Author Topic: Why people think the 51D is so uber?  (Read 3998 times)

Offline Schwein

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Why people think the 51D is so uber?
« Reply #30 on: April 10, 2006, 12:16:52 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by G0ALY
It was always my understanding that the P51 did not win the war. Neither did any other fighter for that matter. But what the P51 with its extraordinary range did do... Was to allow the previously unescorted bombers to win the war.


The bombers did not win the war either. The soldiers did.

Offline RAIDER14

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2554
Why people think the 51D is so uber?
« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2006, 12:18:28 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Schwein
The bombers did not win the war either. The soldiers did.


the soldiers wouldn't have been able to advance if  the bombers didn't weaken the defenses the P51 also played a close support  role for the ground troops

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Why people think the 51D is so uber?
« Reply #32 on: April 10, 2006, 12:27:14 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by bkbandit
the 51 was in the fightin the japs aswell as the jug.  And the jug didnt do most of the work.  51 maintained air dominace over both europe and japan.  And the 51 more or less replaced the 47. And still we are forgeting the p38s,f4us,f6fs and even the p40. The allies had alot of good fighters but the 51 was the top of the line.  DOnt get me wrong i like jugs but to say they did most of the work is disrespectful to all the other great fighter planes.  

I think the aces high jug isnt what its supposed to be and needs to be reworked.  I have read some storys about jug being chased by 109s and just taking all the punishment until the 109 run out of ammo and went home. Pilot lands and counts over 150 hits all over the plane from machine guns and cannons but thats a whole new post in itself.


Long before the P-51 arrived in Britain, P-47s were escorting bombers as far as Bremen. Thunderbolt units went operational in March and April of 1943. They were finally assisted by P-38s in November of 1943, with the first P-51 units arriving a few weeks later. Before the P-51 made any difference in the ETO, P-47s had already badly mauled the Luftwaffe. However, they suffered through the learning curve and much of what was learned was applied after units began re-equiping with P-51s in the spring and summer of 1944. P-51s were excellent fighters, but had nothing on the P-47 at high altitude.

A P-47 Group, the 56th had more air to air kills than any other Group in the ETO, with the exception of the 354th, which claimed 24 more than the 56th. However, 37 of the 354th's claims were of trainers. Only the 56th fighter group was to retain P-47s throughout the war within the 8th AF.

Thunderbolts saw combat in every major theater of the war. From the ETO to the MTO, down the SWPA, the PTO and the CBI theater. In the central Pacific, the P-47N was quite numerous in the last months of the war, and it numbers were rapidly growing when the war ended. Designed specifically for the Pacific war, the P-47N out-ranged even the P-51D.

No other American fighter in Europe had a lower loss per sortie rate than the Jug. Which is remarkable in that the P-47 was the primary close support fighter in the various Army Air Forces.

You can certainly claim that the P-51 finished off the Luftwaffe, but it was the P-47 that badly beat up the Luftwaffe during 1943, and significantly changed how the Luftwaffe would combat the bomber raids thereafter.

BTW, P-47s were incredibly rugged aircraft. However, a single 20mm hit could bring down any fighter, including the P-47 if hit in a critical location.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Why people think the 51D is so uber?
« Reply #33 on: April 10, 2006, 01:56:02 AM »
I wonder which type of fighter, and for that sake, which service, had the highest kills of LW aircraft.
My money goes to the RAF, but I'm really not sure, and it depends whether you count the commonwealth squadrons and the DAF.
In 1944 it was definately the US that came on top, but the RAF had been a lot longer on the job you see....
And for this:
"The P-51 was a mediocre fighter in all respects except speed and range"

Climb: Moderate
Gun package: Decent
Turn: Moderate
Roll: Rather good
Ordnance: Good
Reliability: Good
Ruggedness: Rather good

Depends on what you compare it too as well...but mediocre is rather an understatement IMHO.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline cav58d

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3985
Why people think the 51D is so uber?
« Reply #34 on: April 10, 2006, 08:45:32 AM »
SAS_Kid...Why do I get the feeling that you were one of those brainwashed "everyones", and someone shot your idea down, so you came and started this thread to make yourself feel better? hehehehehe
<S> Lyme

Sick Puppies II

412th Friday Night Volunteer Group

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Why people think the 51D is so uber?
« Reply #35 on: April 10, 2006, 10:19:03 AM »
Angus,

I think the best attributes about the P-51 are Speed, Speed and high speed handling. No doubt turn and burn was not the role of the P-51 but at high speeds it was close to untouchable especially at alt.

The P-51 could also cruise faster than the max speed of many contemporary aircraft of it's day at alt and do it for hours. This made it harder to intercept than a slower aircraft filling the same role.

SAS_Kid,

Sorry about the partial thread jack. I was just responding to a question.

All in all I am not sure what I would want to fly if i were a Euro-pilot. I don't see the P-38 or P-47 with the type of maneuver advantage I would want to give up the speed of the P-51 especially with all of the speed on the axis side. I am usually partial to the R2800 but I might have to stick with the Pony in the AAF.

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Why people think the 51D is so uber?
« Reply #36 on: April 10, 2006, 02:50:42 PM »
Hi Schwein,

>Didn't I make that clear enough?

No.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline yayyyy

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
Re: Why people think the 51D is so uber?
« Reply #37 on: April 10, 2006, 02:54:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SAS_KID
blah blah blah blah


i fly it.

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Why people think the 51D is so uber?
« Reply #38 on: April 10, 2006, 03:06:43 PM »
Hi F4UDOA,

>What I think would have happened is that it (F4U) would have evolved in a different direction such as the production of the F4U-3 with the Supercharger and 4 blade paddle prop.

Hm, very good point, that was quite an impressive aircraft! The turbo superchargers would not only have helped high-altitude performance, but range as well, so that's a double advantage over the standard aircraft.

It would be interesting to compare F4U, P-47, P-38 and P-51 based on their Flight Operation Charts for similar mission profiles, but I think I have only the P-51 table and some F4U graphs, so I can't really work out a meaningful comparison for the case "no P-51 available".

>I just liberated some NAVAER documents from the Naval Warfare Center about a week ago. It shows the early Navy testing of the F4U-3 and the speed of the F4U-1D without Pylons at 434MPH at 20K and 367MPH at sea level in 1944.

Wow, cool! :-) Is there any positive indication in the report that the speeds were corrected for compressiblity? I'm asking because the Fw 190 is (still! :-) posing riddles, and there were two US tests run with a captured aircraft, so it would be interesting to confirm whether this correction was standard procedure.

>Obviously high alt performance and climb wouild have had to be addressed much sooner in the Euro theater.

One thing that might have improved F4U performance in USAAF service right away would have been the removal of the carrier equipment. I think the P-51 comparison test allows an estimate of how much that would have helped. (For high-altitude flight, light weight is a real bonus, so this would have made a noticable difference!)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Glasses

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Why people think the 51D is so uber?
« Reply #39 on: April 10, 2006, 04:13:28 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SAS_KID

Bah someone evwen said a 51D could outturn an A6M2 :rofl :lol :rofl


In Ah it can do that and more,even take off at 75mph and when you reach 88mph it can go back in time get Hitler as a toddler and send him into a Brazilian  circus and make him parade them as the weird looking German child of the night that howls like a wolf but smells like a piggy. :rofl

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Why people think the 51D is so uber?
« Reply #40 on: April 10, 2006, 10:07:55 PM »
Quote
Is there any positive indication in the report that the speeds were corrected for compressiblity? I'm asking because the Fw 190 is (still! :-) posing riddles, and there were two US tests run with a captured aircraft, so it would be interesting to confirm whether this correction was standard procedure.


Hmm,

What should I be looking for? What does it mean corrected for compressability? The only A/C I have seen that could reach it's own critical mach number in level flight is the P-38L with 150 octane fuel.


Quote
It would be interesting to compare F4U, P-47, P-38 and P-51 based on their Flight Operation Charts for similar mission profiles, but I think I have only the P-51 table and some F4U graphs, so I can't really work out a meaningful comparison for the case "no P-51 available".


I have detailed F4U range charts. It was not short legged considering it could carry so much external fuel (3DT's).

The combat range can be seen the Aircraft comparison chart from Vought that used the Navy's F-1 combat formula to determine effective range. The range on internal fuel was approx 1,000 miles one way. I can scan and post if you want it.


Offline plank

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
Re: Re: Why people think the 51D is so uber?
« Reply #41 on: April 10, 2006, 10:20:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Glasses
In Ah it can do that and more,even take off at 75mph and when you reach 88mph it can go back in time get Hitler as a toddler and send him into a Brazilian  circus and make him parade them as the weird looking German child of the night that howls like a wolf but smells like a piggy. :rofl


That's not true! (He was Austrian) :p

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
Why people think the 51D is so uber?
« Reply #42 on: April 11, 2006, 10:32:52 AM »
Suppose it depends what side of 'the pond' you come from.

Being originally from the UK I never considered the Pony uber, good speed, good range thats about it.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Why people think the 51D is so uber?
« Reply #43 on: April 11, 2006, 01:49:55 PM »
Kev,

Other than turing circle how was the Spitfire a better airplane?

I wouldn't want to dogfight a Spit with a Pony but I wouldn't want to fly escort missions in a Spitfire either. I guess the question is which airplane would you want over Berlin at 20 to 30K in 1944? There were only a few available and the AAF had to make a decision.

I can't believe I am defending an airplane that I have bashed so much in the past.

This much is true, it filled the role it was meant to do. It certainly was not the right airplane for Korea but it was definitely the best for Europe in fighting a Strategic war.

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
Why people think the 51D is so uber?
« Reply #44 on: April 11, 2006, 02:04:35 PM »
Like I said F4UDOA the Ponies range and speed are IMO it's only good assets.
Yup for long range escort missions the Pony, doesn't make it an uber plane IMO.

As you brought up the Spit -

F.21 was ultimate wartime Spit with a Griffon 65 -
4x20mm cannons
Approx 450mph @ 22.5k
Good climb
Better turn

Would have become the main frontline Spit if it wasn't for the end of the war.

Strange thing is all this about the uber Pony, whats the biggest number of complaints recently?
Spit XVI - not even a Griffon spit and at the same performance levels as a 1943 LF IX.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2006, 02:18:33 PM by Kev367th »
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory