe. What does Spick say specifically?
    1
  389.  @jacktattis  Yes, I know but Leigh Mallory was killed after both the Schweinfurt raids and Big Week. That means it was after the change of management and command so that basically everyone reported to Eisenhower. It also meant that all the targets and objectives had been agreed upon. The only recalcitrant after that was Harris and this is the reason I believe Portal should have sacked him. But Portal was a weak commander and had no stomach for that.
    1
  390. Leigh Mallory’s death was also after D-Day, by which time range was far less important than it had been.
    1
  391.  @jacktattis  "The second Schweinfurt raid?" October 14th, 1943. Same number of casualties. Known in some circles as 'Black Thursday'.
    1
  392. Load of rubbish. Once the P-51 started flying escort missions it scored at better than twice the rate of the P-47. If you had to go to war with one fighter, the P-51 was the only realistic choice. Don Blakeslee and Hub Zemke both campaigned long and hard to get it because they knew it was the best choice.
    1
  393. The P-47 was, in many ways, an example of Capability Based Planning. The P-51 was a response to a specific need in a strategic environment. CBP is useful when you don’t have a specific enemy or theatre. It tends to produce aircraft that are technically impressive but may have functional limitations that cannot easily be overcome. The P-51 was a response to a particular need at a specific time. What worked brilliantly in that scenario may or may not work in another. The internet will ALWAYS fall for CBP at the expense of strategic planning. Always.
    1
  394. "the F4u was superior" That's a matter of opinion.
    1
  395.  @richardmontana5864  That’s just Greg hokum.
    1
  396. The Typhoon.
    1
  397. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @richardmontana5864  ”P-47 could fly higher,out dive,out zoom climb,and out roll your P-51. Also had 33/13 percent more firepower and carried more ammo than P-51 with a better gunnery system than P-51. When it comes to combat give me the P-47. It even looks better too.” These are the kinds of sad and silly posts I’ve come to expect from people who live on the internet. The P-47 service ceiling was 100 feet higher than that of the P-51. Inconsequential. Out dive? No. The P-47 suffered from compressibility problems that the designers of the P-51 addressed early on in their choice of wing section. As a result, the P-51 had a higher VNE and handled better in a dive. Out roll? Only at relatively low speed. Above 225 mph, the P-51 handily out rolled the P-47. Zoom climb? That usually happens after an inconclusive or failed gunnery pass. Ordinary climb is more important. The Luftwaffe found the best way to get away from a P-47 was to enter a climbing turn. More guns? Big deal. That just made it so much heavier. If you read (LOL! As if you read...) the memoirs of pilots like Col. Richard Turner, you will find that he had total confidence in the P-51 armament and that six .50 cals were enough to shred any German fighter. The P-51 shot down 60% more German fighters than the P-47 in half the number of missions in the European theatre. It also destroyed 30% more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 while suffering only marginally more casualties (1.18 v 0.73). Much of that could be explained by the fact that the P-51 spent a much higher percentage of its time in hostile airspace. The P-51 was at least twice as effective as the P-47. These are all USAAF figures.
    1
  398.  @bryanturner683  Don’t forget survivor bias. Because the P-51 spent so much more time over hostile territory, damage that might have been survivable closer to home was more critical. March 18, 1944 was the last day P-47s out scored P-51s. In April, eight groups of P-47s shot down 82 German aircraft while four groups of P-51s shot down 329. The P-47 was out scoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one.
    1
  399.  @bryanturner683  If you read enough pilot memoirs from late in the war you will realise that the Flak over Germany - and especially over German airfields - was murderous. This was because the Germans were contracting to within their borders while taking as many Flak guns as they could. Yet the P-51 continued to do well even strafing airfields. Many fighter groups actually did better with the P-51 that they did with the P-47, which rather scotches the ‘one stray bullet in the radiator’ trope.
    1
  400.  @jacktattis  Just ignore SoloRenegade. He thinks he knows more about test flying than Eric Brown. He says so too.
    1
  401.  @pyronuke4768  If I could make a couple of contextual remarks here… The figures I have for sorties flown show the P-47 flying about 750,000 versus the Mustang at 218,000. I think that’s right. The P-51 shot down about 15% more aircraft but it spent a lot more of its time over enemy territory than the P-47 did. Added to that is the fact that Goering exploited the P-47s range problems by instructing his fighters not to attack the bombers until the fighters had gone home. In short, if you do the maths, the Mustang was almost four times more likely to engage in combat than the P-47. This would easily account for the higher loss rate. In fact, if you extrapolate on that, the P-51 actually comes out better than your figures suggest.
    1
  402.  @pyronuke4768  Cheers. I spent a fair percentage of today researching it and the biggest problem is that the USAAF never recorded how aircraft were lost. We know that Johnny Godfrey George Preddy was shot down by ground fire because there were witnesses but it isn't in the records. That makes drawing conclusions more difficult. However... I did find that the figures are a bit distorted. The P-47 flew 423,435 sorties in the European war for 3,082 air kills and 3,077 losses (all kinds). The P-51 flew 213,873 while shooting down 4,950 and losing 2,520. That means the P-47 was batting 1:1 and the P-51 approximately 2:1. But again, we don't know how they were lost so this statistic is not a complete picture. We are talking only European missions here and only air-to-air kills. The P-47 flew another 320,000 missions in other theatres and shot down another 1,200 aircraft. The P-51 was hardly used elsewhere outside Europe.
    1
  403.  @adamtruong1759  The P-47 was rarely able to extend over German soil before the end of 1944. The P-51 spent a much higher percentage of its time in hostile airspace. And using your statistics, which I assume are accurate, the P-51 managed to account for more enemy aircraft than the P-47 did despite flying only a third of the number of missions.
    1
  404.  @adamtruong1759  By 1945, many would have been operating from bases on the Continent.
    1
  405.  @adamtruong1759  The vast majority of P-47s simply did not have the internal fuel to get to Berlin from England. The first thing to remember about this is that drop tanks have only a limited effect on range. The real decider is internal fuel. If we go back to Mission 250, which was the first USAAF raid on Berlin on March 6, 1944, we see that there was a small number of P-47s which had been replumbed in the field to carry fuel tanks under the wings. The rest carried a single 108 gallon tank under the fuselage. The replumbed P-47s carried one under each wing. Those fitted with the single tank could get about as far as the Dutch border. The others - say, 20% of them - could get to a point just north west of Magdeburg. The single tank aircraft carried 478 gallons, while the others carried 586 gallons. Than mean the internal fuel capacity was 370 gallons. That did not change until the -N model, which did not see service in Europe. The P-51, by contrast, had a large tank fitted behind the pilot and had already been plumbed for wing-mounted drop tanks. Ignoring for a moment the P-51s unique handling characteristics, it’s external tanks were largely incidental. The internal fuel was what gave it the range it had. On March 6, 1944, they were carrying a total of 417 gallons all up. Until the end of 1944, that was it and by then, the vast majority of squadrons were being re-equipped with the Mustang.
    1
  406.  @adamtruong1759  The limiting factor for range is not drop tanks. It’s internal fuel. On Mission 250, the USAAF’s first raid on Berlin on March 6, 1944, only about 20% of P-47s had been modified to carry fuel tanks under the wings. This was done in the field by cutting metal. Not ideal. Even then, the bulk of the P-47 fleet carried 478 gallons, with the remaining 20% carrying 586 gallons by virtue of the re-plumbing. That meant the P-47’s internal fuel load was 370 gallons. Most could reach the Dutch border and the other 20% could get to a point north west of Magdeburg and that was all. The P-51s, with 417 gallons, took them the rest of the way to Berlin. Republic took their own sweet time about making this a line modification and it wasn’t available until the end of 1944, by which time most of the P-47s in the European theatre were being replaced with P-51s. Even Lockheed were quicker to respond. Larger internal fuel loads for the P-47 didn’t come until the -N model and that never saw service in Europe.
    1
  407.  @adamtruong1759  "Even though the P-47D always had the 200 gallon belly tank—made of paper, metal, or a plastic mix—giving them 505-575 gallons total depending on the variant." Not really. Again, I refer you to the USAAF's first raid on Berlin. I think if they could have done it before the arrival of the P-51, they would have. A lot of people think that if you put enough fuel tanks under a P-47 then range would be no problem. In fact, it's almost the other way around. The rough rule of thumb for external fuel is that you use half the fuel in the tank getting the other half there. That's for one tank. Theoretically, I suppose you could hang a 200 gallon 'Brisbane' tank under the centreline pylon and two 108 gallon tanks under the wings. That would give a total of 786 gallons but the drag penalty would be horrendous. Even then, I don't know if that would have been enough to get them to Berlin. I suppose it would but I doubt anyone really knows. But once the P-51 arrived it no longer mattered.
    1
  408.  @adamtruong1759  "But the last thing I'll touch upon is that the drop tank availability seems to be less of a Republic issue and more of a 8th Airforce/Bomber Mafia issue." This has been a bit of a controversial matter. There's the camp that says the generals didn't care and they were going to push ahead with their doctrinal approach no matter what. There's the other side that I sit on. If you read enough history, like 'Big Week', by James Holland, for example, you pretty soon realise that it was much, much more complicated. YouTube deletes a lot of my posts these days and I think length is a problem so I may have to explain further in another post but I'll try. After Schweinfurt, Arnold told his deputy Lt Gen Barney Giles, he has six months to fix the problem. At that point Arnold was unaware of the P-51's range potential, despite there being 1,350 of them already available, including a lot of Merlin-powered ones.
    1
  409.  @adamtruong1759  "Also, Zemke's Wolfpack/56th FG used combat converted ferry 200 gal could get them to around Schweinfurt during June 1943. (Then apparently by September they could use 75 gal wing tanks w/o constraint)." The Schweinfurt raid is the one everyone talks about but there are a few points missing from most discussions. Again, this is not quite as simple as it sounds. From my understanding, the P-47 escorts with the 56th could only go about two-thirds of the distance to Schweinfurt (see: Martin Middlebrook's book, 'The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission'). For the reasons I outlined earlier, I doubt more fuel tanks would have made enough difference because of the law of diminishing returns. I was in that area a couple of months ago and Schweinfurt is very deep into German territory. Secondly, the Schweinfurt raid went wrong from the start. The weather over the Channel meant that very few bombers met up with their escorts. Curtis LeMay reported seeing only four fighters that didn't have black crosses on them for the entire day. Drop tanks couldn't have helped that. Some fighters turned back but it was USAAF policy at the time that any fighter that turned back had another fighter to escort it. It was considered better for morale than flying over the Channel alone and in questionable weather.
    1
  410.  @adamtruong1759  One more thing: the Schweinfurt raiders suffered about 20% losses, which was pretty bad, even by RAF standards. But up until then though, most of the USAAF raids had been reasonably successful, suffering only generally acceptable losses. It was starting to look to some as though the 'bomber theory' might be right. But Schweinfurt was a priority target and everyone agreed it had to be bombed. I don't think anyone expected such a dramatic reversal. And who knows? But for the weather, they might have succeeded. I guess I just have a lot of trouble believing that the casualties were the result of obstinacy or blind adherence to 'doctrine' (might as well say 'communism', given the pejorative attached to it by some). There are equally, a lot of extenuating circumstances that get missed by YouTube content makers. As a result, I have a very hard time believing any kind of conspiracy against the P-47. Not that you said it but a lot of others have.
    1
  411.  @adamtruong1759  It’s understandable. I have been reading this stuff for more than 50 years now. In the last ten years there has been this concerted effort to reverse what I see as the verdict of history. This was massively added to by Greg’s Airplanes and Automobiles series on the P-47 which has a lot of people frothing at the mouth. Unfortunately, not many people read history these days because it’s easier to spend an hour watching a YouTube video than spending a week reading a book. I can give you a few recommendations if you’re a reader. None of them is specifically about one aircraft or another but the all give a perspective on the war that goes beyond just data, which is what Greg relies on (as well as a good measure of rose-tinted optimism, unequally applied and putting a telescope to a blind eye). I find these days that if I’m leaning towards believing a conspiracy, I make a concerted effort to look deeper.
    1
  412.  @adamtruong1759  First book I recommend is ’Target Berlin: Mission 250, March 6, 1944’, by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price. Second is ’The First and the Last’, by Adolph Galland. I’m sure you know who he was. Also worth reading is ’Big Week’, by James Holland. I’m currently reading ’Masters of the Air’, by Donald L. Miller. I haven’t seen the series and don’t think I will bother. I can’t see how it could translate well to TV.
    1
  413.  @adamtruong1759  If you want something specifically on Schweinfurt, Martin Middlebrook’s book, ’The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission’, is pretty good too. The biggest complaint I have about it is the binding!
    1
  414.  @adamtruong1759  Nothing wrong with having favourites or recognising the good points of one or others. In the end, if you read enough, you'll find that a lot of it doesn't really matter. Most of us start out being interested in performance data, which is usually why we like one or another. After a while you start to see that the bigger picture was what usually decided results. I say this because when you understand the big picture, you understand what they did and why. And yes, a lot of that can be based on those performance figures we usually like talking about. But if you read about the missions - and some of them are pretty riveting - the overall function of the combined forces starts to make more sense. That's when trying to build an argument on specifications - as many do - starts to fall apart. Start with 'Target Berlin'. I reckon you'll enjoy it. It describes the first USAAF mission to Berlin from top to bottom.
    1
  415. You can in a video about Europe.
    1
  416. Then please explain why the P-51 scored 30% more ground attack kills than the P-47 in half the number of missions and scored 60% more air to air kills.
    1
  417.  @cbwelch4  "The P47 outrolled the Mustang and even the early Spitfires." No, that is simply not true. "And the P51 could not match the Hellcat in sustained turn either." That would depend on a lot of things. "Once they rolled out the "paddle prop" the performance gap between the P47 and the Mustang greatly narrowed." But the advantage was still with the P-51. Furthermore, the P-47 was never competitive with any contemporary fighter in the climb department. Above certain altitudes it could out climb a Focke-Wulf but that was a medium altitude aircraft. In the ETO, the P-47 was never in a situation where rate of climb was a factor, since the USAAF pretty much always had air superiority and the advantage of altitude. "In a dive the P47 could outperform the the P51 because the P51 would shed its wings before the Thunderbolt and the Bolt could sustain far more damadge and make it back." No, this is not true. The VNE on the P-47 was 500 IAS against 505 for the P-51. This was due almost entirely to the more modern wing design. Where the P-47 had its point of maximum thickness at 30%, the P-51 was at 38.9%. This had the effect of offsetting the effects of compressibility and drag because it delayed the shockwave formation on the upper surface of the wing. That's why the P-47 had high speed control problems until it was fitted with dive flaps, a less than ideal solution. The early wing problem on the P-51 was solved. "One point of confusion on kill:ratio for me was that I'd heard that the kill:ratio of the Mustang was close to 1:1 when you factored in losses as far more Mustangs were lost due to the coolant hose vulnerability and even though the P-47 shot down fewer planes overall, the ruggedness of the plane itself made it more effective overall against the Luftwaffe with an actual kill:loss ratio of 3:1." I'm sorry but this simply isn't believable. The Mustang was no more vulnerable to coolant loss than any other liquid cooled engine. The ratios are given in this video. Even accounting for over claiming, the difference is likely to be proportional. "A P51D versus an FW190D or an ME109K variant had a hard fight ahead of it with equal pilots." The isn't what the Germans said. It's not what the vast bulk of the USAAF pilots said either. "The P-47 could sit on the perch above the almost all German fighters and dive on them with impunity due to its wonderful turbosupercharger." They were roughly equal on that score. Most escorts were flown around 2,000 feet above the bombers. "The P51 was successful because it was essentially a flying gas can and was effective on fighter sweeps." That sounds like sour grapes to me.
    1
  418.  @flutter8712  All had problems. Two row radial engines, for example, had occasional fires because the rear cylinders ran hotter than the front. That also led to oil problems. The BMW 801 was, I think, pretty notorious for this.
    1
  419.  @markmccarty9793  I think we’ve all seen that photo, like the one of the Israeli F-15 with the missing wing. These were not every day occurrences. Most combat aircraft had some armour.
    1
  420.  @flutter8712  Asking for a source or reference on the internet is the best way to grade information. People are gullible enough as it is.
    1
  421. Zero evidence.
    1
  422.  @flutter8712  Why should I 'relax'? Someone has to stand up for the truth, even if you think it's uncool. Man..
    1
  423.  @flutter8712  "in line engines are known for shutting down after taking some hits when radials can stil operate even after taking damages" You're just saying this, aren't you? You'd probably call it 'common sense' but common sense suggests you check your information. You are aware, aren't you, that fires were more common in twin row radials, like the R2800 or the BMW 801, because the rear cylinders got too hot. You can certainly find examples of the latter in William Green's 'Warplanes of the This Reich''. Dude.
    1
  424.  @flutter8712  "you don't have any argument whatsoever dude" Well, that’s funny because you're the one making the claim. The onus of proof is on you. Dude.
    1
  425.  @ScoopsTV  And still couldn’t get past the Dutch border. In the words of Eric Brown, “Useless.”
    1
  426.  @mlonghammer8388  "There are stories of have a jug blown off and still flying back to land." Pics or it didn't happen. "To big! To powerful! and to ugly! with 8 50. cal MGs. I'll fly the jug all day long!" Republic forgot why they were building fighters.
    1
  427.  @FlatOutMatt  No, Republic forgot why they were doing it. Before the war, Materiel Command issued a directive to manufacturers to increase internal fuel capacity. Even before the first American bombing raid in Europe on 17 August, 1942, the USAAF called for more internal fuel capacity. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and Bell all responded. Republic did not. Rather than increasing internal fuel, Republic dithered around adding an extra two guns instead. At the end of 1943, at the time when the P-51B arrived in Europe, the P-47C model - which was the dominant variant - had 256 gallons of internal fuel. Meanwhile, the P-51, which drank fuel at two thirds the rate, had 269. To match that, the P-47 would have needed about 400 gallons. This was not a problem that could be simply solved by adding external tanks. The crisis of 1943, which caused the USAAF to temporarily halt its long range bombing campaign, had its origins at Republic. Had they taken notice of the directives issued, a lot of trouble might have been averted.
    1
  428.  @FlatOutMatt  "and you’ve read through all their internal memoranda and interviewed the company leadership at the time, so you know exactly what the issues were that caused them to delay? They simply forgot what they were doing?" Well, I can confidently say you haven't spoken to any of them so you'll excuse me for not taking that barb seriously. Dear me... okay, I'll go over it again. First thing to understand is that external tanks are not a good way to increase range performance. The adage goes that you use half the fuel in the tank getting the other half there. They are a stop gap. They help but they are not the answer. Before Pearl Harbor, Materiel Command sent out a directive to all manufacturers to increase internal capacity. They saw what was coming. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and Bell all complied. Republic did not. Between Pearl Harbor and the first USAAF raids on occupied France on 17 August, 1942, USAAF high command sent another directive to the manufacturers, again to increase internal capacity. Again, Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and Bell all complied and again, Republic did not get the memo. Furthermore, the P-47 could only carry fuel on the centreline pylon until the D-9 and D-11 models became mainstream. But the internal capacity of those models was quite small for an aircraft with an R-2800 in it. The P-47C, which was the dominant model - and the early D models had an internal capacity of 256 gallons. The P-51B had 269 and drank fuel at 2/3 the rate. To have the same combat radius as a P-51B, the P-47 would need 400 gallons. It was not until late 1944 that the D-27 arrived with that kind of capacity. But that was no use in 1943, when it was needed. George Kenney, who managed the 5th Air Force in the Pacific, was known to be furious with Republic for their lack of interest in range, which was what every part of the air force was crying out for. That made carrying out his mission much more difficult, so he had skin in the game. "Hilarious level of arrogance it takes to trivialize things from history like this…as though in their place you’d have had all the answers in real time. GTFO" Well, I know I don't know much but I know one thing: I know more than you. But since this is not a dick swinging competition, I'll make some suggestions. If you want to see examples of this in reality, read a few books. Don't bother with data block figures and other trivia. That stuff is not helpful because it turns the whole thing into a technical argument when, in fact, it's a historical one. Data blocks and technical details don't represent history and frequently cause people to draw wildly inaccurate conclusions. 'The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission', by Martin Middlebrook is as good a place to start as any. When you've finished with that, read 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeff Ethell and Dr Alfred Price. Those guys actually show you how the P-47 was range limited. Even the few recently converted D-9s could not get past Magdeburg and that was with two underwing 108 gallon tanks. They show you where the relay changeovers were. I don't know what Republic were thinking but there is no doubt they took their eyes off the ball. They seemed more interested in adding more guns - which made little difference - than they did in adding the fuel capacity that had been asked of them. The P-47 let the Eighth down just when it needed long range escorts. As a result, they had to suspend their long range strategic bombing campaign right when they should have been ramping it up. And they could not change this until they had a fighter that could fly to any target in Germany. The P-51B was available in December, 1943 and available in significant numbers in March of '44 (4 FGs), while the long range P-47s were not available until September, by which time bases on the continent made them unnecessary. Without the contribution of the P-51, D-Day could not have happened when it did (Operation POINTBLANK). The Luftwaffe had to be defeated.
    1
  429.  @ScoopsTV  A case of ignoring am expert witness who doesn’t conform to your personal prejudices. Would you say Brown was wrong about the P-38’s MCrit? Because the problems with the P-38 were widely known. Why then, do you reject his comments about the P-47? In any case, anyone who has any understanding of how these problems manifested themselves and why the P-51 was different will find his explanations entirely plausible and consistent. And why should anyone believe you over a man who flew almost 500 different types? Your information is wrong. Brown wasn’t approached by Arnold. He was approached by Doolittle.
    1
  430.  @ScoopsTV  Brown was saying that one aspect of its flight behaviour was useless. I don’t think he was saying that the aircraft itself was useless. In fact, he went on to say that it became a superlative ground attack fighter.
    1
  431.  @ScoopsTV  I don’t even believe that story about Johnson and the Spitfire any more. The only pilots - other than actual test pilots - who talk about flying mock combat with the British are Americans. The British and Commonwealth pilots don’t talk about it and neither do any other air forces that I have read about. I dismissed it as ‘a load of malarkey’ a while ago but it’s stuck around and even been embellished by the internet. I just don’t believe it. Johnson doesn’t say it was a Mk IX either. I don’t recall him saying what model it was but since I don’t believe him anyway, it makes no difference.
    1
  432.  @ScoopsTV  Okay, so you agree that Brown wasn’t saying that the P-47 was useless then? It doesn’t matter what the fanbois think. What matters is the context of Brown’s comment.
    1
  433.  @ScoopsTV  And you need to address my previous question. We know about the problem with the P-38. That has been widely discussed. We know very well that its MCrit was too low. So why do you not believe what he says about the P-47? Do you know what MCrit is and why it was so important in this context?
    1
  434.  @ScoopsTV  Greg has no pictures of any P-47s with cylinders shot away. Lotsa damage but I’ve seen all that before. I have researched this. I won’t claim to have seen every photograph but I’d be frankly amazed if one turns up. After all these years of claiming it happened, nobody has ever displayed such a pic. Yet according to you, it was a regular occurrence. I’ll believe it when I see it.
    1
  435.  @ScoopsTV  He says it did. Your job is to provide evidence to support your claim that it did not. Now, I’ll ask you again: do you understand what MCrit is and why it is important in this case? By the way: what evidence?
    1
  436.  @ScoopsTV  Page 72. Now, I’ll ask you again: do you understand MCrit and why it is important in this context? No, the context is not found on page 72.
    1
  437.  @ScoopsTV  You have no idea what I know. You’re being defensive before I’ve even posted anything, which suggests that you’re nervous. And if you’re going to claim NACA said it was good for 0.82, I’m calling BS. Those sorts of figures weren’t possible until about a decade after the P-47 was designed and nothing they did or could have done to the Republic S3 could have changed that.
    1
  438.  @ScoopsTV  Your idea of a technical debate is where I provide all the information and you just get to say, ‘Wrong’. I’ve known about this stuff for 40 years. Warthunder probably isn’t the best place to get your information from.
    1
  439.  @ScoopsTV  "Your idea of a technical debate is googling something really quick and then copy pasting it ." That's the one thing I haven't done. "And you have thus far never once presented any technical info at all and you have been wrong almost every step of the way on almost everything." For example? "You haven't awnserd any of my questions , quick google them" You sound very threatened right now.
    1
  440.  @ScoopsTV  "I will get you the naca and Raf wfdu tests when I get off work , jack has also posted them" Good luck with that.
    1
  441.  @ScoopsTV  No because you showed me no such thing. Someone claimed the pilot manual said the D-25 carried 750 gallons. I laughed that one off. The D-27 carried 370.
    1
  442.  @ScoopsTV  You have showed me no field tests, much less ones that show MCrit of 0.82. The P-38 and P-47 were designed in approximately the same timeframe. Aerofoils would not have the kind of performance you’re claiming for at least another 10 years.
    1
  443.  @ScoopsTV  It makes no difference. It was six months too late. I have dealt directly with both Greg and Bill. But that’s a technical debate that should have been a history debate. Greg never, ever includes specific operational examples because they would be lethal to his conspiracy theory. It’s also because he seems to have read nothing about 8th Air Force operations. The only raid I’ve ever heard him mention is Schweinfurt - and I think he means the first one.
    1
  444.  @ScoopsTV  I’ll tell you again what I do know: Greg is wrong. A section like that of the P-47 could not have a MCrit of .82 and he knows it. There are several reasons. They guy is supposed to be a pilot, FFS. It’s that kind of disingenuousness that makes this whole thing so bad. Those kinds of numbers were not possible until about ten years after the Republic S-3 was developed. The P-51 was one of the first wing sections to address the problems of transonic flow and even it was only .78. The S-3 was at least half a generation behind. Someone might have tested the S-3 to 0.82 (or tested it in a tunnel) but actually flying it at that speed is another matter. Aircraft like the Spitfire have been flown beyond their critical limits and survived but that doesn’t mean they were rated to that speed or that such speeds could be achieved routinely. I have seen pictures of what happens when aircraft exceed their critical Mach number and the results are not pretty. Structural failure was common. At least one Lockheed test pilot was killed trying and I suspect Brown had this is mind when he was talking about it. The P-47 and P-38 belong to the same era. Both were developed before the problems of transonic aerodynamics were understood.
    1
  445.  @ScoopsTV  ”You have to know how to convert from ias to cas and tas and mach to have this convo” There were plenty of pilots - particularly P-47 pilots, for some reason - who claimed to have exceeded the speed of sound in a dive by converting IAS to TAS. Clearly they were wrong. Conversions don’t tell you much at all. You also need to know what critical Mach number is. It’s not arbitrary. It doesn’t change. An aircraft can have a MCrit of .75 and be flown at .80 in tests but that doesn’t mean it suddenly changes the MCrit. It remains what it always was. It also doesn’t mean the aircraft is suddenly cleared to .80 either.
    1
  446.  @ScoopsTV  You don’t know how this works, do you? If you did you wouldn’t be talking about conversions. Here are a few first principles to work from: -Critical Mach number is the speed at which airflow becomes sonic over part of the airframe (or section if you are referencing a wing). -Critical Mach number is always <M1.0. -Critical Mach number references a ratio so it is a dimensionless number. -Critical Mach number does not change. Greg is trying to engineer an argument using data that is frankly questionable - in the terms that you and he are presenting it - and disingenuous. As a pilot he should know better. There is no way breathing that the S-3 section had a MCrit of .82 even in a month of Sundays. Testing at higher Mach does not change this. What you refer to as ‘rated’ is a clue to your lack of understanding. I have already explained this. If airflow becomes sonic over a wing at 0.75 and you dive it at 0.80 it doesn’t suddenly mean the MCrit changes to 0.80. It remains at 0.75 because it is dictated by things like the shape, including the thickness/chord, of the section and the Reynolds number. Those two factors were what made the Mustang wing different. The P-51 wing was half a generation - maybe more - ahead of the P-47 or P-38 for this exact reason. MCrit has nothing to do with TAS or IAS. Those are just pilot references because they did not have Mach meters. The P-47’s VNE was 500 mph IAS. That doesn’t mean it flew supersonic just because you can do the TAS conversions. Readouts at those speeds are always unreliable because of shock formation at the pitot head. Ergo, the P-47 pilots who claimed to have exceeded the speed of sound were wrong because their instruments were wrong.
    1
  447.  @ScoopsTV  The fact that you show several different MCrit numbers shows that you don’t understand it. MCrit is not a variable. Stop treating it as such. ”Do you know more than NACA now?” Stop being childish. It’s not my fault if you keep misrepresenting the facts. Tested at and calculated are not the same thing. Anyone who knows wing sections can see why the S-3 could not have had an MCrit of .82. You have a look at some high subsonic aerofoils and compare them then get back to me. ”You thought you KNEW the d25 had only 305 gallons of gas but you were dead wrong” When you are working from multiple references, it’s possible that occasionally they don’t agree. In fact, both of my references come from Bill Marshall. It’s clear his source has changed. It may even have been a typo, since he posts in a kind of shorthand that is easily confused.
    1
  448.  @ScoopsTV  You are really, really focussed on calling me ‘dead wrong’, aren’t you? I suspect this is because you don’t understand the problem.
    1
  449.  @ScoopsTV  ”its kind of impossible to say the p47s didnt hae the range to escort all the way when they were doing longer range missions in the pacific at the same time” Rubbish. Show me a reference for that. All I see about the P-47 in the Pacific relates to the P-47N model. Gen George Kenney, who ran the 5th AF, was furious with Republic for failing to address the range problems of the P-47. The result was that it limited his ability to prosecute the war in the Pacific and forced him to rely solely on the P-38. Furthermore, you are ignoring the mission planning that I referred you to earlier. This is where Greg is completely clueless. He has read no history. This is not a technical argument about what drop tanks were or were not available. It’s a historical argument. And while there’s plenty of information that shows how the escorts were organised, there’s also a total lack of complaints from P-47 pilots of the day that their aircraft was being nobbled and that they coulda done it if it hadn’t been for the brass…
    1
  450.  @ScoopsTV  Then explain why the later P-47 was equipped with dive flaps and how that somehow improved its MCrit.
    1
  451.  @ScoopsTV  You really have no clue about MCrit. I have told you what it is and you have ignored it. You keep talking about all these nebulous examples. What, for example, do you mean by ‘much higher than .82’? Where do you get your claim that the Spitfire had a MCrit of .89? It’s total rubbish. It used a NACA 2412. No way that was good for 0.89, even if it was flown beyond that. You seem to have no idea how engineers fix MCrit or what features they employ to improve it. You certainly have no idea why 1920/30s profiles could not have MCrit numbers like .89. You haven’t even asked me why I say what I say. You’re too busy telling me I have ‘no clue’. You are starting to make me physically ill. I’m staggered by your presumption, patronising ways and lack of reasoning skills. You fill no useful purpose in life. If you had any real information you’d post it.
    1
  452.  @ScoopsTV  ”General Kennedy is very clear in his book that he had 200gallon drop tanks designed and built locally in less than a moth for his p47s .” No shit? Jesus Christ, I could have told you that. They were built right here in Australia. They were called the Brisbane tank because they were built by Ford in Brisbane. In fact, I think I even mentioned this in an earlier post but it failed to penetrate… Still you miss the point again and again: range is decided by internal fuel capacity, not drop tanks. I have already explained ad nauseam that drop tanks can only supplement range. They use about half of their contents getting the other half there. Sooner or later you run into the law of diminishing returns. Eventually you get to be a point where another tank will get you nothing. But again you ignore the reality that if it was possible in the Pacific then it was possible in Europe, yet no commanders - not even LeMay or Armstrong, as far as I know - made any comment about this. They may have regretted the losses but they weren’t screaming at Eaker for drop tanks.
    1
  453.  @ScoopsTV  "The dive flaps enabled the pilot to recover sooner from compressability, before the df the pilot had to "wait for lower altitude and pray " after the dive flaps they were able to reduce the recovery time of compressability also have more confidence in going right up and even exceed mach .82" Finally, you so neatly prove my point. 'Wait for lower altitude and pray.' So controllability was a problem then. But you still don't know why the Republic S-3 could not have had a MCrit of 0.82 and I know this because I know some of the basics of how to calculate it. There are several reasons (features of) the S-3, the NACA 2412 (Spitfire) and the P-38 section were not capable of that kind of MCrit. In fact, the 2412 was probably more suitable. And that is also a pointer to why the P-51 section had a higher MCrit. But I have no interest in explaining that to someone who won't listen. Now, even if we accept that the VNE of the P-47 was 500 mph IAS, and even if we accept that exceeding an aircraft's MCrit, Please tell me how the bloody hell adding drag makes the aircraft faster - or no slower - in a dive. And don't deny you said it. No, actually, don't bother. I'm well rid of you and your ignorant, condescending ways.
    1
  454.  @jacktattis  Jack, I thought I made it clear I wasn't interested in an argument over technical minutiae, especially if it commits me to going through literally dozens of your daily posts.
    1
  455.  @jacktattis   "Spitfire from MkII to MkXIX Wing Platform Elliptical section NACA 2200 Morg. and Shack. Spitfire the History" irrelevant.
    1
  456.  @jacktattis  "So you are saying that the Spitfire did not get to Mach 0.89?" No, that's your 'logic'. Your reading and comprehension skills are pathetic. "Morgan and Shacklady Spitfire the History page 389 RAE Jan 1944 Spitfire MkXI dived from 40000ft @ 45 degrees stick pull 2/3 G pull out at 29000ft Mach0.89 Now go and argue with them And Sqn Ldr Martindale got to Mach 0.92 in a dive Wings Bent, prop and spinner gone he got back and the record was his." Fuck Morgan and Shacklady. I have known about Martindale's high dive for decades. Both are irrelevant.
    1
  457.  @jacktattis  "So you are saying that the Spitfire did not get to Mach 0.89?" No, that's your 'logic'. Your reading and comprehension skills are pathetic. So is your understanding of Mcr. "Morgan and Shacklady Spitfire the History page 389 RAE Jan 1944 Spitfire MkXI dived from 40000ft @ 45 degrees stick pull 2/3 G pull out at 29000ft Mach0.89 Now go and argue with them And Sqn Ldr Martindale got to Mach 0.92 in a dive Wings Bent, prop and spinner gone he got back and the record was his." Fuck Morgan and Shacklady. I have been aware of Martindale's high dive for literally decades. It has nothing to do with it.
    1
  458. ​ @jacktattis  "So you are saying that the Spitfire did not get to Mach 0.89?" No, that's your 'logic'. Your reading and comprehension skills are pathetic. So is your understanding of Mcr. "Morgan and Shacklady Spitfire the History page 389 RAE Jan 1944 Spitfire MkXI dived from 40000ft @ 45 degrees stick pull 2/3 G pull out at 29000ft Mach0.89 Now go and argue with them And Sqn Ldr Martindale got to Mach 0.92 in a dive Wings Bent, prop and spinner gone he got back and the record was his." To Pluto with Morgan and Shacklady. I have been aware of Martindale's high dive for literally decades. It has nothing to do with it.
    1
  459.  @jacktattis  "No you stated the wrong wing section and that the Spitfire could not do 0.89 T/Mach" Rubbish. Once again, you don't even know what I said. This is just your version of it. My only crime there was to make a typo. You don't even know what I'm talking about yet you're too busy making irrelevant arguments to find out. And you're wrong.
    1
  460.  @jacktattis  Let me give you a few pieces of advice: 1) Learn to read and comprehend; 2) Learn to use the internet properly and 3) Get a life.
    1
  461.  @jacktattis  "So you are saying that the Spitfire did not get to Mach 0.89?" No, that's your 'logic'. Your reading and comprehension skills are pathetic. So is your understanding of Mcr. "Morgan and Shacklady Spitfire the History page 389 RAE Jan 1944 Spitfire MkXI dived from 40000ft @ 45 degrees stick pull 2/3 G pull out at 29000ft Mach0.89 Now go and argue with them And Sqn Ldr Martindale got to Mach 0.92 in a dive Wings Bent, prop and spinner gone he got back and the record was his." To Pluto with Morgan and Shacklady. I have been aware of Martindale's high dive for literally decades. It has nothing to do with it.
    1
  462. "So you are saying that the Spitfire did not get to Mach 0.89?" No, that's your 'logic'. Your reading and comprehension skills are pathetic. So is your understanding of Mcr. "Morgan and Shacklady Spitfire the History page 389 RAE Jan 1944 Spitfire MkXI dived from 40000ft @ 45 degrees stick pull 2/3 G pull out at 29000ft Mach0.89 Now go and argue with them And Sqn Ldr Martindale got to Mach 0.92 in a dive Wings Bent, prop and spinner gone he got back and the record was his." To Pluto with Morgan and Shacklady. I have been aware of Martindale's high dive for literally decades. It has nothing to do with it.  @jacktattis 
    1
  463.  @jacktattis  "Ahmm Brown never said it was a superlative ground attack plane" Yes he did.
    1
  464. ​ @jacktattis  "And my advice to you. Know your subject" Please explain the difference between a NACA 2400 and a 2200. See, this is the problem. You're arguing pathetic minutiae - a typo, FFS - and missing the serious stuff. You don't know what Mcr is. Even if you could define it, you don't know how it works. I do. "and did not even know that the Spitfire was capable of getting Mach 0.89 in the dive." Let me ask you again: so what? What does it matter if it was dived at M0.89 if it was also dived at M0.92? It doesn't change anything that matters. Furthermore, let me remind you of something else you said: "No but the Spit had a Tactical Mach to 0.89 Source: Morgan and Shacklady Spitfire the History Serial Numbers page 399 Mark XI April 44 Aircraft Number EN409 Farn. compressibility trls and measurement of airframe drag up to Mach 0.89 in dvs. Quote directly from the text" That is total BS (in the context in which you are using it) and I don't care who said it. A NACA 4 digit series aerofoil could never have gone that high, for exactly the same reason the Republic S-3 couldn't do it. That would rival a modern jet. Never going to happen. Just because it was dived at that speed or greater, it doesn't automatically mean that suddenly became its Mcr. This is not a pissing contest so stop treating it as one. There is very little difference between a 2200 series NACA and a 2400 series as far as this is concerned. Look it up ofr yourself. They have too much camber and the point of maximum thickness is simply too far forward. They are 1920s/1930s vintage aerofoils and transonics was very much in its infancy. Mcr doesn't change. You don't suddenly get a higher Mcr by putting the foil on a different fuselage. You don't get a higher Mcr by diving it at a higher speed and surviving. Mcr is determined by mathematical formulae. Furthermore, in a discussion about the P-51 and the P-51, it was YOU who came in beating the irrelevant Spitfire drum and waving your precious copy of Morgan and Ladyboy, despite it having nothing of relevance to contribute. I couldn't give a rat's who knows how much about the Spitfire. It's not now and never was of any relevance to this topic. You are being childish and petty. Furthermore, you simply don't know what you're talking about, huh less what I'm talking about. If you can't be on topic and you can't at least talk in relevant terms then you're simply not in any position to comment. You're creating these stupid hoops and expecting everyone to respectfully jump through them while you argue about the colour of their shirts. And since you are incapable of either understanding what is written in front of you or posting anything of relevance II have no interest in anything else you have to say.
    1
  465.  @jacktattis  Google it, mate.
    1
  466.  @jacktattis  YouTube video with Brown talking.
    1
  467.  @jacktattis  There’s nothing you can advise me about.
    1
  468.  @jacktattis  "Know your subject YOU DID quote the wrong NACA Section for the Spitfire and did not even know that the Spitfire was capable of getting Mach 0.89 in the dive." This is ridiculous. This topic was never about the Spitfire. I have known about Martindale's M0.92 dive for literally decades. Who cares if there was a M0.89 dive if someone had gone higher? It doesn't mean the Spitfire had an Mcr of 0.89 or anything like it. And by the way, 'the wrong NACA section' makes no difference. NACA 4-digit aerofoils were all basically very similar and not different in a way that would change their transonic performance. If you think this is so important then you have better know what the difference is and be able to articulate it or provide a reference that shows what it was. The fact is that you don't and you are reduced to puerile criticisms on the basis of a typo. You are treating Mcr as a dick measuring contest. You don't even know what it is, much less how it works or how it limits aircraft performance. As an aeronautical engineer put it to me recently, 'There's a reason they use the word critical.' In your own way, you're every bit as bad as Wilbur Finnigan/Soaring Tractor. You're a troll and you don't even know how to use the internet properly.
    1
  469.  @jacktattis  "Know your subject YOU DID quote the wrong NACA Section for the Spitfire and did not even know that the Spitfire was capable of getting Mach 0.89 in the dive." This is ridiculous. This topic was never about the Spitfire. I have known about Martindale's M0.92 dive for literally decades. Who cares if there was a M0.89 dive if someone had gone higher? It doesn't mean the Spitfire had an Mcr of 0.89 or anything like it. And by the way, 'the wrong NACA section' makes no difference. NACA 4-digit aerofoils were all basically very similar and not different in a way that would change their transonic performance. If you think this is so important then you have better know what the difference is and be able to articulate it or provide a reference that shows what it was. The fact is that you don't and you are reduced to puerile criticisms on the basis of a typo. You are treating Mcr as a dick measuring contest. You don't even know what it is, much less how it works or how it limits aircraft performance. As an aeronautical engineer put it to me recently, 'There's a reason they use the word critical.' In your own way, you're every bit as bad as Wilbur Finnigan/Soaring Tractor. You're a troll and you don't even know how to use the internet properly.
    1
  470.  @jacktattis  "Know your subject YOU DID quote the wrong NACA Section for the Spitfire and did not even know that the Spitfire was capable of getting Mach 0.89 in the dive." This is ridiculous. This topic was never about the Spitfire. I have known about Martindale's M0.92 dive for literally decades. Who cares if there was a M0.89 dive if someone had gone higher? It doesn't mean the Spitfire had an Mcr of 0.89 or anything like it. And by the way, 'the wrong NACA section' makes no difference. NACA 4-digit aerofoils were all basically very similar and not different in a way that would change their transonic performance. If you think this is so important then you have better know what the difference is and be able to articulate it or provide a reference that shows what it was. The fact is that you don't and you are reduced to puerile criticisms on the basis of a typo. You are treating Mcr as a dick measuring contest. You don't even know what it is, much less how it works or how it limits aircraft performance. As an aeronautical engineer put it to me recently, 'There's a reason they use the word critical.' In your own way, you're every bit as bad as Wilbur Finnigan/Soaring Tractor. You're a troll and you don't even know how to use the internet properly.
    1
  471.  @jacktattis  "Know your subject YOU DID quote the wrong NACA Section for the Spitfire and did not even know that the Spitfire was capable of getting Mach 0.89 in the dive." This is ridiculous. This topic was never about the Spitfire. I have known about Martindale's M0.92 dive for literally decades. Who cares if there was a M0.89 dive if someone had gone higher? It doesn't mean the Spitfire had an Mcr of 0.89 or anything like it. And by the way, 'the wrong NACA section' makes no difference. NACA 4-digit aerofoils were all basically very similar and not different in a way that would change their transonic performance. If you think this is so important then you have better know what the difference is and be able to articulate it or provide a reference that shows what it was. The fact is that you don't and you are reduced to puerile criticisms on the basis of a typo. You are treating Mcr as a dick measuring contest. You don't even know what it is, much less how it works or how it limits aircraft performance. As an aeronautical engineer put it to me recently, 'There's a reason they use the word critical.' In your own way, you're every bit as bad as Wilbur Finnigan/Soaring Tractor. You're a troll and you don't even know how to use the internet properly..
    1
  472. "Know your subject YOU DID quote the wrong NACA Section for the Spitfire and did not even know that the Spitfire was capable of getting Mach 0.89 in the dive." This is ridiculous. This topic was never about the Spitfire. I have known about Martindale's M0.92 dive for literally decades. Who cares if there was a M0.89 dive if someone had gone higher? It doesn't mean the Spitfire had an Mcr of 0.89 or anything like it. And by the way, 'the wrong NACA section' makes no difference. NACA 4-digit aerofoils were all basically very similar and not different in a way that would change their transonic performance. If you think this is so important then you have better know what the difference is and be able to articulate it or provide a reference that shows what it was. The fact is that you don't and you are reduced to puerile criticisms on the basis of a typo. You are treating Mcr as a dick measuring contest. You don't even know what it is, much less how it works or how it limits aircraft performance. As an aeronautical engineer put it to me recently, 'There's a reason they use the word critical.' In your own way, you're every bit as bad as Wilbur Finnigan/Soaring Tractor. You're a troll and you don't even know how to use the internet properly.  @jacktattis 
    1
  473.  @jacktattis  "Know your subject YOU DID quote the wrong NACA Section for the Spitfire and did not even know that the Spitfire was capable of getting Mach 0.89 in the dive." This is ridiculous. This topic was never about the Spitfire. I have known about Martindale's M0.92 dive for literally decades. Who cares if there was a M0.89 dive if someone had gone higher? It doesn't mean the Spitfire had an Mcr of 0.89 or anything like it. And by the way, 'the wrong NACA section' makes no difference. NACA 4-digit aerofoils were all basically very similar and not different in a way that would change their transonic performance. If you think this is so important then you have better know what the difference is and be able to articulate it or provide a reference that shows what it was. The fact is that you don't and you are reduced to puerile criticisms on the basis of a typo. You are treating Mcr as a dick measuring contest. You don't even know what it is, much less how it works or how it limits aircraft performance. As an aeronautical engineer put it to me recently, 'There's a reason they use the word critical.' In your own way, you're every bit as bad as Wilbur Finnigan/Soaring Tractor. You're a troll and you don't even know how to use the internet properly.
    1
  474. "Know your subject YOU DID quote the wrong NACA Section for the Spitfire and did not even know that the Spitfire was capable of getting Mach 0.89 in the dive." This is ridiculous. This topic was never about the Spitfire. I have known about Martindale's M0.92 dive for literally decades. Who cares if there was a M0.89 dive if someone had gone higher? It doesn't mean the Spitfire had an Mcr of 0.89 or anything like it. And by the way, 'the wrong NACA section' makes no difference. NACA 4-digit aerofoils were all basically very similar and not different in a way that would change their transonic performance. If you think this is so important then you have better know what the difference is and be able to articulate it or provide a reference that shows what it was. The fact is that you don't and you are reduced to puerile criticisms on the basis of a typo. You are treating Mcr as a dick measuring contest. You don't even know what it is, much less how it works or how it limits aircraft performance. As an aeronautical engineer put it to me recently, 'There's a reason they use the word critical.' In your own way, you're every bit as bad as Wilbur Finnigan/Soaring Tractor. You're a troll and you don't even know how to use the internet properly.  @jacktattis 
    1
  475.  @jacktattis  "Know your subject YOU DID quote the wrong NACA Section for the Spitfire and did not even know that the Spitfire was capable of getting Mach 0.89 in the dive." This is ridiculous. This topic was never about the Spitfire. I have known about Martindale's M0.92 dive for literally decades. Who cares if there was a M0.89 dive if someone had gone higher? It doesn't mean the Spitfire had an Mcr of 0.89 or anything like it. And by the way, 'the wrong NACA section' makes no difference. NACA 4-digit aerofoils were all basically very similar and not different in a way that would change their transonic performance. If you think this is so important then you have better know what the difference is and be able to articulate it or provide a reference that shows what it was. The fact is that you don't and you are reduced to puerile criticisms on the basis of a typo. You are treating Mcr as a dick measuring contest. You don't even know what it is, much less how it works or how it limits aircraft performance. As an aeronautical engineer put it to me recently, 'There's a reason they use the word critical.' In your own way, you're every bit as bad as Wilbur Finnigan/Soaring Tractor. You're a troll and you don't even know how to use the internet properly.
    1
  476.  @jacktattis  YouTube is deleting my replies.
    1
  477.  @jacktattis  "Know your subject YOU DID quote the wrong NACA Section for the Spitfire and did not even know that the Spitfire was capable of getting Mach 0.89 in the dive." This is ridiculous. This topic was never about the Spitfire. I have known about Martindale's M0.92 dive for literally decades. Who cares if there was a M0.89 dive if someone had gone higher? It doesn't mean the Spitfire had an Mcr of 0.89 or anything like it. And by the way, 'the wrong NACA section' makes no difference. NACA 4-digit aerofoils were all basically very similar and not different in a way that would change their transonic performance. If you think this is so important then you have better know what the difference is and be able to articulate it or provide a reference that shows what it was. The fact is that you don't and you are reduced to puerile criticisms on the basis of a typo. You are treating Mcr as a dick measuring contest. You don't even know what it is, much less how it works or how it limits aircraft performance. As an aeronautical engineer put it to me recently, 'There's a reason they use the word critical.' In your own way, you're every bit as bad as Wilbur Finnigan/Soaring Tractor. You're a troll and you don't even know how to use the internet properly.
    1
  478.  @ScoopsTV  "It's faster at high altitude , dives better at low altitude , rolls better at high speeds and is much more rugged . The spit loses its energy very quickly ,the 47 retains it energy ." For god's sake stop repeating this nonsense. Go to WWII Aircraft Performance and research it for yourself. This is comparative data for a Mk IX vs a P-47. The P-47 was referred to as a 'Thunderbolt II' in British parlance but was the equivalent of a D-25. Climb performance: Spitfire superior at all altitudes. Maximum speed: Spitfire superior at all altitudes below 25,000. After that, P-47 superior. Operational ceiling: Spitfire superior by about 3,000 feet. Combat radius: P-47 superior. On internal fuel alone it was very similar. Initial acceleration: Spitfire superior (!) Turning circle: Spitfire superior.* Rate of roll: P-47 superior between 200 and 300 mph. From 300 on Spitfire superior. Against a clipped wing Spitfire it's not even close.** Dive: P-47 superior to Spitfire (all marques). We haven't even talked about the Mk XIV, against which the P-47 was an antique. And give it a rest on the 'rugged' BS. The Spitfire had a reputation for being able to take a beating. Its biggest weakness in that respect was its landing gear. It carried the same amount of armour as the P-47 (85lbs). Go on: go and look it up for yourself. You might actually learn something. Even parrots can be taught to repeat new things. *So much for the Spitfire bleeding energy faster than the P-47. **The only aircraft that could out roll a clipped wing Spit was a Focke-Wulf.
    1
  479. ​ @jacktattis  "Know your subject YOU DID quote the wrong NACA Section for the Spitfire and did not even know that the Spitfire was capable of getting Mach 0.89 in the dive." I've got a better idea: let's establish what you don't know. There is very little difference between a NACA 2200 and a NACA 2400. Your only argument is that I made a typo. So shoot me. It's totally unimportant except in the context of you and your precious Spitfire book. Both this sections are late 1920s/early 1930s sections which were nowhere near having a MCrit of 0.88. Not in a month of Sundays. All were old asymmetrical sections with their maximum thicknesses well forward and maximum camber well forward. Attaching it to a Spitfire fuselage makes no difference. So don't you lecture me about knowing my subject, especially over something as trivial as a typo when you don't know what the relevant NACA sections look like or how they work. MCrit is not a pissing contest where you get to make up whatever figure suits your personal prejudices. MCrit doesn't change just because you attach it to a Spitfire. I don't give a sh!t what Morgan and Shackladyboy say about it. If they're claiming a MCrit of 0.88 then they're wrong. Those kinds of figures were not reached until swept wings with thin, semi-symmetrical sections became common (MiG-21, English Electric Lightning, SAAB Draken, etc.). I’ve known about Martindale’s M0.92 dive for decades. Suddenly, because I haven’t heard about a dive at a lesser Mach number I don’t know what I’m talking about? Give it a rest…🙄
    1
  480.  @ScoopsTV  Irrelevant, Bud. These were tests for the P-47D-25 equivalent, very typical model. That’s compared to a very typical Spitfire, Bud. That’s what matters. Test pilots don’t care if you don’t like the results, Bud.
    1
  481.  @ScoopsTV  Oh Christ, you’re a gamer. 🤦‍♂️ No wonder you don’t get it.
    1
  482.  @ScoopsTV  What’s the -M version got to do with anything? It wasn’t available until the last weeks of the war because of horrendous reliability problems. But if you insist on making that comparison then I’ll raise you the Spit XIV which would absolutely murder an -M model.
    1
  483.  @jacktattis  Lies.
    1
  484.  @jacktattis  If I thought you knew what MCrit was, I’d take you more seriously. You clearly don’t know what it is or what the effects of it are. It’s not just some random figure you get to throw around to prove that ‘my favourite plane’ was the best.
    1
  485.  @jacktattis  If you can prove to me, using the laws of physics, that an airframe using a NACA 2213, which was developed in the late 1920s/early 1930s, was capable of having that kind of MCrit - which is at least 10% higher than any contemporary airframe - maybe I’ll listen. If you can then explain why aircraft that had much more advanced wing sections (P-51, Hawker Tempest) had MCrits which were at least 10% lower, then maybe I’ll take you more seriously. While you’re about it, maybe you can explain why Supermarine bothered to develop their trapezoidal laminar flow wing*, which they ultimately used on jet aircraft, instead of persisting with the elliptical NACA 2213. The Spitfire wing wasn’t even laminar. We haven’t even started talking about Reynolds numbers yet. MCrits of 0.88-0.89 were not possible until a long time after the Spitfire, when ultra thin swept wings were developed. The F-104 had a section that was 3.3% thick (the Spitfire was 13%). The EE Lightning was similar and had its point of maximum thickness of 2.97% at 45% of chord. EE engineers (Petter) were able to achieve this with a pronounced sweep. Now either your sources are wrong or you are misinterpreting/making it up as you go along. Which is it? Since you don’t seem to care what MCrit actually is, my money is more on the latter than on the former (even though I suspect the former may also be wrong). *This was not considered a success part of the development of the Spiteful or Seafang.
    1
  486.  @ScoopsTV  I’d stay out of this if I were you. History shows that you’re full of it too. You’re still talking in terms of miles per hour!😂😂😂
    1
  487.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. By the way, Google had no part in this. I actually research and I know you don't. Your whole argument is prejudice-based and built on Greg's delusional nonsense. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  488.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  489.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  490. Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar. @ScoopsTV 
    1
  491.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  492. Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar. @ScoopsTV 
    1
  493.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  494. Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar. @ScoopsTV 
    1
  495.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  496. Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar. @ScoopsTV 
    1
  497.  @ScoopsTV  Is that your wife calling again?
    1
  498.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  499.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  500.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  501. Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar. @ScoopsTV 
    1
  502.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  503.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  504.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  505.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  506.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  507.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  508.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  509.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  510. Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar. @ScoopsTV 
    1
  511.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  512.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  513.  @ScoopsTV  Define Critical Mach Number.
    1
  514.  @ScoopsTV  Your problem is that you have deluded yourself into believing you understand things that your every post reveals you don't. "I believe he is honest , you on the other hand have proven yourself to be a liar which I just don't have time for ." Where? Where have I lied? Show me. With quotes. Do it now. See, this is how it works for you. You make outrageous claims for which you provide no evidence, other than nebulous 'reports' which you can't provide and I go around cleaning up your mess and web of lies and delusions in a search for the truth. meanwhile, you continue with your blizzard of lies and unsubstantiated tall stories, making any possibility of an accurate response impossible. You know you're doing this. It's common amid the inverted snobbery of the undereducated. "Which you have accused Greg of and now me ." I'd need pretty good reasons for believing anyone was a liar. Greg lies by omission. You simply lie. Read my last post to Jack. I have given some pretty sound reasons for calling out his claims and I have applied the same rules to you. Jack, like you, doesn't understand aerodynamics and doesn't apply critical thinking skills. So between the two of you, you are basically working from the same level. "Not understanding the relationship between mach / ias/cas/tas and mph is a failure on on your part , like when you had to google it and started using Mcrit to sound like you knew what you were talking about , and then trying to tell me a planes " mcrit " is a fixed number but not understanding yourself that different entities will come up with different numbers when testing for the limits." No it isn't. You were the one who claimed that a P-47 was dived at 725 mph for no rational reason. The only reasons anyone would do that is because it suited their purposes. MCrit is a fixed number that is determined by the shape of the wing section. You can find that in any aerodynamics text book. Just because an aircraft was dived beyond it doesn't change it. If you have an inclination for spreadsheets, you can calculate it relatively easily. Your problem is that, like Jack, you don't know what it is. What's worse is that you don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be making these silly claims. If you had the remotest idea, you also would be using Mach number exclusively, instead of switching randomly between that and quaint and irrelevant measurements like miles per hour. The P-47 used the Republic S-3 which had an MCrit of 0.71 and nothing you can show me can change that. It has the point of maximum thickness well forward and the point of maximum chamber even further forward. It's also very asymmetrical and far from laminar in concept. None of those things would be conducive to a high MCrit, much less M0.82. You might also note that the VNE - something you never acknowledged - for the P-47 was 500mph IAS. At 20,000 feet, that comes very close to M0.71 (actually 503mph). When I showed you the reasons for this - like shock development at the pitot head - you suddenly heard your wife calling and ran away. I don't care what it was subsequently dived at. There is no way in a month of Sundays that the P-47 could have had a MCrit of 0.82 as you claim. I don't give a flying f*ck what you say Greg says about it. That figure was not achieved by any aircraft in WWII and did not become commonplace until the 1950s, with the arrival of swept wings with thin, mostly symmetrical sections. If you were even remotely honest about this you'd recognise that the lessons learnt in the post war period from German high speed research (which begat swept wings) was the major reason why MCrit was able to be moved up (but will always be less than 1). You don't know this. You don't know and you're actually arrogant enough to think that someone who does know must be lying because it doesn't conform to your personal prejudices. In short, much of what you say is either lies or self-deception. You have zero credibility and you can't even do your own research. There aren't many people I come across on the internet who qualify as being as deluded as you are. You are a liar.
    1
  515.  @jacktattis  "389 Morgan and Shacklady for the dive figures Mach 0.89 Spitfire 0.80 Mustang" So what? This is little more than useless information, which you are misapplying. Those are dive figures, not MCrit. MCrit does not change just because someone exceeded it. I've already explained this numerous times but the thickheadedness of posters on this thread is beyond anything I've encountered before. I'll put it in words that even you can understand: Critical Mach Number determines dive performance. Critical Mach Number is NOT determined BY dive performance. MCrit is established from parameters such as Cl, a and T (Coefficient of Lift, local speed of sound and Temperature) which are wing section and atmospheric parameters. It is NOT established by what ever Mach number someone dived at. I've told you this half a dozen times. That is why I don't give a rat's arse what Martindale - or Brown - dived at. The MCrit of the Spitfire was likely to have been about 0.73, based on the wing section used and the lack of any meaningful sweep. That means that for any speed above 0.73, the freestream Mach number over the wing was >Mach 1, or above the MCrit. "396 for the Wing Section 2200 NOT 2213 and 2213 is not mentioned in any section" Jesus Christ, you just don't get this, do you? NACA 2200 is a series. The 2213 is part of the NACA 2200 series. The numbers are clearly completely lost on you and that other idiot. It looks like Morgan and Shackedupwithaladyboy don't get it either. Since you know nothing about NACA 4-digit sections, I'll explain them to you. The first digit determines the maximum camber (variation from the chord centreline) as a percentage of chord length. In this case the camber - the aggregate line between the top and bottom surfaces - is 2%. The second digit determines the percentage aft of the maximum camber but in 10%. Ergo the maximum camber is at 20-29%. The third and fourth digits determine the thickness as a percentage of chord, in this case 13%. Ergo: there is no such thing as a NACA 2200 aerofoil per se because it would have no thickness. It is a family of aerofoils. Equally, a NACA 0013 would be a symmetrical aerofoil which is 13% thick. "Critical Mach of the Spitfire was above Mach 0.89" Lies. Totally impossible. "Spiteful Laminar flow wing BUT not a NACA Series Page 502" So what? Not relevant.
    1
  516.  @jacktattis  "you said the Spitfire wing could not do Mach 0.89" Christ, I'm patient. They ought to give me a medal for being so patient. Go back and read what I said. I did not say that. How could you believe I did when I already acknowledged it had been dived at 0.92? I have been aware of Martindale's dive for literally decades. Do you even think before you post? It doesn't matter. I don't care what it was dived at because that does not change MCrit. How many times do you have to be told? If you're not capable of basic reading and comprehension skills, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously? Sadly, your persistence with this is not only evidence that you don't comprehend well but that you use whatever information you've gleaned for disingenuous reasons. No wonder nobody agrees with you.
    1
  517.  @jacktattis  You're making no sense at all. If you're still claiming that the Spitfire had a Mcrit of 0.89 then you're absolutely delusional. Seek help. And after all the explanation, you still think that Mcrit is the same as whatever was achieved in a dive, get an education while you're at it because your reading and comprehension skills are pants. You got spanked on this, Jack. You're arguing with someone who has been a pilot, has wind tunnel time and accumulated thousands of hours as crew in the back of helicopters (Mcrit is hugely important here). You're not up to this and neither is your mate.
    1
  518.  @jacktattis  Do not read what? Your precious Spitfire book? Jack, you have had some high quality and accurate theoretical information pushed your way. But instead of seeing the rationale behind it, you went defensive and hid behind numbers you didn’t understand. When they were explained to you, you simply doubled down on the things you didn’t understand. Your precious Spitfire book is of no help here. If you don’t understand transonic aerodynamics then you need to put on your big boy pants and learn something. If you won’t do that - and I have every reason to believe you won’t - then you have no chance of ever knowing what you’re talking about. Aerodynamics is a science, not a prayer. You don’t get to twist figures you don’t understand without them being used against you.
    1
  519.  @jacktattis  Wrong again. You're still conflating speeds achieved in a dive with Mcrit. You're a lost cause. So stop arguing about things you have absolutely no idea ab out and absolutely no intention of learning about. It'd got nothing to do with what I think. If you took your claims to any aeronautical institution, hey'd tell you the same thing I have. If you continued to argue the way you do, you'd be laughed out of the building. Get used to it: you're wrong. In every aspect so far, you are wrong. So do yourself a favour and STFU.
    1
  520.  @jacktattis  "Whatever you think you cannot change it" I'm not trying to change anything. In fact, I'm trying to stop you bullshitting people. I don't think they believe you anyway but that's for the wrong reason.
    1
  521.  @jacktattis  Okay. Research on my part has led me to fact check a number of source claims for the Mcrit of the Spitfire. First of all, if you go to the XFoil database, you will find that almost all of the NACA 2213 applications were for the Spitfire. My first port of call was A.C. Kermode's book, 'Mechanics of Flight'. This is a basic aeronautical text for pilots and first year engineering students. I doubt if it is still on the syllabus but I used it when I was learning to fly. Kermode makes the same claim your sources are making. However... Further reproach shows that the NACA 2213 aerofoil section has an assumed value of M0.7 or in other words a Critical Mach Number of 0.7. Because it is an assumed value, it will be on the conservative side but the error will not be more than +/- 5% and in this case it will be higher but not much. My earlier estimate was 0.73 - 0.74 would seem to fit within that model. I have the relevant scripts for an Excel spreadsheet to calculate this using the intersection of plots for Cp and Prandtl-Glauert, which will give a much more accurate figure but I have not done that yet because I'm having trouble getting Xfoil to work on my Mac. I will have to try it on my PC but I'm very busy tutoring at the moment and assessment time is fast approaching. I have absolutely no reason to believe that the figure will be any more than M0.75 and probably less. This necessarily means that the Mcrit for the Spitfire cannot possibly be higher than M0.75. Not in a month of Sundays. That means even Kermode is wrong. This is not about 'what you think'. Never has been. If you call a pig a bird it still can't fly. This is about what aerodynamic laws - including thermodynamics and Prandtl - Glauert - say is true.
    1
  522. ​ @jacktattis  "rae Jan 1`944 T/M 0.89 P51 0.80 It has been recorded now for 80 years" Okay, a few days' research has turned up a few things but nothing that changes the situation. The first place I looked was my old text book "Mechanics of Flight', by A.C. Kermode. It used to be on the first year aero engineering syllabus but I doubt it's used any more. It was also used for pilot training, since it has a lot of useful information in it. I therefore found it pretty strange when Kermode claimed that the Spitfire had a Mcrit of 0.9 so I pushed the matter a lot further. Kermode didn't back it up with any substance and frankly, he should have known better. Checking through Xfoil's database, I found that the vast majority off NACA 2213 applications were for various marques of Spitfire and the assumed Mcrit for that section was M0.70 and not 0.90. The number will be on the conservative side but not by more than +/- 5% so that would put my estimated figure of M0.73 - 0.74 well into play. I have most of the information I need now to plot Cp with Prandtl-Glauert and the intersection will give me a much more accurate answer than anything anyone here is going to come up with, including Morgan and Shackedupwithaladyboy or Kermode or even Eric Brown. However, I still expect that I will get the same result. In short, there is no way breathing the Spitfire had a Mcrit of 0.90 and anyone who knows anything about transonics would immediately question it. For the record, the P-47 is no better and probably a bit worse. But the fact is that you need to know what Mcrit is and nobody here besides me actually does. For the next eight weeks I'm busy tutoring students (not aero or engineering) so it will be a while before I get around to playing with the plots. "Whatever you think you cannot change it" Code for: 'Whatever you come up with, you cannot change my mind because I have absolute blind faith in everything Spitfire and I have a couple of fantasy books to back me up'. These kinds of blind faith arguments are just a new form of religion. They're also the major reason why life expectancy in the world's wealthiest countries is going down. (but that's another matter) I can post the coding if you like and you can run the maths yourself. However, you will have to insert the appropriate parameters and to do that, you have to know what and where to do it or you get garbage answers or no answer at all.
    1
  523.  @ScoopsTV  Show me where I have lied. With quotes.
    1
  524.  @jacktattis  GM tried to develop a supercharger along the lines of the German superchargers but it wasn't successful. Calum E. Douglas, who wrote 'The Secret Horsepower Race', described it in his book and in one of his videos, with a photograph. The problem was that it was very cumbersome and added significantly to the length. The Germans ran their superchargers at 90 degrees to the axis of the engine, mostly to accommodate the cannon that was often fitted to fire through the propeller hub. The Allison ran on the same axis. I suspect this is where the silly rumour came from that the Allison was 'at least three feet longer and not as smooth' as the Merlin. This design never made it into production. I'm not even sure it was ever flown.
    1
  525.  @bobh1208  The cream of the Japanese Navy fighter pilots were killed by SBDs. They were in their cockpits on the decks of their aircraft carriers and were cooked in the ensuing fires caused by ruptured fuel lines and exploding ordnance. So, as good as the Wildcat was, the vast majority of the damage at Midway was done by dive bombers.
    1
  526.  @bobh1208  Okay, let’s go back to the P-47 then. Range was one of the Thunderbolt’s flaws. Climb performance was the other. Yes, people point to charts that show this or that and under these circumstances, with the wind blowing in the the right direction blah, blah. It remained uncompetitive with contemporary fighters for its entire career. That said, the situation was well masked by the fact that it pretty much always had the advantages of altitude and air superiority. In a fight like the Battle of Britain, which was all about interception, the P-47 would have struggled. If you take the trouble to read about specific missions and how they were planned, you can see how escort squadrons were staged according to their aircraft’s capabilities. Take Mission 250, on March 6, 1944. This was the USAAF’s first attack on Berlin. At that time the only aircraft that could reach Berlin was the Mustang. Most of the P-47s that day carried 478 gallons. A few carried 586 gallons - with the addition of a second 108 gallon drop tank. This was because, in order to carry tanks under the wings, the aircraft had to be re-plumbed, a difficult job that required cutting a lot of panels. Apart from that, Republic took their sweet time getting around to making it a factory fit. What this meant was that, even with that much fuel, the P-47 could barely get as far as Magdeburg. But in reality, most couldn’t even get that far. Talk of the 200 gallon belly tank doesn’t make it clear which tank. Thee were two: the ferry tank, which was unsuitable for combat and the so-called ‘Brisbane’ tank, of which only about 3,000 were made for the Pacific theatre by Ford Australia in Brisbane. They were consumed quite quickly. So the P-47’s range remained a problem for the duration. The -N didn’t fly in Europe so whatever that did doesn’t really count. The P-51, despite its flaws, was the only fighter capable of flying to Berlin and back and taking on the Luftwaffe on its home ground and winning. ’We had nothing of the same effort. They really frightened us quite a bit.’ Werner Schroer (114 victories, talking about the P-51).
    1
  527.  @bobh1208  The P-51s best speed was higher than that of the P-47. Of course a lot of the these things are less than absolute and the debate rages with one type being compared to another out of sequence, etc. But the Mustang’s wing design was the secret. It’s not strictly true to call it a laminar flow wing because that standard of manufacturing wasn’t really possible until after the war. It was designed to be but in practical terms it probably wasn’t. The biggest advantage of the P-51 wing was the position of its maximum curvature. The P-47 was at 30%, something it’s Republic designed section shared with the NACA 22 on the Spitfire. The P-51 was at 38.9% of chord. This was done to counter compressibility by offsetting the formation of shockwaves, making the Mustang more controllable in a high speed dive. But the Mustang had its own share of problems, mostly related to the distribution of weight as fuel was consumed. I’m not sure how - or even if - this affected the P-47 at all.
    1
  528.  @bobh1208  "The Corsair was never "supposedly" tested against a Spitfire, of any "marque", by any account we're aware of, or are discussing." I wasn't talking about the Corsair being tested against the Spitfire. I know of no such examples. In fact, I was casting doubt that this supposed mock combat ever took place. "As for Jack, no amount of context could rehab your claim that "The Corsair could not beat the Mustang anywhere"... nor, for that matter, could your vain attempt to FUDGE the context of the only "where" where they fought one another!" I didn't say that either. I didn't bother with the rest. "I hope you were drunk when you wrote that." I wasn't but perhaps you were. I have little interest in the Corsair in the context of this discussion. I think you have me confused with someone else.
    1
  529.  @jacktattis  Brown did not like the Corsair.
    1
  530.  @jacktattis  Which bloke?
    1
  531.  @jacktattis  He dedicated a whole chapter to it in his book, ’Wings of the Navy’.
    1
  532.  @ripvanwinkle2002  Sounds fake.
    1
  533.  @ripvanwinkle2002  Well I just got home after being out for dinner with friends. It was my little joke but I think you missed it.
    1
  534.  @ripvanwinkle2002  Don’t have to. I’m retired.
    1
  535.  @jacktattis 
    1
  536.  @jacktattis  Brown is wrong. There is no way they lost that many in air to air when - according to Dean - they lost 3,078 to ALL causes. That includes other things like taxiing accidents, losses in bad weather, running out of fuel, airfield attacks by enemy aircraft, training accidents and other flying accidents, including but not limited to collisions. It even includes losses due to sunken transports. Brown is a source on a lot of things but this isn’t one of them. Olynyk has done more research on this than anyone.
    1
  537.  @jacktattis  I didn’t say it did Jack. When are you going to learn something about Critical Mach number?
    1
  538. ​ @jacktattis  "The P47 had a Tactical Mach of 0.71/0.72 P51 O.78/0.80 Tempest 0.84 Spitfire 0.88 [every day of the weak ] As one Test showed P47 very fast into the dive but its limits were reached very quickly" Jack, you don’t even know what tactical Mach number is. We established that long ago. You don’t know what Critical Mach number is either. The idea that the Spitfire had a tactical Mach number of 0.88 (every day of the ‘weak’…LOL!!) is nonsense. It might have been dived to those speeds but that’s a completely different thing. Being able to repeat these homilies as an article of faith is evidence of nothing, other than that you can repeat them. I actually do understand this stuff, Jack. I even have the code to work it out. I just haven’t done it yet because I’m busy as hell. If the NACA 2213 has a Mcr of more than 0.80 I’ll bare my arse in Bourke St. I can find it on XFoil as well. The assumed Mcr for that section is 0.70. Look it up. That will be on the conservative side but it won’t vary by more than +/- 5 percent. It’s too bluff, has too much camber and the point of maximum thickness is too far forward. Otto West: ‘Apes don’t read philosophy.’ Wanda: ‘Yes they do Otto. They just don’t understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not “Every man for himself” and the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes Otto. I looked them up.’
    1
  539.  @jacktattis  "Brown was using USAAF figures as he said." What USAAF figures? See, these kinds of nebulous references are simply ridiculous. You can't expect people to believe something like that any more than they'd believe 'everybody knows' as some kind of defence. "If you do not know what they are by now it is too late." Do not know what what are? Why is it too late? If you want to take that to its ridiculous conclusion, everything we're talking about here is 80 years too late. "I know I have it." Have what? "Too which are we referring to ? P47 in Browns Testing for Combat or something else ?" I don't even know what this means. See, this is why I usually quote people: so they understand what it is that I'm referring to. And unlike you, I usually put it in a single post so that 1) it takes up fewer posts in threads that may be post limited and 2) because it's simply good etiquette. If I quote you, you at least have the opportunity to respond in context.
    1
  540.  @jacktattis  "And what was NACA 2213?" You mean what was its Mcr? I told you Jack, I haven't done it yet. I'm not familiar with working in a Python environment. I have 100 assignments to mark and tutes to prepare for so you will have to wait. I also told you that it's assumed to be around 0.7 +/- 5 percent. You can find that on the Xfoil database. I intend to establish a more precise figure.
    1
  541.  @ripvanwinkle2002  Living off my super and investments, if it's any of your business. How did you manage to make this sooooooooooo personal? For your sake, I'm leaving this here. If you manage to find the source of your original quote, feel free to post it. I'm off now.
    1
  542.  @jacktattis  So what?
    1
  543.  @jacktattis  ”I doubt Johnson flew against any Spitfire at all.” I said that months ago. Mock dogfights between Allied types are an American thing. I can’t recall any British or Commonwealth pilots ever talking about them, even Eric Brown. They fall into the category of ‘tall stories to impress greenhorns’ as far as I’m concerned.
    1
  544.  @jacktattis  "So what what?" I dunno mate. You dropped something about the NACA 2200 series (trust me, it was a 2213).
    1
  545.  @jacktattis  Why would I be talking about a different wing section? I said it's a 2213. I explained to you how NACA four digit nomenclature works. Why would I be calculating for any other section WRT the Spitfire?
    1
  546.  @jacktattis  That's not the same as having a Mcr of 0.89 or 0.92 or anything else.
    1
  547.  @jacktattis  Do you know what tactical mach number is?
    1
  548.  @jacktattis  ”Yes I do do you?” No I don’t. Educate me.
    1
  549.  @jacktattis  So you don’t know what it is. Listen Moosh, this doesn’t help you. You can’t bluff your way out of this. From my reading of this the only person I have ever seen or heard refer to ‘tactical Mach number’ is Brown. That’s fine. Try to find a definition of it either online or in an aerodynamics text and you will draw a blank. My opinion is that he is referring to VNE but in terms of the speed of sound. The difference is that VNE was expressed in IAS (mph) while he’s using it in terms of Mach number. Because the aircraft he’s referring to had no Mach meter, it means little to pilots. They needed something to reference directly and the AIS was the only thing they had. But in test flying you need to know what is happening in reference to the speed of sound because that is what determines controllability, etc.. In any case, none of these things is absolute and binding because the speed of sound varies with temperature. Now if you have a better explanation of tactical Mach number then I’m all ears. If you don’t then either find one or stop trying to BS your way through this. It won’t work and I think others here can see that.
    1
  550.  @jacktattis  He doesn’t define critical loss of control. What he does say is that tactical Mach number is always less than MCrit. But since the MCrit of a NACA 2213 is in 0.70-0.75 band, the tactical Mach number must - by his own definition - be less than that. He says so. Critical Mach number is called Critical for a reason. Once it’s reached, the aircraft will suffer from control problems like uncommanded roll (FW-190), pitch - AKA -‘Mach tuck’ (P-38 and P-47) or yaw (P-40) and potential structural failure. And that will affect all aircraft of that era. That’s why pilots were told to stay away from it, something NOBODY here recognises because everyone is trying to out do each other. It is possible that the Spitfire was less affected by these problems than other types. But there’s no way it could have been unaffected. But you tell me how an aircraft that has a MCrit of 0.70-0.75 can have a tactical Mach number of 0.88. It can’t, not by Brown’s own definition.
    1
  551.  @jacktattis  Morgan and Shackladyboy are only repeating British myth. When they can quote an engineer on this, I'll believe them. Your arguments are circular, Jack. They don't show that you understand anything and they don't show any willingness to look further afield. If you are genuine about this then you need to look a lot further. You don't have to understand anything much about aero. You just need to open your mind to nuance and probability. "However I will still contest your assumptions that the P51 was better than the Spitfire" This is laughably stupid, Jack. If you want to make political trench warfare or stupid binary arguments out of this then you can kiss my arse. I'm not interested in any of that crap. My only interest is in the best available version of the truth. After about a year of arguing this, I'd have thought this would be obvious, even to you. Whatever the claims for its potential, the Spitfire did not defeat the Luftwaffe in time for D-Day. Can you imagine what would have happened if D-Day had been conducted with a much higher level of German air power present? What you're doing is basically using the same arguments as the P-47 fanbois but you're trying to use them to promote your favourite aircraft over theirs. This kind of mind-blowingly stupid polemic helps nobody's understanding of anything, especially when it's minutiae that doesn't explain why the Luftwaffe was basically beaten from early-mid 1944.
    1
  552.  @jacktattis  "1. Morgan and Shacklady Spitfire the History pages 389/390 the Spitfire going better than 0.84 is mentioned three times as well as the wing profile 2211/4 for inboard and outboard test sections for Spitfire XI P.L.827" Jesus Christ on a bike. Your arguments are totally circular. Did you not read that I did not dispute the claims for Martindale's 0.92 dive? Do you not understand the dive performances like that are not reflective of MCrit? Once again, you are assuming that because the aircraft was dived at those speeds - and there has been a very significant variation in each one of your posts - that the MCrit met have varied with it. It didn't because it can't. Do you not understand that this is not the same as an aerodynamic definition of what Brown refers to as tactical Mach number? I asked you to define tactical Mach number and you referred my to Brown's comments that it's the point at which critical control is lost. That's fine for a layperson's general understanding but it doesn't adequately meet an aerodynamic explanation. What, for example, is happening to the boundary layer? What is happening to the building shock front? When you can give me a measurable explanation like that of MCrit - the minimum mach number at which the relative airflow equals the local speed of sound - then I will know. And this is why I keep telling you that this stuff is not absolute and binding. My reference for the NACA 2213 is the Xfoil database, which gives all marques of Spitfire it was used on. You can find that easily online and Xfoil is a resource used extensively by aero engineering students. "2. Wikipedia mcr Critical Mach mentions a Spitfire as having a Mach of 0.89" The Wikipedia page on MCrit is an appalling joke. There is almost no referencing and no mathematical explanation. It's a series of poor explanations by people who don't understand it. I know because I've looked. The Spitfire claim on that page is unreferenced and can be discarded as not meeting encyclopaedic referencing standard. "If 1 AND 2 do not convince you then nothing will and you go your way and I will go mine." Hey, no you don't. Morgan and Shackedupwithaladyboy are a pretty shit reference when it comes to pure aerodynamics. They are not even a very good historical reference. They are very good for identifying different marques of Spitfire and their development history. That's not the same thing. Brown doesn't explain it adequately either - mainly because he was writing for the lay person - even though I believe him. I just don't believe you. There's a difference. Brown knew what he was talking about. You don't. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Again, if you were anything like serious about this, you'd stop using circular referencing and look further afield. Right now, you've proved exactly nothing, except that you know how to repeat things you've heard.
    1
  553.  @jacktattis   "Oh and by the way your P51 could not catch the Spitfire anywhere." The P-51 was significantly faster than the Spitfire with the same engine. In initial testing, the original Mustang with the 1,150 hp Allison was 35 mph faster than the Spit Mk V. That's why Ron Harker suggested converting it to Merlin power. This kind of information is quite easy to come by. The reasons for this are very well documented - excessively so. Making it 'my' P-51 is just silly. I am only interested in the best available version of the truth and that means giving the Mustang the credit it's due. This is not about trying to prove anything except what is well documented and I have given you multiple mission-specific references to back it up. This is just you trying to shelter behind a wall of political trench warfare. I am not interested in such things. You need to put your big boy pants on and stop taking it personally.
    1
  554.  @jacktattis  No, you’re taking this personally by trying to be apply polemic tactics to something that is far more nuanced than you are prepared to admit. My knowledge of this - while limited - is a lot less limited than yours. Why else would I question your circular references, especially when I actually go to the trouble of looking a lot further afield than you do. Remember who explained the four digit NACA system to you? Do you think I just take everything at face value? Why else would I have taken the trouble to get hold of the relevant coding to calculate the MCrit for the NACA 2213? When was the last time you actually learnt something new?
    1
  555.  @jacktattis  The reason you need to take mission-specific stuff seriously is because it’s a record of what actually happened. What was theoretically possible is of peripheral importance only. The original Mustang was 35 mph faster than the Spitfire MkV with a less powerful engine. That’s why Ron Harker suggested fitting it with a Merlin. Why is this so offensive to you?
    1
  556.  @jacktattis  "you criticize Eric Brown for not bring specific" How dare I? Goodness me! No, it was an observation on my part. I mentioned Brown was writing for the lay person and I make no apology. How did you interpret that as some kind of harsh criticism?🤦‍♂
    1
  557.  @bobmalack481  It was being replaced by the P-51 in Europe by the end of 1944.
    1
  558.  @richardmontana5864  I’ll take a bet I know more than you do. I’ve been reading about it for half a century. These figures come directly from the USAAF and can be found in Francis Dean’s book, ’America’s Hundred Thousand’. I’m perfectly happy to provide the raw data and that’s a much more credible argument than anything you can put forward, especially anything that just says ‘you don’t know what you’re talking about’ with no backup (watching’Greg’ Airplanes and Automobiles’ doesn’t count). This is what happens when you look past the internet, where some YouTuber with a search engine gets to validate his own prejudices and yours.
    1
  559.  @richardmontana5864  USAAF figures Richard. Read ‘em and weep.
    1
  560.  @richardmontana5864  YouTube is deleting my comments again.
    1
  561.  @richardmontana5864  I have been reading this stuff for half a century, Richard. I’ll guarantee I know more about it than you do. These figures are directly from Francis Dean’s book, ‘America’s Hundred Thousand’. I have been consulting them a lot lately and I’m happy to provide the raw figures any time you like. It’s funny how when you do your own research, you find out who know what they are talking about and who doesn’t.
    1
  562.  @richardmontana5864  Please tell me where I’m wrong Richard.
    1
  563.  @richardmontana5864  I’ve been reading this stuff for half a century, Richard. I can pretty much guarantee that while I don’t know everything, I know more than you do. These USAAF figures are from Francis Dean’s book ‘America’s Hundred Thousand’, if you care to look them up. I’ve been consulting them a lot recently. You should too. You might learn something.
    1
  564.  @richardmontana5864  *crickets
    1
  565.  @richardmontana5864  Sill waiting Richard.
    1
  566.  @richardmontana5864  *crickets
    1
  567.  @peterruiz6117  Thanks for your remarks. "The 47 had to be flown to its advantages, but later variants were extremely capable." Yes to both. But I would add that even the early versions were pretty capable, within their limits. "This book showed many political and news bs "facts" in both direction." Which book is this please? I'm always interested in finding out new points of view but I'm extremely wary of anything that stretches credulity. I'm definitely one who opposes the views of Greg Gordon of 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles', who has convinced everyone that there was some kind of conspiracy against his favourite aircraft. The problem with his political view is that, in order for it to be true, the story must have been suppressed by tens of thousands of people who knew about it at the time but stayed stumm on it. With the publication of the book about the so-called 'Bomber Mafia', a whole floodgate has been opened which has resulted in disinformation dominating the internet. "I think it's history, like what Blakesly said, "We fight with what we have"." Blakeslee did score wins in the P-47. He just didn't like it. Zemke liked the P-47 but recognised its limitations. Both wanted the P-51.
    1
  568. I wouldn't. Neither did the pilots. People like 'Hub' Zemke and Don Blakeslee both flew the P-47 and both wanted the P-51 because, in their own words, they knew it was the better aircraft for the job.
    1
  569.  @jacktattis  That’s nice.
    1
  570. The P-51 scored 30% more ground kills than the P-47 in half the number of missions. It also scored 60% more air-to-air kills, again, in half the number of missions. The P-51 wrecked the Luftwaffe.
    1
  571.  @jacktattis  "No the P51 did not have more kills in the ETO/MTO Many kills over there were given to the F/G not the Plane and kills by the P38 and P47 were allotted to the F/G and by extension the P51" As they say in science, amazing claims require amazing proof. Frankly, since these figures come from the USAAF, via Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand', I find it simply not believable that the USAAF could have made such a clerical error. And when you look closely at what happened in early 1944, you see how unlikely this is. It only took until March for the P-51 to overtake the P-47 in number of kills. In April, fighter groups flying the P-47 shot down 82 German fighters. Those flying the P-51 shot down 329. And they did this with half the number of aircraft. That makes the P-51 eight times more effective than the P-47. Now, there's no way this could be attributable to the kind of error you are talking about. Either they shot them down or they didn't.
    1
  572.  @jacktattis  "No the P51 did not have more kills in the ETO/MTO Many kills over there were given to the F/G not the Plane and kills by the P38 and P47 were allotted to the F/G and by extension the P51" I have already rebuffed this a couple of times, Jack. As they say in science, 'outrageous claims require outrageous proof'. To give an example, in April, 1944, the P-47 shot down 82 German fighters. The P-51 shot down 329 with half the number of fighter groups the P-47 had. Now, either the P-51 groups shot down that many aircraft or they didn't. You can't have it both ways. In any case, I find it simply not credible that the USAAF could have made such an outrageous clerical error, especially since there has been virtually nothing about it in the 80-odd years since.
    1
  573.  @jacktattis  Oh stop it Jack. That's just silly.
    1
  574.  @jacktattis  I have. That should be plain obvious to you.
    1
  575.  @jacktattis  What’s that got to do with it, Jack?
    1
  576.  @jacktattis  Jack, I quote sources all the time. That should be obvious, even to you. You go over my posts and you’ll find that they might contain similar information, they are all different. That’s because I update my information all the time. To give you some idea, I n the last six weeks I’ve read: ’44 Days’, by Michael Veitch, ’Turning Point’ by Veitch, ’The Battle of the Bismarck Sea’, by Veitch, ’Darwin Spitfires’, by Anthony Cooper, ’Fire in the Sky’, by Eric Bergerud, which I’m currently making my way through. Now, all of those are about the Pacific theatre, rather than Europe but that’s just the last six weeks, Jack. My research is rarely a matter of time or effort and more often than not, about money. So whether or not you doubt it is not terribly important. Each of us is making a judgement based on informed opinion. While this is not a pissing contest, I think I know which of us has made more of an effort.
    1
  577. Jack, it should be obvious, even to you, that I update my information all the time and I don’t do it just by watching YouTube videos. In the past six weeks I have read; ’44 Days’, by Michael Veitch, ’Turning Point’, by Veitch, ’The Battle of the Bismarck Sea’, by Veitch, ’Darwin Spitfires’, by Anthony Cooper (best book I’ve read this year) and ’Fire in the Sky’, by Eric Bergerud, which I’m still making my way through. That’s just in the last six weeks, Jack, in which time I also lost a close family member. Now, those are all about the Pacific theatre and this is not a pissing contest but I think I know who is making a bigger effort to ‘do more research’. So I’ll be trusting what I read and making informed judgements based on that, rather than taking life advice from you or some partisan YouTube channel. That’s just what I read about air combat. Throw in politics and other histories, such as Mark Jones’ excellent ’1923’ and you can see that I spend a lot of time educating myself, in between my odd bit of casual university tutoring. My research is more often than not a matter of what I can afford to buy and I get a lot of my books second hand. You go back over my posts and you’ll find that my information changes all the time. I frequently go over what I wrote a few months ago and notice what I now consider to be less reliable information. And most of that was information I could back up then, while what I post now I can back up with more and better sources.
    1
  578.  @jacktattis  What do you think, Jack? So far, you’re the only one talking about Spitfires.
    1
  579.  @jacktattis  What do you think, Jack? So far you’re the only one talking about Spitfires.
    1
  580.  @jacktattis  They’re not ‘my’ aircraft, Jack and better is as better does. The more I read from all sides, the more obvious it is the impact of the P-51 on the air war against Germany. Without it, the Allies could not draw the Luftwaffe into a battle of attrition everyone knew it could not win. All the climb performance, turn performance, roll rates, etc., are chicken feed if it didn’t happen over Germany. You might as well be counting ceiling tiles. And whatever its theoretical range, the Spitfire was not flown in combat over Germany until after Allied bases had been established on the Continent. That’s the verdict of history and history doesn’t deduce from data blocks or performance charts. History only records what happens.
    1
  581.  @jacktattis  By the way, Jack, on the subject of ‘better is as better does’, Cooper’s book, ’Darwin Spitfires’, rather shoots down the Spitfire myth. It was a good aircraft in Europe - even the Mk V - but it did poorly in the defence of northern Australia because of cannon failures and failures in the Constant Speed Unit, which sometimes led to engine failure. It almost always ended the mission. While other failures can be blamed on the leadership and its dogged adherence to the ‘big wing’ doctrine, the Spitfire performed poorly over Darwin. To be fair, there were no serious alternatives in 1943 but it’s fair to say that the RAAF would be rightly disappointed. The propaganda value was inestimable but the combat value was only a matter of what could have been brought to bear. I will leave this matter here.
    1
  582.  @jacktattis  God it’s hard. I can cite plenty of these examples but they don’t tell the whole story. The Spitfires were not over German territory. They could not draw the Luftwaffe, they could only fight them off. You’re missing the strategic point. Once the bombers could be escorted anywhere in Germany, the Luftwaffe had no choice but to engage. Forget about what the Spitfire could do and focus on what actually happened. All you’re doing is making the same argument the P-47 crowd are making and you’re falling for the same ruse. Your favourite plane could have done it but was stymied by politics or some other conspiratorial reason. Drop tanks were not the answer. Internal fuel capacity was. The Spitfire could never have flown a 550 mile escort with 175 imperial gallons (210 US). Even the Mustang, with better aerodynamics, had a theoretical radius of 375 miles with 224 imperial gallons (269 US) of internal fuel alone. The Luftwaffe was defeated mostly - but not entirely - by the P-51. Until it arrived, the Germans could exercise discretion about when they attacked. After that, they had no choice but to defend and probably get shot down.
    1
  583.  @jacktattis  We can keep arguing this nerdy sh1t til the cows come home (something I’m increasingly disinterested in doing). It won’t change the basic facts of history. More than any other fighter, the P-51 defeated the Luftwaffe.
    1
  584.  @jacktattis  ‘He jests at scars that never felt a wound.’ WTF do you think you’re ‘laughing’ at?
    1
  585.  @jacktattis  I don't think there's much of relevance that you can tell me, Jack. If I want to know about rates of climb for the Spitfire, I promise to ask but I can find all that I need at 'WWII Aircraft Performance'.
    1
  586. Exactly. It's become an internet thing. Fighter pilots were taught to shoot at things like cockpits and fuel tanks. It didn't matter. It only took a couple of cannon hits to destroy a fighter, no matter which one it was.
    1
  587.  @jacktattis  I have been crunching the numbers on this and there’s basically no difference. Yes: the P-51 suffered slightly higher casualties than the P-47 (1.18 to 0.73) but it also spent a lot more time in enemy territory than the P-47 did. In fact, the P-47 destroyed about 3,000 aircraft on the ground, while the P-51 destroyed around 4,000 - in half the number of sorties. These are USAAF figures. The USAAF made no determination on how these aircraft were shot down, unlike the U.S. Navy. We know Johnny Godfrey was shot down by ground fire because there were witnesses but it isn’t recorded. There are, unfortunately, no figures for Flak, CFIT, collisions, pilot blackout or friendly fire. There aren’t even any figures for non-combat related losses. How anyone can determine the exchange rate for either the P-47 or P-51 is anyone’s guess. The idea that the Mustang was some kind of liquid cooled death trap that could be brought down by a school kid with a slug gun is bollocks. And the more I look at the unadulterated USAAF figures, the more obvious it is that this is a BS argument.
    1
  588.  @jacktattis  I’m sorry but this flies in the face of every bit of information I have. If you read ’Target Berlin’, by Jeff Ethell and Dr Alfred Price, you will get a very different picture.
    1
  589.  @jacktattis  Since YouTube deleted my comments from the other thread, I’ll post them here. Regarding the claim about P-47 claims being transferred to the P-51, there’s a saying in science that outrageous claims require outrageous amounts of proof. The information I posed comes from Francis Dean’s book, ’America’s Hundred Thousand’. The idea that the USAAF would make such a simple accounting error and then fail to correct it simply stretches credulity. Sorry but without a citation, I’m not buying it. Furthermore, even if your figure of 3,200 for the P-51 is true, that’s still more than 3,000 for the P-47 and in half the number of missions. From memory, the P-47 flew about 746,000 missions in all theatres and shot down about 4,200 aircraft for the entire war. In North Western Europe, that figure is 3,000 or thereabouts, while losing almost exactly the same number in combat and non-combat related incidents.
    1
  590.  @robertelmo7736  Hilarious!🤣
    1
  591.  @sophiaalexander3149  Nobody has shown anything of the sort. Show me where I’m wrong, with specifics. Then tell me why the number of aircraft is irrelevant, other than a matter of inconvenient truth.
    1
  592.  @sophiaalexander3149  By the way Sophia, nobody doubts the training aspect. I addressed this in another post. That was already a problem for the Luftwaffe before the P-47 got to England. By 1943, new German pilots had 100-120 hours, with a handful of hours on type. American pilots usually had 600 or more hours and probably 50-100 hours on type (with few exceptions). So much for the P-47 having to deal with the cream of the Luftwaffe. Source is ’The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Missions’, by Martin Middlebrook.
    1
  593. This is straight from 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles'. It's simply not true. The Luftwaffe probably peaked in 1940/41 and it was all down hill from there. On top of that, plenty of German Experten met their maker on the Eastern Front and in the Mediterranean. Others had already been hacked down by the RAF, who had been fighting them for three years before the Yanks arrived. The only time the USAAF sent fighters to smash the Luftwaffe in a battle of attrition was during 'Big Week' in February, 1944. Greg is big on documents and charts and small on history. It doesn't take a lot of research to show he's full of it. Read Williamson Murray's book, 'Luftwaffe: Strategy for defeat, 1933-1945'. Murray goes way further into this than Greg's piss and vinegar.
    1
  594. ​ @sophiaalexander3149  "Haha, Not much of a people person are you? Im sure you convinced this dudes hero Grandfather that he was wrong...Bravo." Yes, let's start with the personal attacks. Always makes for a reasonable conversation. How dare I disagree or even dare comment? "The 51 was 3 times as likely to get shot down by groundfire and about 8 times as likely to be brought down by a single bullet to the bottom of the engine according to side by side tests after the war." And yet, it's not reflected in the stats. So let's have a look at some individual unit examples. The 355th FG was the most successful unit for ground attack. They lost 41 in air-to-air and 90 in a mix of ground attack and Flak, which are hard to sort out. On the other hand, they destroyed 493 ground targets for a loss of 86 with the P-51 and 8 for 4 with the P-47. The 78th FG destroyed 152 with the P-47 for a loss of 51, giving a ratio of 3:1. For the P-51, they destroyed 190.5 for 32 lost for a W/L of 5.9. For 56th FG, there were 320 destroyed for 50 lost - 6.4:1 K/D. These figures are from historian and author James William Marshall. 78% of 8th Air Force ground kills were by P-51s, while 18% were by P-47s. The 'one bullet and it's all over' argument is a hoax. Next thing you'll be telling me German riflemen aimed at the radiators! LOL! GA pilots were much more likely to fall victim to 1) enemy aircraft 2) Flak (20mm and above) or 3) collision. That's why it's the most dangerous mission. "A kindergarten level of research is showing almost everything you say incorrect ." And personal attacks are usually a sign of a weak argument. They don't work on me. "The d25 did have 750 gallons of internal feul according to the pilots manual " Totally wrong. The D-25 had an internal capacity of 305 gallons. No P-47 ever carried 750 gallons internally. You tell me what page that was on in the pilot's manual because I don't believe you. If it could have carried that much fuel then it wouldn't even have needed drop tanks at all to get to Berlin and the argument is nonsense. But the USAAF planning makes a nonsense of what you're claiming. "47s were escorting to berlin and deepermonths before the d25 and 51s arrived ." No way. The P-47, when fitted with a 108 gallon drop tank - which is all most of them could carry in early 1944 - could not get past the Dutch border. A small number, maybe 20%, had been re-plumbed to carry drop tanks under the wings. This was a slow process that had to be done in the field by sweating, swearing crews cutting metal to do it. This was because Republic had failed to address Materiel Command's requirements for more internal fuel. Everyone else did it except Republic. No P-47s went to Berlin until after D-Day. The first major USAAF raid on Berlin was on 6 March, 1944 and on that raid, no P-47 got past Magdeburg. All the escort work over Berlin was done by P-51s. No P-47 could get to Berlin until the late versions, like the -M, with 370 gallons internally. By then it was too late and US fighters based on the continent could already get to Berlin anyway. "The 47 flew 4 times as many operational hours in the first quarter of 44 and twice as many in the second quarter ." That's because there were twice as many of them. In fact, there were eight times as many at the end o 1943. And there were four times as many at the beginning of March. But let's not stop there. When the first P-51 Fighter Group became operational in December, 1943, there were eight P-47 groups and one, soon to be two, P-38 groups. During 'Big Week' the P-47 shot down about 250 German aircraft, while the P-51 got about 50. By March, the P-51 got around 250, compared to about 150 for the P-47. By April, when there were now four FGs operating the Mustang, the P-47 got 82, compared to 329 for the P-51. And it did this with half the number of aircraft. So, in fact, the P-51 was scoring at eight times the rate of the P-47. "So the 51 didnt "ascend "until after dday." Rubbish. "Your "cope" of the 51 dealing with more german flak ignores the entire 9th airforce ,also why does the 47 have a better loss rate than the p40,p38,f4f,f6f,f4u,spitfire and hurricane all thoise planes didnt have to deal with the same level of german flak either but the 47 has the best loss rate of all of them ." You're going to need to provide some specific and/or anecdotal evidence of this. If you go back to the GA figures I gave earlier, the specific squadrons show remarkably similar loss rates. Yet you lump all those other types in as though they were all operating under the same conditions. You even included the F4F, F4U and F6F. Cute. I suppose you hoped I wouldn't notice...? How many F4Fs were flying GA missions over Germany in 1944? You have totally chosen to ignore the concentration of Flak on German soil as the Wehrmacht contracted into Germany. All pilot memoirs from that era talk about it. And this was what the P-51 had to deal with, while all the others were doing shorter range stuff into Northern France, Holland and Belgium. The P-51, because of its range, went far deeper into German territory than any other type. "Your "survivorship bias " nonsense is not the win you think it is , you saw a meme and now you think you have some trump card ." Before you dismiss it because it doesn't suit your personal prejudices, you should actually find out what survivor bias is because you clearly don't know. You're happy to look at the P-51s that didn't get back and say 'Oh well, that was just a less survivable aircraft' without bothering to find out why. Your unwillingness to consider it suggests it actually would be a trump card if you bothered to research it. "Survivorship bias was well understood in the second half of the war and easily controlled for ,you post the definition but you still cant see the fault ." Oh, ha, ha. Very funny. You reveal how little you understand this by edging to the original narrow definition involving the placement of armour plating. Survivor bias can involve anything from Darwin's Theory of Evolution to company failures. You need to research this. "Using pilot reports of the damage to both types of aircraft and controlling for survivorship bias statistically by factoring in loss rates makes the effect of the bias negligible. in fact you're engaging in a type of survivorship bias called publication bias by only posting "facts" that support your claim without posting the whole story ." This is a bluff. Show me the breakdown. Come on then, cough up. I don't believe you. You don't have the level of exhaustive information necessary to make that claim. You're bluffing. Come on: give me 'the whole story', as you put it. "Half of the ground kills were claimed in a single month...april 1945 . These are abandoned aircraft with no fuel ,ammo or pilots being shot up over and over ,not well defended airfields ." So what? Show me a reference for this. "I think you mean well, youre just misinformed." References show I'm better informed than you. Anyone who has done enough reading on this knows that there's no 'debate' about which was the better of the two. The P-47, good as it was, wasn't even in the same postcode as the P-51. And this comes from someone who thought the P-47 was underrated and the P-51 overrated until I researched it. The P-51 was just a much better aircraft and that's why the Eighth Air Force happily handed over its P-47 fleet to the Ninth Air Force for Ground Attack duties. The P-51 shot down 60% more German aircraft than the P-47 and destroyed 30% more ground targets in literally half the number of missions. (423,000 v 213,000). More than any other type - including the Spitfire, which actually shot down more aircraft - it was the P-51 that wrecked the Luftwaffe.
    1
  595.  @bobh1208  How do you think we feel about you? I don’t agree with much he says anyway so it’s not like we’ve teamed up. Far from it. But every day I see the same droning posts from people who don’t read, can’t conduct a nuanced debate and just repeat the same things a thousand times over. Honestly, I’m getting quite bored with this. The only reason I do it is because it helps me find the best available version of the truth and it helps organise my thinking. I sure don’t come here to get my biases confirmed. And if you don’t like that, that’s your problem.
    1
  596.  @ScoopsTV  If you take the trouble to overlook your personal prejudices, you will see that Jack Tattis and I agree on very little. Even you have highlighted the differences between our posts. Part of your problem here is that you are viewing this as a binary matter, which it is not. As a result, the possibility of a nuanced discussion with you is basically impossible. You simply lack the aptitude for it.
    1
  597.  @ScoopsTV  ”And yes , how dare you dare to comment , you are disagreeing with a Deadman ( who was there )” Wow. Your reading and comprehension skills - or singular lack of them - are really on display here. Where did I ‘dare to disagree’? It is a simple statement of fact. P-51 pilots were almost three times as likely to see combat as P-47 pilots. It’s no reflection on the pilot. Just a simple matter of fact. Manufacturing outrage with a highly emotional argument… where have I seen that before? This is just pathetic but I knew you’d fall headlong into it sooner or later. I have no further use for you.
    1
  598.  @ScoopsTV  ”You say “ destroyed more ground targets but thats not true , what you mean to say is planes on the ground or ground kills” Yes, thats right. The USAAF were allowed to count aircraft destroyed on the ground. Ergo, these are the ones that matter. The numbers of tanks, trucks, artillery pieces and trains destroyed would be extremely hard to quantify but it’s worth remembering that a post war study by the British showed that only about 2% of tanks were destroyed from the air. I came into this believing that the P-47 was under appreciated and the P-51 overly so. After years of reading I can safely say that the reverse is true and that the internet opinion of the P-51 is simply wrong at every level and that the P-47 is now massively overrated, particularly among Americans, who seen to be upset by the idea that the better aircraft was powered by a British-designed engine. Real history doesn’t have any opinion but the P-51’s record speaks for itself. If you think you know more about survivor bias than I do then feel free to explain yourself. The reason I’m using Bill Marshall is that his research is recent and very thorough. Just flapping it away because it doesn’t suit you is not a counter argument.
    1
  599.  @ScoopsTV  If you had source material you’d either copy and transcribe it with your phone and paste it into your reply or you would simply copy and paste it. You’re all tip and no iceberg.
    1
  600.  @ScoopsTV  "The luftwaffe was rendered ineffective in many parts of Europe mainly France by DDAY and the p47 was overwhelmingly responsible for that ." I've already given you the numbers for that and you are absolutely wrong. By March, the P-51 had overtaken the P-47 in numbers of kills and by April, it was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. It's like talking to a brick wall. Furthermore, the USAAF could not pursue its war of attrition with the Luftwaffe until it could go anywhere in Germany with fighter escort. The P-47 could not do that. And never mind the theoretical ranges, it didn't and that's what matters. Until then the Luftwaffe could simply ignore the P-47. You can deride this as 'the official story' all you like but your alternative explanations don't bear repeating.
    1
  601.  @ScoopsTV  "The luftwaffes attrition was 141% in 1943 ." Of which the P-47 shot down less than 2% (see: Francis Dean, 'America's Hundred Thousand). Debunked long  "Its clear Air superiority was achieved by the time the 51 took over and the luftwaffes downward spiral was already in full effect . The 51 was handed Europe on a silver platter by the 47 8th af tactical development document and Stratagy to defeat the luftwaffe documentago." Rubbish. Debunked already. Already gave you the figures from 1943. New Luftwaffe pilots had 110-120 hours total and 10-15 on type in 1943. US pilots had 600+ hours and 50-100 on type. See Martin Middlebrook's 'The Schweinfurt-Regensberg Mission'. Also note that on that mission, 10-15% of the Luftwaffe fighter that were put up were night fighters: slow, unmanoeuvrable twin engine types like the Bf-110 which was dog meat as a day fighter three years earlier. That's how desperate they were and it had nothing to do with the P-47. (same source) The Luftwaffe suffered far, far more casualties on the Eastern front than you are ever going to give credit for. I can't be arsed anymore.
    1
  602.  @ScoopsTV  "what was the 51s percentage? The 47 had more of a role then the 51 even though the Russians deserve the credit here" Already told you: P-47: 423,000 missions, 3082 aircraft shot down. Exchange rate (including losses by all causes) 2.04. P-51: 213,000 missions, 4,950 aircraft shot down, exchange rate (including losses by all causes) 3.60. QED. Just shut up, will you. You're embarrassing yourself and I have better things to do (apart from which, I have just lost a close family member but that's got nothing to do with you).
    1
  603.  @ScoopsTV  I already told you the percentage from 1943!!!!!! LESS THAN 2%!!!! I’m not interested in anything else you have to say.
    1
  604.  @bobh1208  "Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)." Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it. The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen. "Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances." A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse. Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work. As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it. The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47. In half the number of missions. If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'. By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%. "Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter." Are you saying the P-51 was not needed? This is a super important question. "I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?" You tell me. It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly. Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost. If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block. "But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields." The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields. "So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)." What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47. And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really? "So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)." Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective. These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'. By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you.
    1
  605.  @bobh1208  "Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)." Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it. The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen. "Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances." A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse. Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work. As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it. The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47. In half the number of missions. If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'. By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%. "Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter." Are you saying the P-51 was not needed? This is a super important question. "I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?" You tell me. It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly. Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost. If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block. "But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields." The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields. "So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)." What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47. And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really? "So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)." Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective. These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'. By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you.
    1
  606. "Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)." Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it. The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen. "Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances." A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse. Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work. As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it. The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47. In half the number of missions. If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'. By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%. "Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter." Are you saying the P-51 was not needed? This is a super important question. "I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?" You tell me. It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly. Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost. If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block. "But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields." The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields. "So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)." What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47. And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really? "So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)." Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective. These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'. By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you.  @bobh1208 
    1
  607.  @bobh1208  "Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)." Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it. The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen. "Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances." A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse. Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work. As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it. The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47. In half the number of missions. If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'. By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%. "Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter." Are you saying the P-51 was not needed? This is a super important question. "I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?" You tell me. It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly. Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost. If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block. "But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields." The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields. "So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)." What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47. And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really? "So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)." Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective. These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'. By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you.
    1
  608.  @bobh1208  "Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)." Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it. The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen. "Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances." A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse. Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work. As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it. The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47. In half the number of missions. If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'. By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%. "Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter." Are you saying the P-51 was not needed? This is a super important question. "I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?" You tell me. It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly. Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost. If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block. "But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields." The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields. "So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)." What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47. And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really? "So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)." Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective. These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'. By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you.
    1
  609. "Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)." Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it. The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen. "Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances." A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse. Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work. As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it. The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47. In half the number of missions. If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'. By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%. "Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter." Are you saying the P-51 was not needed? This is a super important question. "I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?" You tell me. It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly. Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost. If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block. "But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields." The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields. "So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)." What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47. And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really? "So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)." Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective. These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'. By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you. @bobh1208 
    1
  610. "Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)." Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it. The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen. "Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances." A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse. Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work. As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it. The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47. In half the number of missions. If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'. By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%. "Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter." Are you saying the P-51 was not needed? This is a super important question. "I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?" You tell me. It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly. Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost. If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block. "But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields." The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields. "So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)." What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47. And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really? "So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)." Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective. These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'. By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you. @bobh1208 
    1
  611.  @bobh1208  "Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)." Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it. The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen. "Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances." A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse. Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work. As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it. The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47. In half the number of missions. If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'. By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%. "Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter." Are you saying the P-51 was not needed? This is a super important question. "I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?" You tell me. It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly. Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost. If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block. "But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields." The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields. "So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)." What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47. And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really? "So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)." Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective. These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'. By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you.
    1
  612. "Seems like the point of air superiority over battlefield France was to allow air-to-ground superiority... which the big bombers were not terribly good at, except when it came to bombing cities/civilians (which is why Peugeot had to come around to helping sabotage/blow his own vital-to-the-Nazis plant to put it out of commission)." Air superiority is air superiority. It allows freedom of movement to any type of aircraft you like. Some of the aircraft nominated as 'the worst aircraft of the war', like the Fairey Battle or the TBD Devastator were aircraft that might have succeeded with air superiority but did not have it. The bombers that were used for battlefield support, like the Halifax, could have done better with better target recognition. That's part of the reason for the damage to Caen. "Look up "whistle for a Tiffy," and, what Eisenhauer had to say about the Typhoon's WINNING role in France... and take into consideration that the P-47 was potentially even more capable in that role, but, was still being used in an air-superiority role at that point, because it was considerably more suitable for THAT than the Typhoons were, but, was eventually switched to devastating ground attack, and, in that role saw considerably more intense "combat" than the P-51's ever did in any role, later in the war, because the Germans had radar-fused anti-aircraft rounds by then, and even the air-cooled Jugs lost incredible percentages of planes and fliers in ground attack - though not nearly as many as Mustangs would have - and, carrying much more ammo, were much more devasting... as they HAD to be, to make that role worthwhile under those circumstances." A 144 word sentence... Not perhaps the best way to make your point but I've seen worse. Your differentiation between the P-47 and the Typhoon was pretty pointless since the Typhoon was never intended to be used for air superiority work. As for your claim that the P-47 took part in 'more intense combat than any P-51 ever could', I'd suggest you read about it. The P-51 destroyed more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 did. The reason for that is simply that the P-51 spent more time over enemy territory than the P-47 ever did. It becomes especially clear when you look at the number off missions flown. The P-47 flew 423,000 missions, compared with 213,000 missions for the P-51, yet the P-51 scored 60% more air to air victories and 30% more ground kills than the P-47. In half the number of missions. If you read pilot memoirs, like Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show', you will pretty soon realise how heavy the Flak was and the Germans retreated back into Germany. This is not just one pilot's version either. Richard Turner talks about the same thing in 'Big Friend, Little Friend'. By late 1944, Flak had become a bigger hazard to the Bombers than the Luftwaffe. By this time the bomber casualty rate had fallen to 3%. By early 1945, it was down to about 1%. "Either would've shot down German interceptors just fine, though, and gotten there with drop tanks just fine, by the Summer of '44... but the P-47 was just too valuable as the most viable battlefield-and-transportation fighter." Are you saying the P-51 was not needed? This is a super important question. "I mean, why do you think more of them were supplied than any other Allied fighter, despite being more expensive than P-51's and Hellcats... other than that more of them were in demand?" You tell me. It had nothing to do with any objective assessment of what was required. Remember too, that the USAAF commanders were still committed to the so-called 'bomber theory' and on shorter raids, that strategy appeared to be working. Until the USAAF were forced into the situation of having to raid targets deep in Germany, the bombers were not suffering unduly. Cost had nothing to do with it and that was made clear in Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles. Arnold needed to solve the problem of long range escorts and he gave Giles six months (it took seven). He was even prepared to countenance the possibility of a completely new design. No mention was ever made of cost. If it had been then the P-38 should probably have been the first on the chopping block. "But, the Lightnings, with their non-con-verging/di-verging, nose-mounted guns/canon, blew a lot of enemy fighters out of the sky... flew a lot of crucial photography missions over the oilfields... and, even took advantage of the fact that the oilfield defenses did not bother to put up smokescreens for "just Lightning" photography missions, by springing a well-strategized, effective "just Lightnings" dive-bombing mission against those Ploesti oilfields." The bombers suffered some pretty appalling casualties in the campaign against the oil fields. "So I would say that the P-38's were more vital in that vital campaign, and that they OR Jugs could've served well as Summer escorts, were they not more important for other roles... which the P-51's were not (and not just because Mustangs were so good as escorts)." What? If anything, the P-51s were more versatile than the P-47 and were used for just about anything. If you look at squadron records, most did at least as well, if not better in in ground attack with the P-51 than they had with the P-47. And can you seriously... I mean seriously... be contesting that the P-51 was not a great escort fighter? Really? "So I would defer to Army Air Force (not even Navy) testing that indicated that the Corsair was the highest performance Allied fighter of the war, production numbers that indicate that the P-47 was the most effectual fighter of the war, costs-per-plane that indicate that the Hellcat was the most cost-effective carrier fighter of the war, and, popular sentiment that says that the Mustang was the grooviest, laminar-flowiest fighter of the war... despite not having a Double Wasp like those other three (which, if you count the Pacific, was the most effectual fighter engine of the war)." Production numbers are no indication of effectiveness. Even including the fact that the USAAF seem not to have recorded the exact circumstances of every loss, the P-51 trounces the P-47 in K/D (including losses by all causes). The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04:1 and the P-51 was 3.60:1. That means the P-51 was at least 1.8 times as effective. These figures are from Francis Dean's 'American's Hundred Thousand'. By April, 1944, the P-51 was outscoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one. Your attempt to denigrate the P-51 is groundless. Calling it the grooviest most laminar flow fighter shows that its impact has bypassed you. @bobh1208 
    1
  613.  @jacktattis  Do you know what the object of POINTBLANK was? Come to that, does anyone here know, besides me? I’ll wait while everyone furiously consults Wikipedia…
    1
  614. ​ @jacktattis  "The Softening up period was Concurrent with Operation Pointblank aimed at the reduction of the Luftwaffe fighters and by March 44 2950 had been destroyed" Not exactly. Operation POINTBLANK was the USAAF attack on the Luftwaffe and went way beyond shooting down or destroying aircraft in the ground. It was war on the German aircraft industry and the object was to eliminate any airborne interference in the D-Day landings. This was the reason for the necessity of the raid on Schweinfurt in August, 1943. Most people simply ignore or forget that second raid that day on the Messerschmitt factory at Regensburg. Ball bearings were critical but so were aircraft and while the Regensburg raid suffered the same levels of casualties as Schweinfurt, it was much more successful. It was also the reason for the disastrous week that included 'Black Thursday', which was the second raid on Schweinfurt. That same week, the USAAF raided Bremen (Focke-Wulf), Osherschleben (also Focke-Wulf) and Anklam (Arado), suffering unacceptable losses in all cases. And it was because of this that the USAAF's deep penetration raids had to be suspended, pending the arrival of a suitable escort fighter*. As far as the P-47 and the Spitfire were concerned, the objectives of POINTBLANK could not be reached as long as things remained the way they were. Spitfires raided airfields in Northern France and the Low Countries. P-47s escorted the bombers to Germany. These raids might have been costly to German defences but they were simply nuisance raids in comparison to what was needed. As long as the German fighters had the advantage of discretion, it was going to be difficult to draw them into the battle of attrition that needed to be fought. Until the USAAF could roam about the German countryside largely unhindered, POINTBLANK's objectives could not be met and neither the P-47, nor the Spitfire could do anything about that in the timeframe available. Operation ARGUMENT, in late February, 1944, was the first step in defeating the Luftwaffe over Germany and the rest of Western Europe. Yes, Spitfires were involved but their job was escorting as far as range permitted before being replaced by P-47s. *As a note to anyone else who feels the need to pipe in with 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' remarks about the P-47 and particularly its range, I don't care about that. I really don't. This is not a capability argument. I only care about what actually happened. In the context of POINTBLANK, nothing else matters.
    1
  615.  @jacktattis  "The Softening up period was Concurrent with Operation Pointblank aimed at the reduction of the Luftwaffe fighters and by March 44 2950 had been destroyed" Not exactly. Operation POINTBLANK was the USAAF attack on the Luftwaffe and went way beyond shooting down or destroying aircraft in the ground. It was war on the German aircraft industry and the object was to eliminate any airborne interference in the D-Day landings. This was the reason for the necessity of the raid on Schweinfurt in August, 1943. Most people simply ignore or forget that second raid that day on the Messerschmitt factory at Regensburg. Ball bearings were critical but so were aircraft and while the Regensburg raid suffered the same levels of casualties as Schweinfurt, it was much more successful. It was also the reason for the disastrous week that included 'Black Thursday', which was the second raid on Schweinfurt. That same week, the USAAF raided Bremen (Focke-Wulf), Osherschleben (also Focke-Wulf) and Anklam (Arado), suffering unacceptable losses in all cases. And it was because of this that the USAAF's deep penetration raids had to be suspended, pending the arrival of a suitable escort fighter*. As far as the P-47 and the Spitfire were concerned, the objectives of POINTBLANK could not be reached as long as things remained the way they were. Spitfires raided airfields in Northern France and the Low Countries. P-47s escorted the bombers to Germany. These raids might have been costly to German defences but they were simply nuisance raids in comparison to what was needed. As long as the German fighters had the advantage of discretion, it was going to be difficult to draw them into the battle of attrition that needed to be fought. Until the USAAF could roam about the German countryside largely unhindered, POINTBLANK's objectives could not be met and neither the P-47, nor the Spitfire could do anything about that in the timeframe available. Operation ARGUMENT, in late February, 1944, was the first step in defeating the Luftwaffe over Germany and the rest of Western Europe. Yes, Spitfires were involved but their job was escorting as far as range permitted before being replaced by P-47s. *As a note to anyone else who feels the need to pipe in with 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' remarks about the P-47 and particularly its range, I don't care about that. I really don't. This is not a capability argument. I only care about what actually happened. In the context of POINTBLANK, nothing else matters.
    1
  616. ​ @jacktattis "The Softening up period was Concurrent with Operation Pointblank aimed at the reduction of the Luftwaffe fighters and by March 44 2950 had been destroyed" Not exactly. Operation POINTBLANK was the USAAF attack on the Luftwaffe and went way beyond shooting down or destroying aircraft in the ground. It was war on the German aircraft industry and the object was to eliminate any airborne interference in the D-Day landings. This was the reason for the necessity of the raid on Schweinfurt in August, 1943. Most people simply ignore or forget that second raid that day on the Messerschmitt factory at Regensburg. Ball bearings were critical but so were aircraft and while the Regensburg raid suffered the same levels of casualties as Schweinfurt, it was much more successful. It was also the reason for the disastrous week that included 'Black Thursday', which was the second raid on Schweinfurt. That same week, the USAAF raided Bremen (Focke-Wulf), Osherschleben (also Focke-Wulf) and Anklam (Arado), suffering unacceptable losses in all cases. And it was because of this that the USAAF's deep penetration raids had to be suspended, pending the arrival of a suitable escort fighter*. As far as the P-47 and the Spitfire were concerned, the objectives of POINTBLANK could not be reached as long as things remained the way they were. Spitfires raided airfields in Northern France and the Low Countries. P-47s escorted the bombers to Germany. These raids might have been costly to German defences but they were simply nuisance raids in comparison to what was needed. As long as the German fighters had the advantage of discretion, it was going to be difficult to draw them into the battle of attrition that needed to be fought. Until the USAAF could roam about the German countryside largely unhindered, POINTBLANK's objectives could not be met and neither the P-47, nor the Spitfire could do anything about that in the timeframe available. Operation ARGUMENT, in late February, 1944, was the first step in defeating the Luftwaffe over Germany and the rest of Western Europe. Yes, Spitfires were involved but their job was escorting as far as range permitted before being replaced by P-47s. By the way, this is not intended to downplay the role of the RAF - particularly Bomber Command - but they had little to do with the P-47 in this context. *As a note to anyone else who feels the need to pipe in with 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' remarks about the P-47 and particularly its range, I don't care about that. I really don't. This is not a capability argument. I only care about what actually happened. In the context of POINTBLANK, nothing else matters. @jacktattis 
    1
  617.  @bobh1208  ”Oh, and for perspective on the Germans’ octane problems when it came time to intercept the bombers and their Mustangs…” That’s just a non argument. Fuel problems were just one factor and in the greater scheme of things, not a very big one until the end. They had so many other things going against them and some of them were more important. I’ll address your other post later when I have time.
    1
  618.  @bobh1208  "What is not clear to me is how many weeks the 56th had the P-47M at the end of the war..." I'm not sure they did. They switched to P-51s at the beginning of 1945. I think most people assume 56 kept the P-47 until the end of the war but they didn't. By the end of October, 1944, there was only one squadron in the 8Th AF still operating it and that was, of course, 56. Pretty much everyone else transitioned over in the April-June period. Once the 56th changed over I think everything else went to the 9th. I haven't yet discovered what squadron or squadrons used the -M but it wasn't in service for more than a few weeks. It suffered from serious reliability problems, whatever its merits.
    1
  619. ​ @bobh1208  "And, regarding the original comment above about his grandad... yup... and something like 7 of the highest scoring 10 Allied aces of the European theater did so in P-47's... and, all 7 survived the war." There could be any number of explanations for that. Pure luck springs to mind. Don't forget that George Preddy was killed by American AA while chasing a Focke-Wulf at extremely low altitude. Preddy survived the crash but died shortly afterwards. That was the nature of low flying, whatever your mount. P-51s statistically had at least twice the likelihood of engaging than P-47s (number of missions compared to number of kills) did and outscored them at an even higher rate. There were a lot more P-51 aces than P-47. "Also, for the fudgers, Eric Brown's (rare) nonsense about the P-47's Mach number in a dive is easily dismissed, by the results of much more comprehensive testing by both the U.S. and Brits, as can be seen in a YouTube video by a dedicated researcher who does consider Brown to be an all-time pilot." Greg Gordon again. I'll give him credit for a couple of things. First of all, he's researched it and secondly, he's stuck at it. But Greg is not a historian. He's made it his business to prove the P-47 was better than the P-51 but has used an extremely narrow focus. At this stage he has enough followers that he seems to be trying to convince himself. His lack of breadth and nuance consigns a lot of what he says to the bin. So here's a neat calculation for you. The speed of sound at 20,000 feet is about 709 mph. The Mcrit for the P-47 was 0.71 which translates to 503 mph. The VNE was 500 mph IAS. That doesn't mean it wasn't dived at higher speeds. There's a lot of bollocks talked about the Spitfire but I don't know what its Mcrit was. I do know that the Spitfire was dived at Mach 0.92 but there's no way the Mcrit was that high. It might have been 0.75 (it will always be less than 1) but I don't actually know. The point is that Mcrit is the speed - expressed not in miles per hour but as a percentage of the speed of sound - at which the free stream airflow becomes sonic at some point on the airframe, most critically, over the wing. The S-3 airfoil was very, very different from that used on the P-51 which was genuinely revolutionary. We hear a lot about the P-51's laminar flow wing but there's a lot more to it than that and it's to do with the section. If the P-51's Mcrit was 0.78 then there is no way the P-47 was any higher. It just isn't possible if you understand transonic aerodynamics. The P-47 may have been dived at a higher speed but it doesn't mean the Mcrit changed. It can't. The addition of dive flaps would not have changed it. It would have changed the aircraft's controllability but not its Mcrit. As a professional pilot Greg should understand this. If he does and he hasn't mentioned it... But that's not the only thing Greg doesn't tell you. "and yet, there were other pilots, some of them less skilled, who shot down more opponents than Brown... some of them by specializing in catching up to FW-190's in a dive, fwiw." I'm not sure what this means. "And, by the way, toward the end of the war, the 56th squadron got one hundred and thirty P-47M fighters that, since they had been tested to 470 mph in level flight, were the fastest of all piston-engine fighters of WWII to see any noteworthy combat." I addressed this earlier. I have serious doubts it was 56. Also the trouble with arguments about top speeds is like black cats. Lots of people have black cats but someone's cat is always blacker than everyone else's. It isn't really pertinent to the debate. "The beauty of the P-51, however, was that they cost little more than half as much as a P-47, and, used less fuel per mission. And, were easier to fly. Cheap and cheerful, and pretty to boot!" Cost was never a factor. Range was. If you read Hap Arnold's letter to his Chief of Staff Gen. Barney Giles from August, 1943, he makes no mention of cost. In fact, Arnold actually says he doesn't care if they develop a whole new aircraft as long as it does the job in six months. In other words, cost was not a factor. By the time the -M actually arrived in service, 56 had been on Mustangs for months. If you want more on the comparative performance of the P-47 and P-51, it's pretty easy to find. Google 'WW2 aircraft performance'. Remember though that the comparative data is for British Thunderbolt II and Mustang III types. The Thunderbolt II was the rough equivalent of the P-47D-25, while the Mustang III was, in effect, a P-51C with the Malcolm hood but without the 85 gallon fuselage tank behind the pilot, so the range performance is very different. But by every other metric, the Mustang was the better aircraft.
    1
  620.  @bobh1208  "Oh, and if you want a better researched argument about Eric Brown's Mach number than I can provide to respond to, try searching "P-47 part 8" and "part 7" on YouTube, before bothering to respond." Greg is a poor source on this because he gives a necessarily incomplete picture. Greg doesn't read history and prefers cherry-picking his information to bolster his argument. That's a useful debating technique but completely at odds with historical research methods (honest/ethical ones, anyway). I have already argued with Greg on some of his rose tinted optimism and he backed down. Then he deleted my comments. By the way, it might interest you to know that in terms of dive performance, the Hawker Tempest had the best dive performance by some margin (the Mk V was good but the Mk II was even better). This can be found in Sqn Ldr Wade's post war testing and comes, in part, as a result of a more advanced wing section, which had a lot more in common with the P-51 than with the P-47. Information on that can be found on Airfoil Tools website.
    1
  621. All of the early P-47 missions were on the north coast of the Continent. The P-51 missions went way into Germany.
    1
  622.  @jacktattis  That’s not accurate.
    1
  623.  @SubParFlyFisher  The P-47 could not reach Berlin from England. Even during ‘Big Week’, only a small number of aircraft - maybe 20% - could get beyond the Dutch border and even they couldn’t get to Magdeburg. This was because the P-47 lacked the necessary plumbing to carry underwing tanks. Those that did had to be modified in the field and Republic didn’t make it a line mod until late in the year, by which time the matter was settled and P-47s were being replaced with P-51s. Drop tanks could not solve the range problems of the P-47. They are a band aid solution. It needed greater internal fuel capacity and that didn’t arrive until the -N model, which didn’t see service in the ETO. Anyone who claims the P-47 flew to Berlin before D-Day is talking out of their arse. This is quite easy to prove.
    1
  624. The P-47 flew around 423,000 missions in Europe. Its pilots destroyed around 3,000 EA in air to air and a similar number on the ground. The P-51 flew about 213,000 missions in that theatre and accounted for 4,900 EA destroyed in the air and 4,000 on the ground. There were approximately 3,000 P-47s lost and approximately 2,500 P-51s. This higher loss rate is offset by the fact that the P-51 spent a lot more of its time in hostile airspace than the P-47. In half the number of missions, the P-51 destroyed 50% more aircraft than the P-47. The closer you look at USAAF figures, the clearer it becomes. The Mustang was the better fighter and arguably no less survivable.
    1
  625.  @jacktattis  These are USAAF figures for Europe.
    1
  626.  @jacktattis  Not really. In science they say that outrageous claims require an outrageous amount of proof. The USAAF figures I’m quoting come from ’America’s Hundred Thousand’, by Francis Dean. The idea that the USAAF would make an simple accounting error like that and not correct it challenges credulity. Just like the idea that the USAAF senior commanders - AKA: the ‘Bomber Mafia’ - would deliberately sacrifice thousands of young men’s lives in their rigid adherence to ‘doctrine’, or that there was a concerted campaign by these men to nobble the P-47, some claims need more and better proof than others. The P-47 was much more widely used in other theatres, while the P-51 was not. For the entire war, I think the P-47 flew something like 746,000 sorties and accounted for something like 4,200 but I am talking about the NW European theatre. But even if your figures are correct - and I’m not saying they are - 3,200 is still more than 3,000 and from half the number of missions. That would still make the Mustang twice as effective as the P-47.
    1
  627.  @jacktattis  No, not really. There’s a saying in science that outrageous claims need an outrageous amount of proof. The figures I quoted came from the USAAF, via ’Americas Hundred Thousand’, by Francis Dean. The idea that the USAAF could have made such a simple accounting error and failed to correct it stretches credulity more than a bit.
    1
  628.  @jacktattis  By the way, 3,200 is still more than 3,000 and in half the number of missions. The total of 4,200 for the P-47 includes all fronts. I am just talking about North Western Europe. On that basis, even using your figures, the Mustang was still twice as effective as the P-47.
    1
  629.  @jacktattis  YouTube is deleting all my comments again.
    1
  630. More likely the other way round. This comes from Dean's 'America's Hundred Thousand'. P-47 Thunderbolt Sorties: 423,435 Combat Losses: 3,077  Air Kills: 3,082 Ground Kills: 3,202 Total: 6,284 Loss % per sortie: 0.73% Combat exchange: 2.04 P-51 Mustang Sorties: 213,873 Combat losses: 2,520 Air Kills: 4,950 Ground Kills: 4,131 Total: 9,081 Loss % per sortie: 1.18% Combat exchange: 3.60
    1
  631. The kill ratio stats totally favour the P-51. By the end of the war the P-51 had shot down 1.6 times as many aircraft as the P-47 and destroyer 30% more ground targets in literally half the number of missions. The P-47 exchange rate was 2.04 vs the P-51 at 3.60. When you look deeper you find that the P-47 wasn't even in the same postcode as the P-51. The Pilots knew it, the commanders knew it and the Germans knew it.
    1
  632.  @ScoopsTVtools  Already shown you the facts of range, with citations. The P-47 with one 108 gallon tank could not get past the Dutch border. A P-47 with two 108 gallon tanks couldn’t escort bombers past Magdeburg. This was 100% Republic’s fault for not giving the P-47 enough internal fuel. I don’t need to talk about laminar flow but it’s no lie. You have nothing. The only things you can quote are freak incidents/accidents. You can’t even provide a photograph.
    1
  633.  @ScoopsTVtools  LOL!! Government propaganda? Conspiracy at work! Communists under the bed! Baby eating liberals! Make the nasty man go away! Can’t you do any better? LOL!! I can back up everything I say, kid. You can’t.
    1
  634.  @ScoopsTVtools  Greg? LOL! Boy, do you get sucked in easily. I can back up everything I say. Much of what Greg says is conjecture. He also deletes comments he doesn’t like. These examples of making the facts fit the story are not history and a smart person doesn’t get fooled by that stuff. Greg doesn’t count. For a start, he never quotes operational examples. Prove me wrong. If you think my maths are wrong then prove it. Crickets.
    1
  635.  @ScoopsTVtools  ‘Guvmint propaganda’… LULZ! I’d call that a white flag. That tells me everything I need to know about you, Mr Gulla Bill.
    1
  636.  @ScoopsTVtools  No lies here, kid. All verifiable through the sources I cited.
    1
  637.  @ScoopsTVtools  Prove me wrong, with specifics or shut up.
    1
  638.  @ScoopsTVtools  You clearly don’t know what survivor bias is. You’re better off not saying anything. There’s an old saying that it’s better to be thought a fool than to say something and remove all doubt. ‘Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not.’ -Wikipedia
    1
  639.  @ScoopsTVtools  The P-51 went far deeper into hostile territory than the P-47 and spent a lot more of its mission there. Survivor bias absolutely is a factor. You should research this. You should also learn how to use a spell checker. As you get angrier, your posts get more difficult to decode and I have very limited interest in that.
    1
  640.  @ScoopsTVtools  Conjecture is forming an opinion based on guesswork. That’s what Greg is doing. His information is necessarily incomplete because he only includes theoretical data and doesn’t include operational information so he jumps to conclusions that are not supported by history. An example of this can be found in tank forums. It was assumed that it would take five Sherman’s to defeat one Tiger (this itself is inaccurate) so everyone says the tactic was to sacrifice four tanks so one could sneak around behind the Tiger and destroy it. Anyone who knows anything about it knows this didn’t happen. Greg’s equivalent of this is that because something was theoretically possible then it should have happened. He does this with range performance and he does it with combat statistics. But because Greg hasn’t read any operational history, his whole case is built on a series of ‘Hail Mary’ conclusions. At least one historian has challenged him to a debate. It was supposed to happen this month but Greg is apparently being evasive about it. My bet is that he will wave off, citing vapours or intestinal gas or something.
    1
  641.  @ScoopsTVtools  "His use of contemporary primary sources that directly contradict what you have said is all I'm interested in ." All his sources are technical and many are simply theoretical. Furthermore, he quotes no operational information, like what happened in the Ste Nazaire raids or the disastrous week that led up to the second Schweinfurt raid. He doesn't even mention 'Big Week' that I can recall. It's all 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' conjecture. Do you know what conjecture means? In his case, it's taking a leap of faith, based on incredibly narrow information. Geekery gone mad. And all you're doing is following along with all the other sheep. "The fact that you think the Usaaf website is some sort of primary source 80 after is silly .it's not even a secondary source ,it's circling." LOL!! The fact that you think I was referring to a website - despite all the references I quoted - gives me an amazing insight into how much you actually took in. Did you even read my responses? The only website I quoted was Wikipedia, for a broad definition of survivor bias. More to the point, I have provided multiple references. You have provided none. So it's hypocrisy to criticise me on referencing. Watching YouTube videos doesn't count, especially when the person who makes them is so clearly biased towards the P-47 and against the P-51 that he's got you believing in conspiracy theories ('government propaganda' was the term you used). Yet that same source provides no historical examples. I provided several, from the balance sheet to the operational. Your hero doesn't do this. "You said 1.2% per vs .7 per is negligible is stupid" Not when you're talking about German casualties that were ten times that. During 'Big Week' the Germans lost something like 30% of their fighter force. Furthermore, as I already pointed out, the P-47 couldn't actually fly far enough to engage with the Germans is a pretty fair indicator. Of course you're not going to lose many aircraft if you can't get to the combat area! But the P-47s might as well have stayed in England for all the good they did as an escort! The fact that you rounded the P-51 figure up and the P_47 figure down in the hope that I wouldn't notice it is stupid. If you're going to do this, be consistent. the real figures are 0.73 and 1.18. In any event, it's easily explained by survivor bias. "You didn't even know the word rugged and you're trying to talk about airplanes ...silly" 'Rugged' refers to terrain or topography. It's not a new manly word for strong. It came from misappropriation by the US advertising industry in the 1990s. Don't expect me to follow suit. "You misunderstand and mis apply survivor bias" I gave you a definition of survivor bias. Somehow you still struggle with this. Survivor bias is what happens when you ignore the ones that didn't make it home. I have already illustrated this. But you want to pretend that it only applies to a tiny, narrow section of research. Survivor bias has been used to describe a near infinite number of applications, from company failures to Darwin's theory. So if anyone here doesn't understand survivor bias, it isn't me. It's you. Go to the Wikipedia page and read some of the examples. And just because it was famously applied to one particular aspect of aviation, that doesn't mean it can't be applied to others (see 'P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force' by James William Marshall, Lowell F. Ford and Robert W. Gruenhagen). "You think that wings coming off of planes from g force is freak and rare , it still happens to this day ." LOL!! Then why would anyone fly? LOL!! Do you realise what you're saying? Lemme guess: it happens all the time but it never gets reported... LOL!! North American fixed that wing problem. I don't care how many wing spars it used. That tells me nothing. "You think that a radial engine losing a cylinder is serious damage" As a former pilot, I can tell you that losing a cylinder absolutely IS serious damage. The only option is to land immediately. But in wartime, of course, that isn't always practical. The fact that you think it's no big deal tells me how ignorant you are of these things. After the impact, the first thing that happens is that oil pressure drops. The next thing that happens is that all the oil falls out. An engine like a Merlin can survive up to 15 minutes without coolant - if you baby it. No engine can survive more than a few minutes without lubricant. The engine will simply seize. If you want to see this in a modern application, there is a YouTube channel called 'I Do Cars', which is a mechanic tearing down car engines that have failed/seized. Ninety percent of those failures are due to lubrication problems. Nobody who knows anything about aviation could possibly believe that losing cylinders is 'no big deal'. This is utterly delusional. And where are the pictures of P-47s with R-2800s with missing cylinders? You certainly can't provide any. You equally did not provide the 'report' you claim exists that showed it was 'no big deal'. Could it be that surviving such an event was actually incredibly rare? Yet according to you, it happened all the time and was 'no big deal'. Where are the pictures of missing cylinders? Any single engine fighter suffering the loss of a cylinder is unlikely to make it home, other than by the freakiest of chances. But according to P-47 fanbois, despite ZERO evidence, it happened all the time and was 'no big deal'. You actually said this! You have no idea what you're talking about. You really don't. "You stated "that problem is fixed " in response to the 47 having 3 wing spars compared to the 51s 2 ...silly" That's nothing more than useless information in the context of this. What I said was that North American fixed their problem. I made no comment about wing spars. "You're obviously a young man so I don't want to be too hard on you but ...damn" Interesting coming from someone who places so much faith in one YouTuber who tells you what you want to hear. Interesting coming from someone whose only response is to flap critical things away as unimportant when they don't confirm your personal prejudices. Interesting coming from someone who has clearly read no history and flaps away anything he doesn't agree with as 'government propaganda'. No son, I have been reading about this stuff for almost half a century. And I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I still read. I used to fly too. I've been around aviation almost my entire life. I've seen a belly landed P-51 up close. I grew up surrounded by fighter pilots. I shook Galland's hand. You have no idea how I came to be of this opinion, the path I took and the information I uncovered by myself. That much should be obvious. The P-47 wasn't in the same post code as the P-51. The P-51 shot down 60% more German aircraft and destroyed 30% more ground targets in half the number of missions. Its exchange rate (including losses of all types from combat to taxiing) was 3.60 to 2.04 for the P-47. It was more than twice as likely to see combat because it took the fight to Germany. It didn't just stop at the boundary fence like the P-47 did. No fighter did more to defeat the Luftwaffe than the P-51. All your 'interesting facts' cannot change that. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  642.  @ScoopsTVtools  Let me ask you this: why was the loss percentage higher for the P-51? I'm not asking anything about the P-47. That wouldn't answer the question. I'm asking for specific information about the P-51. Why was the rate of loss higher? Answer me that.
    1
  643.  @ScoopsTVtools  Why is it silly? You’re going to get a lot wetter if you jump into a pool than you will just dipping your toe in, no matter how many toes you have. The P-51 scored 30% more ground kills than the P-47. And the P-47 rarely faced the amount of Flak the P-51 encountered over Germany. That’s why the amount of time the P-51 spent in hostile airspace matters. It should be obvious. And that’s why survivor bias matters.
    1
  644.  @ScoopsTVtools  The -D-25 couldn’t get to Berlin. It only had 305 gallons of internal fuel. It was not until the 370 gallon variant that the P-47 could get to places like Leipzig. By then it was too late and the P-51 had established ascendancy. By that time the USAAF also had bases in mainland Europe so range was less important than it had been. Republic must take the lion’s share of responsibility for the P-47’s lack of range. By early 1944, the P-51 was already flying all the way to Berlin and back and the P-38 could get within about 30 nm in escort mode (theoretical maximum range is useless in this case). It would be another six months before the P-47 could get past Magdeburg. That meant the P-51 was the only allied fighter that could do deep penetration missions to every part of Germany.
    1
  645.  @ScoopsTVtools  By 1944 the USAAF had largely given up on the Thunderbolt. They were taken off escort duties and given wholesale to the 9th AF. Only the 56th FG remained. The P-51 was a better design than the P-47, being half a generation ahead in most departments. Its results speak louder than a grab bag of hyperbole and ‘interesting facts’ ever could. I am a Mosquito and F6F fanboi but I recognise their shortcomings. I learnt about the P-51 when I read what the Germans said about it. They don’t talk about the P-47, let alone fear it, as has been claimed by fanbois. Most didn’t ‘fear’ any one fighter type. But they talk about two types: the Mosquito and the Mustang. This claim that it was a ‘cookie cutter’, cheap solution, compared to a higher quality alternative is nonsense. Do you know what’s involved in building a laminar flow wing? The memoirs of pilots like Richard Turner give the lie to your claim. You should read them. P-51 pilots knew they had a great aircraft. I’m not going to talk about its shortcomings here because you’re not interested in nuance but those shortcomings were vastly outweighed by its advantages. North American listened to their customers and delivered. Big time. And the stats prove it time and time again.
    1
  646. By early 1944, the USAAF had largely given up on the Thunderbolt as an escort fighter. It simply did not have the necessary internal fuel capacity for the 8th Air Force to prosecute its strategic bombing campaign. That’s why they were handed over wholesale to the 9th Air Force. The idea that the P-51 was a cheap ‘cookie cutter’ version chosen over a better aircraft is absurd. The P-51 was half a generation ahead of the P-47. Do you know what’s required to build a laminar flow wing? If anything, the P-51 was built to higher standards than the P-47. And North American were far more responsive to USAAF needs than Republic. But in the end the figures tell the story and that story says the P-51 did more than any other to defeat the Luftwaffe. I’m a Mosquito and F6F fanboi. I recognise their shortcomings. I came to the conclusions I did because I read about the USAAF campaign against Germany. I also read about the German opinions of the P-51. They don’t talk much about the P-47, much less fear it, as the fanbois would have me believe. They feared altitude, numbers and attacks out of the sun. But their comments about the P-51 are near-universal. Pilot memoirs, RLM reports and unit histories, the few that I’ve read, talk mostly about the Mustang and again, the figures show they are right. ‘We had nothing of the same effort’, said Werner Schroer (114 kills) in an interview about the P-51 for ‘The World at War’. ‘They really frightened us quite a bit.’
    1
  647.  @ScoopsTVtools  The 370 gallon tanks came later. The first -D-25 didn’t go into service until May, by which time they were too late. Republic were way too slow to respond. It’s not me who blamed them. Gen. George Kenney was known to be furious with Republic because they compromised his air campaign in the Pacific. All the other manufacturers responded to Materiel Command’s urging for greater internal capacity. Republic were deaf.
    1
  648.  @ScoopsTVtools  Why is it wrong? Paddle props? Ferry tanks? Missing cylinders? Liquid cooled death traps? You can’t just keep saying something is wrong without providing evidence, as I have done. How many more references do I have to provide before you get this? It’s not me making that judgement. It was the Germans. And they’d know because they got their lumps.
    1
  649.  @ScoopsTVtools  How is my last point wrong when I’m directly quoting Werner Schroer? Are you saying he didn’t know what he was talking about?
    1
  650.  @ScoopsTVtools  YouTube is deleting my replies again.
    1
  651.  @ScoopsTVtools  YouTube is deleting my replies. Crappiest website on the planet.
    1
  652.  @ScoopsTVtools  Why don’t you read about suvivor bias instead of mis applying it? You’re using such a narrow definition that you’re making yourself look silly.
    1
  653.  @ScoopsTVtools  ”you 1.8 vs .7 comment triggered me though , I just don’t have the time for this stuff” Cute. Still getting those figures wrong and always to advantage the P-47. The correct figures are 0.73 and 1.18. If you’re going to make comments critical and downright dismissive of what I’m saying then it is absolutely your responsibility to make time to find this out and post accurate and verifiable references. Otherwise you just look like you’re running away. P-47 exchange rate = 2.04 P-51 exchange rate = 3.60 I also suggest you look at ‘Our Might Always’, by James William Marshall. He shows how the 355th destroyed 493 for the loss of 86 in strafing (5.5:1) while having destroyed 8 for the loss of 4 when using the P-47. When the 78th was equipped with P-47s they scored 152 kills against 51 losses for a ratio of 3:1 but with P-51s they got 190.5 for 32 for a ratio of 5.9:1 and that was against heavier Flak defences, deeper in Germany. So, in fact, many Mustang groups showed that they were perfectly capable of super dangerous strafing missions, irrespective of liquid cooling or perceived structural strength. Again, a perfect example of the P-51 taking the fight to the Germans, rather than P-47 fanbois looking over the fence and saying ‘my favourite plane’ could have done it better. Greg has none of this.
    1
  654.  @ScoopsTVtools  You can prefer the P-47 to your heart’s content. But this is not about which aircraft you like better or I’d be talking about Mosquitoes, F6Fs and Yaks.
    1
  655.  @ScoopsTVtools  Oh? And what point would that be? That your wife is annoyed?
    1
  656.  @ScoopsTVtools  Here's something else for you to chew on. The 355th Fighter Group had the highest number of ground kills for the entire USAAF. With the P-47, they destroyed 8 for the loss of 4. With the P-51 they destroyed 493 for the loss of 85. That's a K/D of 5.5:1. The 56th FG had 320 destroyed for 50 lost, yielding 6.4:1. When the 78th FG had the P-47 it destroyed 152 and lost 51 for a K/D of 3:1. With the P-51, the 78th destroyed 190.5 and lost 32 lost, yielding a KA/D of 5.9:1. So the P-51 was no more vulnerable in ground attack mode than the P-47. Pilots were more worried about flying into the ground or copping a packet from a 37mm than they were about the deadly 'stray bullet in the cooling system and it's all over.' We know this because they tell us. They weren't worried about their coolant draining away when they might meet a sudden and dramatic demise in the next couple of seconds. These figures are from my direct correspondence with author James William Marshall.
    1
  657.  @ScoopsTVtools  "you're missing the point again" This is bullshit. I sit here posting verified information from rock-solid references and all you do is say it doesn't matter and post nothing in return except conjecture and worn out tropes. . Where the blazes are your references? Come on, cough up. You can't just keep throwing bananas out of your cage and honestly believe you're making any points. Every time I post a verifiable source, your only response is that I'm doing it wrong or something equally facile. The truth is you've got nothing. I'd say your only reference is Greg and your personal preference for the P-47. That's all you've got, isn't it? and I know this because you keep bringing it up. You haven't done the reading or research I've done.
    1
  658.  @ScoopsTVtools  Not an answer.
    1
  659.  @ScoopsTVtools  Here's something else for you to chew on. The 355th Fighter Group had the highest number of ground kills for the entire USAAF. With the P-47, they destroyed 8 for the loss of 4. With the P-51 they destroyed 493 for the loss of 85. That's a K/D of 5.5:1. The 56th FG had 320 destroyed for 50 lost, yielding 6.4:1. When the 78th FG had the P-47 it destroyed 152 and lost 51 for a K/D of 3:1. With the P-51, the 78th destroyed 190.5 and lost 32 lost, yielding a KA/D of 5.9:1. So the P-51 was no more vulnerable in ground attack mode than the P-47. Pilots were more worried about flying into the ground or copping a packet from a 37mm than they were about the deadly 'stray bullet in the cooling system and it's all over.' We know this because they tell us. They weren't worried about their coolant draining away when they might meet a sudden and dramatic demise in the next couple of seconds. These figures are from my direct correspondence with author James William Marshall. When you can produce high quality information like this, then you can laugh.
    1
  660.  @ScoopsTVtools  Here's something else for you to chew on. The 355th Fighter Group had the highest number of ground kills for the entire USAAF. With the P-47, they destroyed 8 for the loss of 4. With the P-51 they destroyed 493 for the loss of 85. That's a K/D of 5.5:1. The 56th FG had 320 destroyed for 50 lost, yielding 6.4:1. When the 78th FG had the P-47 it destroyed 152 and lost 51 for a K/D of 3:1. With the P-51, the 78th destroyed 190.5 and lost 32 lost, yielding a KA/D of 5.9:1. So the P-51 was no more vulnerable in ground attack mode than the P-47. Pilots were more worried about flying into the ground or copping a packet from a 37mm than they were about the deadly 'stray bullet in the cooling system and it's all over.' We know this because they tell us. They weren't worried about their coolant draining away when they might meet a sudden and dramatic demise in the next couple of seconds. These figures are from my direct correspondence with author James William Marshall.
    1
  661.  @ScoopsTVtools  Here's something else for you to chew on. The 355th Fighter Group had the highest number of ground kills for the entire USAAF. With the P-47, they destroyed 8 for the loss of 4. With the P-51 they destroyed 493 for the loss of 85. That's a K/D of 5.5:1. The 56th FG had 320 destroyed for 50 lost, yielding 6.4:1. When the 78th FG had the P-47 it destroyed 152 and lost 51 for a K/D of 3:1. With the P-51, the 78th destroyed 190.5 and lost 32 lost, yielding a KA/D of 5.9:1. So the P-51 was no more vulnerable in ground attack mode than the P-47. Pilots were more worried about flying into the ground or copping a packet from a 37mm than they were about the deadly 'stray bullet in the cooling system and it's all over.' We know this because they tell us. They weren't worried about their coolant draining away when they might meet a sudden and dramatic demise in the next couple of seconds. These figures are from my direct correspondence with author James William Marshall.
    1
  662.  @ScoopsTVtools  Here's something else for you to chew on. The 355th Fighter Group had the highest number of ground kills for the entire USAAF. With the P-47, they destroyed 8 for the loss of 4. With the P-51 they destroyed 493 for the loss of 85. That's a K/D of 5.5:1. The 56th FG had 320 destroyed for 50 lost, yielding 6.4:1. When the 78th FG had the P-47 it destroyed 152 and lost 51 for a K/D of 3:1. With the P-51, the 78th destroyed 190.5 and lost 32 lost, yielding a KA/D of 5.9:1. So the P-51 was no more vulnerable in ground attack mode than the P-47. Pilots were more worried about flying into the ground or copping a packet from a 37mm than they were about the deadly 'stray bullet in the cooling system and it's all over.' We know this because they tell us. They weren't worried about their coolant draining away when they might meet a sudden and dramatic demise in the next couple of seconds. These figures are from my direct correspondence with author James William Marshall.
    1
  663.  @ScoopsTVtools  Here's something else for you to chew on. The 355th Fighter Group had the highest number of ground kills for the entire USAAF. With the P-47, they destroyed 8 for the loss of 4. With the P-51 they destroyed 493 for the loss of 85. That's a K/D of 5.5:1. The 56th FG had 320 destroyed for 50 lost, yielding 6.4:1. When the 78th FG had the P-47 it destroyed 152 and lost 51 for a K/D of 3:1. With the P-51, the 78th destroyed 190.5 and lost 32 lost, yielding a KA/D of 5.9:1. So the P-51 was no more vulnerable in ground attack mode than the P-47. Pilots were more worried about flying into the ground or copping a packet from a 37mm than they were about the deadly 'stray bullet in the cooling system and it's all over.' We know this because they tell us. They weren't worried about their coolant draining away when they might meet a sudden and dramatic demise in the next couple of seconds. These figures are from my direct correspondence with author James William Marshall.
    1
  664.  @ScoopsTVtools  Here's something else for you to chew on. The 355th Fighter Group had the highest number of ground kills for the entire USAAF. With the P-47, they destroyed 8 for the loss of 4. With the P-51 they destroyed 493 for the loss of 85. That's a K/D of 5.5:1. The 56th FG had 320 destroyed for 50 lost, yielding 6.4:1. When the 78th FG had the P-47 it destroyed 152 and lost 51 for a K/D of 3:1. With the P-51, the 78th destroyed 190.5 and lost 32 lost, yielding a KA/D of 5.9:1. So the P-51 was no more vulnerable in ground attack mode than the P-47. Pilots were more worried about flying into the ground or copping a packet from a 37mm than they were about the deadly 'stray bullet in the cooling system and it's all over.' We know this because they tell us. They weren't worried about their coolant draining away when they might meet a sudden and dramatic demise in the next couple of seconds. These figures are from my direct correspondence with author James William Marshall.
    1
  665.  @ScoopsTVtools  Here's something else for you to chew on. The 355th Fighter Group had the highest number of ground kills for the entire USAAF. With the P-47, they destroyed 8 for the loss of 4. With the P-51 they destroyed 493 for the loss of 85. That's a K/D of 5.5:1. The 56th FG had 320 destroyed for 50 lost, yielding 6.4:1. When the 78th FG had the P-47 it destroyed 152 and lost 51 for a K/D of 3:1. With the P-51, the 78th destroyed 190.5 and lost 32 lost, yielding a KA/D of 5.9:1. So the P-51 was no more vulnerable in ground attack mode than the P-47. Pilots were more worried about flying into the ground or copping a packet from a 37mm than they were about the deadly 'stray bullet in the cooling system and it's all over.' We know this because they tell us. They weren't worried about their coolant draining away when they might meet a sudden and dramatic demise in the next couple of seconds. These figures are from my direct correspondence with author James William Marshall.
    1
  666.  @ScoopsTVtools  Here's something else for you to chew on. The 355th Fighter Group had the highest number of ground kills for the entire USAAF. With the P-47, they destroyed 8 for the loss of 4. With the P-51 they destroyed 493 for the loss of 85. That's a K/D of 5.5:1. The 56th FG had 320 destroyed for 50 lost, yielding 6.4:1. When the 78th FG had the P-47 it destroyed 152 and lost 51 for a K/D of 3:1. With the P-51, the 78th destroyed 190.5 and lost 32 lost, yielding a KA/D of 5.9:1. So the P-51 was no more vulnerable in ground attack mode than the P-47. Pilots were more worried about flying into the ground or copping a packet from a 37mm than they were about the deadly 'stray bullet in the cooling system and it's all over.' We know this because they tell us. They weren't worried about their coolant draining away when they might meet a sudden and dramatic demise in the next couple of seconds. These figures are from my direct correspondence with author James William Marshall.
    1
  667.  @ScoopsTVtools  Here's something else for you to chew on. The 355th Fighter Group had the highest number of ground kills for the entire USAAF. With the P-47, they destroyed 8 for the loss of 4. With the P-51 they destroyed 493 for the loss of 85. That's a K/D of 5.5:1. The 56th FG had 320 destroyed for 50 lost, yielding 6.4:1. When the 78th FG had the P-47 it destroyed 152 and lost 51 for a K/D of 3:1. With the P-51, the 78th destroyed 190.5 and lost 32 lost, yielding a KA/D of 5.9:1. So the P-51 was no more vulnerable in ground attack mode than the P-47. Pilots were more worried about flying into the ground or copping a packet from a 37mm than they were about the deadly 'stray bullet in the cooling system and it's all over.' We know this because they tell us. They weren't worried about their coolant draining away when they might meet a sudden and dramatic demise in the next couple of seconds. These figures are from my direct correspondence with author James William Marshall.
    1
  668.  @ScoopsTVtools  Here's something else for you to chew on. The 355th Fighter Group had the highest number of ground kills for the entire USAAF. With the P-47, they destroyed 8 for the loss of 4. With the P-51 they destroyed 493 for the loss of 85. That's a K/D of 5.5:1. The 56th FG had 320 destroyed for 50 lost, yielding 6.4:1. When the 78th FG had the P-47 it destroyed 152 and lost 51 for a K/D of 3:1. With the P-51, the 78th destroyed 190.5 and lost 32 lost, yielding a KA/D of 5.9:1. So the P-51 was no more vulnerable in ground attack mode than the P-47. Pilots were more worried about flying into the ground or copping a packet from a 37mm than they were about the deadly 'stray bullet in the cooling system and it's all over.' We know this because they tell us. They weren't worried about their coolant draining away when they might meet a sudden and dramatic demise in the next couple of seconds. These figures are from my direct correspondence with author James William Marshall.
    1
  669.  @ScoopsTVtools  Here's something else for you to chew on. The 355th Fighter Group had the highest number of ground kills for the entire USAAF. With the P-47, they destroyed 8 for the loss of 4. With the P-51 they destroyed 493 for the loss of 85. That's a K/D of 5.5:1. The 56th FG had 320 destroyed for 50 lost, yielding 6.4:1. When the 78th FG had the P-47 it destroyed 152 and lost 51 for a K/D of 3:1. With the P-51, the 78th destroyed 190.5 and lost 32 lost, yielding a KA/D of 5.9:1. So the P-51 was no more vulnerable in ground attack mode than the P-47. Pilots were more worried about flying into the ground or copping a packet from a 37mm than they were about the deadly 'stray bullet in the cooling system and it's all over.' We know this because they tell us. They weren't worried about their coolant draining away when they might meet a sudden and dramatic demise in the next couple of seconds. These figures are from my direct correspondence with author James William Marshall.
    1
  670. ​Here's something else for you to chew on. The 355th Fighter Group had the highest number of ground kills for the entire USAAF. With the P-47, they destroyed 8 for the loss of 4. With the P-51 they destroyed 493 for the loss of 85. That's a K/D of 5.5:1. The 56th FG had 320 destroyed for 50 lost, yielding 6.4:1. When the 78th FG had the P-47 it destroyed 152 and lost 51 for a K/D of 3:1. With the P-51, the 78th destroyed 190.5 and lost 32 lost, yielding a KA/D of 5.9:1. So the P-51 was no more vulnerable in ground attack mode than the P-47. Pilots were more worried about flying into the ground or copping a packet from a 37mm than they were about the deadly 'stray bullet in the cooling system and it's all over.' We know this because they tell us. They weren't worried about their coolant draining away when they might meet a sudden and dramatic demise in the next couple of seconds. These figures are from my direct correspondence with author James William Marshall. When you can produce high quality data like that, then maybe you can 'LOL'. @ScoopsTVtools ​
    1
  671. This is straight from 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles'. It's simply not true. The Luftwaffe probably peaked in 1940/41 and it was all down hill from there. On top of that, plenty of German Experten met their maker on the Eastern Front and in the Mediterranean. Many had already been hacked down in combat with the RAF. The only time the USAAF sent fighters to smash the Luftwaffe in a battle of attrition was during 'Big Week' in February, 1944. Greg is big on documents and charts and small on history. It doesn't take a lot of research to show he's full of it. Read Williamson Murray's book, 'Luftwaffe: Strategy for defeat, 1933-1945'. Murray goes way further into this than Greg's piss and vinegar. The P-47 could not go as far as the P-51. You need to do more research. Read about 'Mission 250', the first USAAF raid on Berlin. Even the small number of P-47s which had been fitted with extra tanks could get no further than a point north west of Magdeburg. The only Allied fighter over Berlin that day was the P-51.
    1
  672.  @pike100  "No, the Mustang wasn't a British plane." It was a British idea, designed by a German and with a British engine. But it was an American aircraft.
    1
  673.  @pike100  "Saying that the P-51 was a British idea is giving them way too much credit." The original P-51A bore next to no relationship to the pre-eminent escort fighter it became. If the British hadn't suggested putting a 60 series Merlin into it, it would have remained a so-so ground attack aircraft. But that's not what we think of when we talk about the P-51. It actually took USAAF high command quite a while to realise its potential.
    1
  674.  @IncogNito-gg6uh  Well, first of all, ’Thunderbolt!’ is perhaps not the most reliable of memoirs and was written from an end-user point of view rather than a strategic one. The technical differences between one aircraft and another, in this case, are not as important as is generally thought, since the American fighters pretty much always had the advantage of altitude. Altitude gives you the tactical initiative. Diving and particularly diving out of the sun, was a common way to exploit that advantage. Whether your supercharger is better or worse is not that important unless you’re starting on an even footing and that’s something fighter pilots try to avoid. ”We should remember the P-51s success was because they were mostly in the hands of former P-47 pilots whose groups were rapidly transitioning to it.” Not really. By April 1944, that transition had started but the P-51 was already scoring at a much greater rate than the P-47, often in the hands of new pilots. It was the fighter that took the fight to the Germans. There are many reasons the P-51 succeeded and pilot quality was only one of them. Tactical initiative and air superiority were others. But without range, the situation could not change and strategic bombing was not possible.
    1
  675.  @jacktattis  I don’t actually know what that means, Jack. I will consult my sources but I don’t intend to get into a major debate over minutiae. As far as supercharger performance is concerned, I’ve always been aware of that. I knew several Spitfire pilots in my youth and those who flew both types of Merlin were of that opinion. I don’t know why it was but it is an opinion that was widely shared among pilots. One guy I knew flew almost every marque from the Mk V on (I know he didn’t fly the MXII). The Mk XVI was the only one I know they flew that had the Packard. I’m sure someone will say I’m bullshitting but that’s their problem not mine.
    1
  676.  @jacktattis  The P-47 was replaced for a number of reasons. I doubt the RAE tests had much influence.
    1
  677.  @jacktattis  I suggest you consult ’Packard as an Aero Engine Builder: The Packard Merlin’, by Robert J. Neal. Just because the numbers are in sequence, it doesn’t automatically mean that engineering practices change in accordance with that sequence.
    1
  678.  @jacktattis  Maybe you should read the document first.
    1
  679. "When it comes to kill ratio, I think you fail to take into account more seriously (although you do mention it) that the P47 was fighting for months against excellent Luftwaffe pilots (like the "Abbeville Kids") before the P51 was introduced into the ETO." Straight from Greg's disinformation channel. First of all, if you bother to read books, the Luftwaffe probably peaked in 1941, just before Barbarossa. In 1943, the USAAF shot down 451 German aircraft in Western Europe. Of those, the P-47 got 414 and the rest were shot down by P-38s and Eagle Squadron Spitfires. To put that into perspective, the Luftwaffe lost 22,000 aircraft that year. So you're looking at less than 2% for the P-47. Secondly, by the middle of 1943, the average Luftwaffe pilot had 110-120 hours total, with 10-15 on type. The average American had 600+, with at least 50-100 on type. P-38 pilots had 400. Furthermore, if you look at the Luftwaffe response on 17 August (Schweinfurt-Regensburg raids), about 15% were night fighters. These slow and unmanoeuvrable twins would have been easy meat for any escorts. There were Bf-110s, Ju-88s and even a Do-17, which was probably the least useful German night fighter. On 6 March, 1944 - the first major raid on Berlin - the Luftwaffe put up a similar force but on that occasions, they got seven colours of shit shot out of them. Yo can read about the first in Marin Middlebrook's 'The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission' and 'Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March, 1944', by Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price. Furthermore, there never was a unit called the 'Abbeville Boys'. They were a rumour started by the RAF. Any Bf-109 with a yellow nose was assumed to be part of an elite unit they nicknamed' the Abbeville Boys'. But lots of units used yellow for identification and it eventually faded out of use. It had nothing to do with the P-47. See Middlebrook.
    1
  680.  @bradschaeffer5736  Why did you post if not to show your knowledge? You started this thread. This sounds a bit like ‘I never said’. Why did you bring up the ‘Abbeville Boys’ then? What were we supposed to infer from it? Especially when you linked it directly with the P-47. By late 1944/early 45, the Luftwaffe probably had been reduced to something like that level. But I’d suggest you read Pierre Clostermann’s version because he says - and he’s indisputably right - that there were still plenty of top pilots out there. He estimated that at the beginning of 1945, there were still 15-20% of the Luftwaffe who were top pilots. My point was that the rot had well and truly set in by the time the P-47 made its combat debut so the claim that it took on the Luftwaffe’s best pilots and beat them is drawing a very long bow. In fact, it just isn’t true. Don Blakeslee might have been the greatest fighter commander of the war. It’s a pity he never wrote a memoir. Now you say records don’t tell the story. So what are we to infer from that? That the records are junk? Because that’s already what a lot of people think. Any information I give out to correct the propaganda from Greg’s misinformation channel is invariably derided as ‘bomber mafia propaganda’, told to protect the government. Why should I ever accept that kind of dismissal, especially when I’ve done the research and the reading while everyone else gets to quote their favourite YouTuber? Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was held to an equal standard of proof?
    1
  681.  @bradschaeffer5736  The United States Strategic Bombing Survey is the source for the 22,000 German aircraft lost in 1943 but that’s not where I got it. I can’t remember off hand. I’m pretty sure it was either Frank Olynyk or Francis Dean, quoted somewhere else. I read so much stuff, it’s often hard to remember where I got it.
    1
  682.  @bradschaeffer5736  It only ‘doesn’t make sense’ if you’re trying to engineer a claim that the P-47 pilots faced better Luftwaffe pilots. My information is from the late Martin Middlebrook in his book, ’The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission’. By the time the P-47 arrived, Luftwaffe pilots were going into battle with 110-120 hours total and 10-15 on type, while the average American had 600+ hours. Those figures did not change appreciably throughout 1944. The figure of 22,000 in 1943 comes from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey but I got either from Frank Olynyk or Francis Dean. I can’t remember. It was quoted somewhere else. When you read as much as I do, it can sometimes be hard to remember the specific source but whoever it was, they were quoting the USSBS.
    1
  683.  @bradschaeffer5736  The comparisons between Hartmann and Johnson are pointless. Again, the ‘Abbeville Boys’ did not exist. They were a myth created by the RAF. Any Bf-109 with a yellow nose was thought to be from an elite unit they called the ‘Abbeville Boys’. In reality, lots of units used yellow noses for identification. There was no such unit and its disappearance from use had nothing to do with the P-47. Nobody can infer from this that a mythical unit disappeared when the P-47 arrived. Again, I recommend Middlebrook on this.
    1
  684.  @bradschaeffer5736  Of course I care. I care because someone has conned a lot of people into believing ‘alternative facts’ that are designed to engineer a claim that has very little going for it. I came into this a couple of years ago under the belief the P-47 was under appreciated. In fact, the P-47 belongs exactly where it’s always been and if anything, the P-51 is under appreciated. And for the record, the last day the P-47 out scored the P-51 was 18 March, 1944. That month the P-51 overtook the P-47 in number of kills. In April, the P-47 shot down 82 German aircraft while the P-51 shot down 329 and did it with literally half the number of aircraft. In other words, the P-51 was out scoring the P-47 at a rate of eight to one.
    1
  685.  @bradschaeffer5736  The P-47 didn’t immediately transfer to the GA role until later. In fact, if you look at the results from ‘Big Week’, you will see that the P-47 got 78 kills, compared to the P-51 with 64.5 and 10 for the P-38. From memory, there were about 160 P-51s, which suggests two fighter groups against about 600 P-47s. So even before the hand over to the ninth, the P-51 was easily out scoring the P-47 on a one-by-one basis. But according to you, this is torturing the numbers to say whatever I want. So what are your numbers? As for the 56th, this wasn’t exactly what it appeared to be. It’s never been clear why 56 kept their P-47s but ‘refusal’ is not in the lexicon of acceptable military responses. ’Well, we had P-47s that couldn’t go as far. P-51s could go much, much farther. I requested one time for P-51s and I was sent to the United States and during my absence, a man who became a general, a West Pointer, took my organisation over and was influence to take these P-47s back. Therefore, when I came back to the unit, it was determined in the program that they’d keep them. The airplane that was really the combat airplane was the P-51. I know it is.’ - Hub Zemke.
    1
  686.  @bradschaeffer5736  I have already acknowledged the disparity in training between Luftwaffe and US units. JG 26 were the Abbeville Boys? They might have painted their noses yellow but that’s drawing a long bow, to say the least of it. No one disputes the existence of JG 26 but that doesn’t mean every yellow nosed German fighter was from JG 26. That’s just a logical fallacy. The RAF started the rumour and the USAAF were happy to keep it going until the practice of painting noses yellow disappeared from use. It’s not my fixation. It’s the P-47 fanboi fixation. Why would I be fixated on something that didn’t exist? Just because they stopped appearing, it doesn’t follow that the P-47s shot them all down.
    1
  687.  @bradschaeffer5736  So the P-47 was so good, it shot down an entire unit that didn’t exist in the first place. Yeah, that’s impressive.
    1
  688.  @bradschaeffer5736  'The Allied pilots attempted to console themselves with the belief that they were opposed by the best of Germany's pilots, a hand picked Geschwader known variously as "Goering's yellow-nosed elite", the "Abbeville Boys" (later Americanised to "Abbeville Kids"), and the "St Omer Boys". The men of JG 26 were flattered and somewhat amused by these appellations when they heard them from captured Allied airmen.' - Donald L. Caldwell, 'JG 26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe', pp. 113-114.
    1
  689.  @bradschaeffer5736  I’ve already explained all of that.
    1
  690.  @bradschaeffer5736  "I'm confused. Are you saying the JG 26, stationed for a good period of its history at Abbeville-Drucat didn't exist?" I think I'll just laugh at this. "You think guys like Galland, Muencheberg and Priller knew this? Don't you admit this with the quote?" You missed the subtlety of the quote, didn't you? The quote said that Allied pilots consoled themselves with a series of beliefs. It says nothing more than that. "I do suggest you write a strongly worded letter then to Caldwell whom you quote whose third book just covering the daily missions of JG26 in 1941-42's very first sentence in the very first pgh of the very first page reads (and I did look this up just to make sure I wasn't losing my mind or being gaslighted) "Jadgeschwader 26 (JG 26), the 'Abbeville Kids' is the Luftwaffe fighter wing best known in the UK and USA."" Again, you missed it. He doesn't say the rumours were true. He says the Abbeville Boys and JG 26 were the best known unit. The fact that many people associated the rumours with one unit doesn't make everything true. "If you want to say JG26 didn't exist, by all means." I'm sorry but this is childish. You're trying really hard to not understand this and it's not working. 'This is a suitable place to dispose of an old legend. The Americans had often met German fighters, the Messerschmitt 109s, with yellow-painted nose sections and believed - as they still do - that these planes were from a select unit made up only of top German pilots. They were called 'the yellow-nosed Abbeville Boys' or the 'Abbeville Kids'. The legend was not a new one; the R.A.F. had been meeting these German fighters long before the Americans started fighting in Europe and R.A.F. pilots had handed the legend on to the Americans. It is now generally accepted that there was no such special unit. Several German units painted part or all of their nose sections for no other purpose than quick identification in combat. Yellow was just the most useful colour for this purpose. There was no such thing as the 'Abbeville Boys'.' - 'The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission', Martin Middlebrook, p.91. Maybe you'd better write a strongly worded letter to Mr Middlebrook. Oh wait... Your logic works like this: JG 26 used yellow identification on their noses, therefore any aircraft with a yellow nose belongs to JG 26. That goes with the joke: all cats have four legs. My dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat. "I never said THEY called themselves that." Back to 'I never said'... "And I'm not sure what your Big Week stat is meant to do other than to kind of prove my point." The old 'your point proves mine'... It's pretty clear what my point was. The P-51 on a one-to-one basis was outscoring the P-47 handsomely, even during 'Big Week'. Again, you'd have to be making an effort not to understand this. "The Jug, however, by then had drop tanks increasing its range enough in the interim to allow it to actually find and do combat with the Luftwaffe before having to turn back for home." Except that the P-47 had been using drop tanks for quite a while. There were some which had been field modified to carry under wing tanks - a long, slow process that required cutting metal (the P-47D-9 variant) but about 80% had not been so modified. The vast majority could only carry a centreline tank and with 256 gallons internally and 108 on the centreline pylon, they could barely cross the Dutch-German border. The others - those with 108 gallon tanks under the wings - could almost get to Magdeburg. Republic eventually made it a line modification (D-11) but they took their sweet time about it. Prior to the arrival of long range P-51s, the Luftwaffe could use its discretion about when to engage. Generally speaking, they waited until the fighters went home. Without the P-51, the Luftwaffe could decide when to engage. With the P-51, they had no choice. "And your own numbers show they did just as well if not better than the P51 in the combat role." 'My' numbers haven't shown anything of the sort. Please explain how my numbers show the P-47 was doing 'just as well if not better'. "You are MUCH more emotionally invested in this for some odd reason than I am. Fact: Neither you nor I have flown either of these aircraft (although I've flown small planes before nothing with the performance of a WW2 bird). Fact: There were plenty of WW2 pilots who loved the Jug and preferred it to the Mustang because they were much harder to shoot down...want to get the girls, fly a P51. Want to get home, fly a P47." Then why are you bringing unquantifiable and non-sequitur remarks into it? That remark about getting the girls v getting home is another post-war knock off. I doubt anyone said it. This is really clutching at straws. I'd only say something like that if the barrel was empty. "Corsair was better than both of them once you learned how to tame it." Oh dear. I'll let that one go, since it is of peripheral relevance. "Still curious how that 20,000 destroyed Luftwaffe aircraft in 1943 stat was arrived at. If from Allied reports in real time, don't bother. Every side in every theater usually grossly exaggerated the number of enemy destroyed." Then you look it up. I have already told you where it came from. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I have to give you figures that you like or they don't apply.
    1
  691.  @bradschaeffer5736  My only emotional involvement in this is a commitment to the best available version of the truth.
    1
  692.  @bradschaeffer5736  "Clearly that you would take the time to go line-by-line through a silly subject ("which was better" which is as much an OPINION as "fact") shows that you are truly and deeply emotionally invested in this thread I've already moved on from. So QED." 'Which was better'? No, I wasn't arguing that. Must have been you. "So get off Youtube and go write a book setting the record straight. If you need an agent or a publisher send me the finished draft called "FACT: Mustangs Were Better Than Thunderbolts Despite What Many Pilots Who Actually Flew Them In Combat (Unlike Me) Say" and I'll pitch it for you." How did you manage to get this so wrong and why are you suddenly so defensive about it? I was correcting historical errors and pointing out that many of the claims - some of which you echoed - for the P-47 are incorrect. I was not making a value judgement. As I said, the only thing I care about is the best available version of the truth. And that's where we differ. "Have a great day. Get outside." Oh, passive/aggressive? Never seen that before. "P.S. the "best" fighter plane was the one with a) the best pilot; b) the best position at the beginning of the dogfight; c) the one that employed the best air combat tactics. Turning radius, climb/dive rate, HP, firepower, snap roll, etc. help. But in the end it's the guy at the stick who will decide which is the "best" plane. That you rate your opinion (which is what it is) as "fact" shows a lack of understanding of the aspects of dogfighting despite your battery of raw data. If you haven't go get your pilot's license then come back. You may see it differently," I do. Interesting that you have taken all this to mean I was trying to justify a value judgement when all I was doing was looking for an objective truth. You don't find a lot of that in er... 'debates' about the P-47. I didn't start from a position that says, 'I think the P-XX is the coolest plane ever' and spent the rest of my time trying to prove it. I started, as I said, in the belief that the P-47 was under appreciated. But every objective account has show that the P-51 belongs where it always has been. My opinion doesn't matter. The 'best fighter' is decided by many things, quite a few of which you left out. I'll give you and example: 'everyone knows' the Spitfire was 'the best plane ever'. But anyone who has read an objective account of its performance in the defence of Darwin would know that it performed quite badly and it succeeded in spite of all of those things you mention, not because of them. Fighters are just the sharp end of an eco system and it pays to study it. I'm sure this is a complete mystery to you but I assure you it's all quite provable.
    1
  693.  @bradschaeffer5736  "Hey, if it matters that much to you, then I'll leave you to your devices. If you want to write a book called "FACT: The Mustang Was Better Than The Thunderbolt Even If Guys Who Flew Jugs In Combat (Unlike Me) Disagree Because, Well, What Do They Know Compared To Me" I'll be happy to forward the manuscript to my agent and publisher." Well, once again, you you're ignoring what I said. I wasn't here to prove 'the best' and I even gave you an example! "But all I'll say is the "best" plane in any dogfight is the one that is: A) Flown by the most skilled and experienced fighter jock; B) Gets the upper hand at the beginning of the fight (Richtofen claimed most of his victims never even saw him before he shot them down); C) Employing superior tactics/formations." Once again, ‘the best’ is coming from you, not me. If you're going to write a book, you need to realise that 1) 80% of victims never saw their attacker so dogfight capabilities are not often a factor and 2) no pilot ever goes into aerial combat with the intention of dogfighting, even to the extent of avoiding dangerous situations. They go in there with the intention of giving their opponent absolutely no chance. Furthermore, I added a specific example where virtually nothing of what you said applied. "Anyway, I REALLY don't care about this debate that has been raging for 80 years (and should be fun). You obviously do. So I'll leave you to stew in your own juices while I go outside. Enjoy. Next up: "FACT: Beethoven Was Better Than Mozart."" Just how old are you? Your obsession with 'the best' suggests that this is what you are doing and projecting it onto me. You started this thread with a moderately expansive post about the P-47 and when challenged, you accused me of airing my knowledge. Funny, because that was what you appeared to be doing. What is anyone to make of that (other than that it's consistent)? I think you’re having this polemical argument with yourself, not me.
    1
  694.  @bradschaeffer5736  You keep coming back for more, don’t you? I’d say it’s you who’s emotionally invested invested in this, not me. I’m not the one obsessing about ‘the best’. That’d be you.
    1
  695. That was never a factor. This is extremely easy to prove.
    1
  696. The biggest risk of low altitude flying is not small arms. It's flying into the ground.
    1
  697. That's been debunked. The only people who believe it are those who choose to believe it.
    1
  698.  @IncogNito-gg6uh  "It was USAAF doctrine that bombers could reach their targets unescorted. USAAF commander-in-chief General Henry H. (Hap) Arnold turned a deaf ear to not only the development of drop tanks for the P-47, but also to the reports of American Air-attaché Col. Tommy Hitchcock from England pleading the potential of a Merlin powered Mustang." Dear God, where to start with this... The development of drop tanks was not completely banned and I will explain why later. First of all, drop tanks do not increase range. They are simply a bandaid solution. The only way to increase range is by increasing internal fuel capacity. The old adage is that a drop tank uses half the fuel in it to get the other half there. You can't just keep adding external tanks because eventually you run into the law of diminishing returns. Before the American involvement in WWII, the USAAF Materiel Command sent out a directive to manufacturers to increase internal fuel capacity. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and even Bell all responded. Republic did not. In early 1942, USAAF senior command sent another directive to increase internal fuel. Again, everyone responded except Republic. Gen. George Kenney, who was commander of the 5th AF in the Pacific was furious with Republic and arranged for a 200 gallon tank to be designed and built in Australia. This was known as the Brisbane tank. So clearly, what happened in peace time and what happened in wartime were two different things. In August, 1943, Hap Arnold sent a letter to his Chief of Staff, Gen. Barney Giles, instructing him to find a solution to the lack of range. He gave him full remit, even including the development of a new fighter, as long as it was completed in six months. Giles was aware of the Mustang's range potential and that the were 1,350 P-51s ready and waiting. All they needed was the addition of a fuselage tank behind the pilot. Those aircraft were available from December, 1943. The P-47, with larger internal capacity, wasn't available for another six months. So, in fact Arnold had been on the case for years. "It is noteworthy that both efforts proceeded without his blessing until the disastrous losses in the fall of 1943 threatened to end the daylight bombing campaign" The efforts of Materiel Command rather put the lie to this.
    1
  699.  @AmericasChoice  True.
    1