Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "The Piper PA-48 Enforcer; Mustang on Steroids" video.

  1. The Brits originally went to North American Aviation to ask them to built the Curtiss P-40 fighter under license. NA instead offered to build a better fighter that would outperform the P-40 on the same engine, and the P-51 was born. The Brits used the Mk I in the same low altitude roles they used the P-40 in because it suffered from the same inadequate V-1710 supercharger, but that doesn't mean it was not designed as a fighter, which it was, just like the P-40. The later fighter bomber or attack version of the plane was the A-36 Apache. The Army turned it into a dive bomber to call it an attack aircraft to get around the lack of funding for new fighters at the time. They must have learned this trick by earlier getting around the ban on funding for twin engine fighters by inventing the term "interceptor" for the P-38 specification. They saw potential in the new design and wanted to get it into US service.
    4
  2. Remember the Brits originally went to North American Aviation to ask them to built the Curtiss P-40 fighter under license. NA instead offered to build a better fighter that would outperform the P-40 on the same engine, and the P-51 was born. The Brits used the Mk I in the same low altitude roles they used the P-40 in because it suffered from the same inadequate V-1710 supercharger, but that doesn't mean it was not designed as a fighter. The intended fighter bomber or attack version of the plane was the A-36 Apache. The Army turned it into a dive bomber to get around the lack of funding for new fighters at the time. They must have learned this trick by earlier getting around the ban on funding for twin engine fighters by inventing the term "interceptor" for the P-38 specification. My personal opinion is that too much is made of the fact that the P-51 was liquid cooled, because so were most other airplanes used for ground attack, such as the famous Typhoon, and even purpose built ground pounders like the JU-87 and IL-2. And all airplanes had oil coolers that were vulnerable to a single hit.
    3
  3. They did -- they call it the 1900. šŸ˜‰
    2
  4. It's an idea that keeps coming up, and getting shot down. The problem with such aircraft is that they have very low survivability against an enemy with any meaningful air defense capability. If you are doing COIN against goat herding insurgents they can be effective and economical, but not in operations against a properly equipped enemy force. The USAF learned this as far back as Vietnam. They had low and slow prop planes that could spot the enemy and deliver ordnance accurately, but they had to withdraw them from higher threat areas as the enemy air defense capabilities continued to increase. In these areas they replaced aircraft like the A-1 and the O-2 with fast movers in both the CAS and FAC roles. The SEA environment was relative begin in comparison with today's air defense systems. So yeah, USAF considered the likes of Tucano or OV-10 for the new Afghan or Iraqi air force, but not for USAF itself.
    1
  5. Ā @AudieHollandĀ  The JU-87 couldn't defend itself against fighters and required air superiority or escort, but it still faced fire from the ground. Image how much ground fire Hans Ulrich Rudel must have faced killing all those Russian tanks with his liquid cooled JU-87. The Sturmovik did have good armor for an airplane but it was no tank, and the Typhoon was not armored in the same way to my recollection. I'm not saying that the P-51 was the best choice for ground attack sorties, but I think the perpetual legend that it was uniquely vulnerable because it was liquid cooled is one of those self perpetuating narratives that proliferates through sheer repetition.
    1
  6. Ā @AudieHollandĀ  Any aircraft can be brought down by a single bullet in the right place. The legend that the P-51 was more susceptible than most WWII fighters employed for ground attack attack is so illogical that even a child should be able to dismiss it.
    1
  7. Ā @AudieHollandĀ  LOL. I fed you back the BS line you slung at me to make a point, and I'm the bad guy. You're one of those guys that always has to get personal when you have nothing convincing to say about the point of the discussion, and I surely find that depressing, so I'm done here.
    1