Author Topic: The planes we truly need most.  (Read 12619 times)

Offline Treize69

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5597
      • http://grupul7vanatoare.homestead.com/Startpage.html
The planes we truly need most.
« Reply #135 on: December 23, 2006, 12:33:41 AM »
P-51H never saw combat, in any war, in any form. It was the only type never to be deployed in combat and the only type not sold to foreign powers. About 370 of the 555 ordered had been completed by VJ Day, but they never found their way to the combat zone before the end of the war, and by the time Korea rolled around they had been relegated to use by the ANG, not by the regular Air Force.

I have never seen pics of an H with underwing stores. It may just be that I haven't run across one yet, but it could be why they were pulled- by the time they were ready in numbers, their role as fast interceptor and air-superiority fighter could be done better by the jets coming on line.



« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 12:42:03 AM by Treize69 »
Treize (pronounced 'trays')- because 'Treisprezece' is too long and even harder to pronounce.

Moartea bolșevicilor.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
The planes we truly need most.
« Reply #136 on: December 23, 2006, 08:14:08 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Treize69
P-51H never saw combat, in any war, in any form. It was the only type never to be deployed in combat and the only type not sold to foreign powers. About 370 of the 555 ordered had been completed by VJ Day, but they never found their way to the combat zone before the end of the war, and by the time Korea rolled around they had been relegated to use by the ANG, not by the regular Air Force.


In Late July of 1945, the 7th AF began receiving their initial P-51H fighters at Okinawa. Several of the these fighters were declared operational and began flying defensive combat patrols with the 15th FG. The purpose for this was to get pilots some seat time in the newer and significantly different Mustang. One thing noted by the pilots is that they generally found the seat to be less comfortable than that in the D model. This continued for about a week, until the surrender with just 3 P-51H fighters operational. No enemy was encountered.

As for under-wing loads, the P-51H was rated the same as the P-51D, except that there was no provision for rockets.

When the war in Korea broke out, the F-51H was deemed less survivable when exposed to ground fire than the the F-51D. There was also a limited amount of spare parts available. Thus, the F-51H was not deployed. There were some protests from within the Air Force as the F-51H was the superior fighter in every respect. However, it was argued that the F-80 would be the better choice, even though its loiter time was vastly less than the F-51H as all F-80s were based in Japan.

Within that context, the USAF also decided not to deploy the F-47Ds and F-47Ns that were in service in many Air Guard units. This was bitterly opposed by many commanders of operational units, who rightly believed that the Jug was far more resistant to battle damage. Heavy losses of F-51Ds to triple-A validated this argument. However, by then the initial emergency was past and soon there were enough jets deployed in Korea, that the F-51s were withdrawn from combat.

F4U-4s bore the brunt of the air-to-ground combat burden for the Navy. They suffered serious loss to triple-A as well, but the loss-to-sortie ratio was less than half of the F-51's. Historians now argue that the decision not to deploy the F-47s was little less than criminal.

My regards,

Widewing
« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 08:17:42 AM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

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

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6865
The planes we truly need most.
« Reply #137 on: December 23, 2006, 09:09:52 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Completely different?  no.
Major physical differences





And more info, http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_13.html

Offline Neil Stirling1

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 105
The planes we truly need most.
« Reply #138 on: December 23, 2006, 09:59:08 AM »
And lots of P-51H performance data here

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html

Neil.

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6865
The planes we truly need most.
« Reply #139 on: December 23, 2006, 10:48:39 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Neil Stirling1
And lots of P-51H performance data here

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html

Neil.
Sorry Neil should have mentioned that site. I keep forgetting not everyone knows about that EXCELLENT site.

Offline Neil Stirling1

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 105
The planes we truly need most.
« Reply #140 on: December 23, 2006, 11:02:05 AM »
Thanks MiloMorai :aok Most excellent of you to say so ;)

Neil.

Offline EagleDNY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
Re: Re: Hanger Queens Thread....
« Reply #141 on: December 23, 2006, 04:25:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The I.A.R. 81c, could compete with the LWA rides with EASE.   I'd fly it exclusively as a fighter if ever added, I'm sure Treize69 would as well.   So I'll have to BS on your post.    Read up on it, the Allies thought it was a 190.


I read up on the IAR 81c, and while it is nice for the vintage (1942), I don't think it would be getting a lot of action in the LWA.  2 x 20mms, plus 4 x 7.92s, coupled with a 1,025hp motor leaves it firmly in the early-mid war performance range.  Easily out-climbed, out-run, and out-gunned by most of the late war rides you are going to meet.

Yeah, they have a nice story about bouncing P-38s coming in low through the valleys to bomb Ploesti, and had some success there.  It might look like a 190, but it sure doesn't have the engine-power, speed, or guns of a 190.  You & Treize69 can keep this one - I'd rather have a 109 myself.

EagleDNY
$.02

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Re: Re: Re: Hanger Queens Thread....
« Reply #142 on: December 23, 2006, 10:28:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by EagleDNY
I read up on the IAR 81c, and while it is nice for the vintage (1942), I don't think it would be getting a lot of action in the LWA.  2 x 20mms, plus 4 x 7.92s, coupled with a 1,025hp motor leaves it firmly in the early-mid war performance range.  Easily out-climbed, out-run, and out-gunned by most of the late war rides you are going to meet.

Yeah, they have a nice story about bouncing P-38s coming in low through the valleys to bomb Ploesti, and had some success there.  It might look like a 190, but it sure doesn't have the engine-power, speed, or guns of a 190.  You & Treize69 can keep this one - I'd rather have a 109 myself.

EagleDNY
$.02


Read deeper, if I can EASILY land 2+ kills in a Hurry Mk1 (in the LWA's), this will garner more.   It hold it's own against Spits, Ponies, in it's Theater of Operation.   What we DON'T need, are redundant planes.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2006, 12:21:05 AM by Masherbrum »
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Meatwad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12895
The planes we truly need most.
« Reply #143 on: December 23, 2006, 10:42:57 PM »
He-111
Beaufighter
B-25
See Rule 19- Do not place sausage on pizza.
I am No-Sausage-On-Pizza-Wad.
Das Funkillah - I kill hangers, therefore I am a funkiller. Coming to a vulchfest near you.
You cant tie a loop around 400000 lbs of locomotive using a 2 foot rope - Drediock on fat women

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20387
The planes we truly need most.
« Reply #144 on: December 24, 2006, 12:45:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing
In Late July of 1945, the 7th AF began receiving their initial P-51H fighters at Okinawa. Several of the these fighters were declared operational and began flying defensive combat patrols with the 15th FG. The purpose for this was to get pilots some seat time in the newer and significantly different Mustang. One thing noted by the pilots is that they generally found the seat to be less comfortable than that in the D model. This continued for about a week, until the surrender with just 3 P-51H fighters operational. No enemy was encountered.

Widewing


Where did you find that info Widewing?  I have John Lambert's excellent history of the 15th FG and there is no mention at all of the P51H.  They were on Iwo during that time not Okinawa.

Could it be another 7th AF Group got em?
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Treize69

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5597
      • http://grupul7vanatoare.homestead.com/Startpage.html
The planes we truly need most.
« Reply #145 on: December 24, 2006, 07:37:04 AM »
I was going by the Squadron/Signal P-51 In Action book, which states-

"Contrary to popular belief, the P-51H never saw combat in any war. It was the only Mustang never to do so and the only type not sold to any foreign nation. Although 370 aircraft had been delivered to the AAF prior to VJ Day, none found their way to combat units in time for the final fight. By the time the Krean War broke out in June 1950, the P-51Hs were all but phased out of active Air Force service. However, the H model did perform yeoman duties for the USAF in the tough years between the two wars when that service was in transition to an entirely jet inventory"

Oh, and I have to admit my error- looking closely at the photos in the book, hardpoint for bombs/tanks and rocket rails are visible, there is just nothing hung from them. That was an error in my admittedly bad memory. :cry

Quote
In Late July of 1945, the 7th AF began receiving their initial P-51H fighters at Okinawa. Several of the these fighters were declared operational and began flying defensive combat patrols with the 15th FG. The purpose for this was to get pilots some seat time in the newer and significantly different Mustang. One thing noted by the pilots is that they generally found the seat to be less comfortable than that in the D model. This continued for about a week, until the surrender with just 3 P-51H fighters operational. No enemy was encountered.


That does seem to verify the statement that they never saw combat. I didn't say that they never saw squadron service or never made to a combat theater. 3 examples flying a few familiarization flights and never encountering the enemy is, by definition, not combat.

BTW WW, please don't take this as my trying to get under your skin or start an argument. I'll be the first to admit that you know far more about these topics than I do, I'm simply stating the proven facts as I have perceived them. Feel free to prove me wrong, I just haven't seen reliable, documented proof of it.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2006, 07:45:03 AM by Treize69 »
Treize (pronounced 'trays')- because 'Treisprezece' is too long and even harder to pronounce.

Moartea bolșevicilor.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
The planes we truly need most.
« Reply #146 on: December 26, 2006, 01:13:33 AM »
Interesting that all those diagrams showed 6 guns. I thought the 51H reduced the armament to 4 guns, similar to the P-40N? Was this not the case?

Offline 1K3

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
The planes we truly need most.
« Reply #147 on: December 26, 2006, 02:24:55 AM »
For short term solution

We need...

- clipped wing spitfire V with +16 boost

- Seafire L III

- Bf 109F-2: This was the main nemesis of the +12 boost spitfire V (NOT the 109F-4) and other Russian fighters in early-mid 1941.  F-2 had nose-mounted 1x MG-FF cannon or 15mm MG 151 cannon

- Fw 190A-3: we need early 190 variant

Offline T99LMG

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 189
What we Really Need
« Reply #148 on: December 27, 2006, 10:41:30 AM »
I think what we really need the most is the M4 Sherman. It will fill a huge gap for the need of american tanks in AH2. Also, I think the B25 should replace the B26 because the B26 played its part mostly in Korea and not in World War 2.

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: What we Really Need
« Reply #149 on: December 27, 2006, 10:52:42 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by T99LMG
. Also, I think the B25 should replace the B26 because the B26 played its part mostly in Korea and not in World War 2.




Erm in a word No.  The A-26 was re-designated  as a B-26 shortly after ww2 .

Totally different AC.


A-26




B-26





Bronk
See Rule #4