Best Heavy Fighter

[bozon]

Actually, what was it Goering said about - when he knew the war was lost?
When he saw Lightnings over Berlin? No.. it was Mustangs, wasn't it..

And when C47s were flying over Berlin EVERYONE knew the war was lost.
What does that tell you?

[J.A.W.]

It tells me that it was in 1948, & the Cold War..

Try flying a C-47 over Berlin in `44 & see how long you stay airborne.

[bozon]

A check of 'Big Week' operations claim/loss ratios clearly demonstrate this, & with the new commanders pushing for optimum efficacy the 56th was kept
on `47s - largely as a political measure - & to run new T-bolts such as the M
in combat [ M was ostensibly built to catch V1 cruise missiles, but was too
late & too slow down low].

The M was not built to catch V1s. At the altitudes V1s were flying the M is not a stellar performer. What the M was in practice is an official and manufacturer-certified version of the field-moded P47s. None of the major aerodynamic modifications of the XP-47J were implemented. It was simply a D-40 with a slightly modified engine and other minor changes, very similar in practice to the over-boosted P-47 that the 56th were already using. They were unofficially boosting their engines to M levels while they were still flying razorbacks, after demonstrating that the engines could take it. The M was not a huge leap forward for them.

The rest is my guess - I assume that the latest and highly boosted R-2800 engines were meant for the N, but since Republic had a few D-40 frames still coming out of the production line and the N was not ready, they simply decided to put the new engines into a few D frames, label it M and ship it to the 56th. That is why it was a very short production run. Once they started rolling out the Ns all available engines went into that.

[J.A.W.]

'Ostensibly'a V1 catcher, but that was just hype..it was a day late & a $ short..
Neither turbo boosted P-38 or P-47 had the low level speed to catch V1s..

My understanding is that the `47M was a match-up of N fuselage & D wings..

Rushed into service & it had plenty of serviceability issues.

If you check out the data sheets I posted on the 'Best Fighter-bomber' thread,
you can see how ephemeral the lazy air-cooled R-2800 was in making
continuous  max cruise speed & how slow/draggy the fat T-bolt was at S.L..

In reality the max weak mixture cruising speed of the gas-hog R-2800
powered fighters was `bout ~100mph slower than a Merlin Mustang or
Sabre Tempest at 20kft..

[FLOOB]

it just has range like no other fighter.

We hear so much praise for the p51d's range that i think people forget that before there even was a USAAF the a6m had longer range than the p51d ever would. And it had one of them gas guzzling radial motors.

[Saxman]

We hear so much praise for the p51d's range that i think people forget that before there even was a USAAF the a6m had longer range than the p51d ever would. And it had one of them gas guzzling radial motors.

And P-47Ns were doing the VLR escort thing in the PTO (range of over 2000 miles) well before the Mustang (surprise, range of ~1650 miles) got there.

Frankly, JAW, you're accusing me of bias just by saying the Corsairs were competitive with fighter designs in the ETO (and that's ALL I said. So what if one aircraft might have an advantage in certain areas? P-51 a better high-alt, long range escort? Without question. But the Corsair was certainly the better all-around dogfighter below 20,000ft, and by FAR superior as a ground-attack aircraft. And calling the F4U-4 the best all-around fighter of WWII comes from a lot of people who research this stuff for a living) but I'm seeing a LOT of bias out of you.

[Oldman731]

And P-47Ns were doing the VLR escort thing in the PTO (range of over 2000 miles) well before the Mustang (surprise, range of ~1650 miles) got there.

Was just thinking the same thing.  301st Fighter Wing flew B-29 escort missions from Saipan, not Iwo.

And ultimately even the D models were able to range as far as Berlin.

- oldman

[GScholz]

Of all the egg-planes the P-47 is the one that doesn't really look that different from the real thing.



 

[Shifty]

Of all the egg-planes the P-47 is the one that doesn't really look that different from the real thing.

(Image removed from quote.)

 

 

[-ammo-]

Of all the egg-planes the P-47 is the one that doesn't really look that different from the real thing.

(Image removed from quote.)

 

 

[Hajo]

Of all the egg-planes the P-47 is the one that doesn't really look that different from the real thing.

(Image removed from quote.)

 

 

[Randy1]

. . .
But the Corsair was certainly the better all-around dogfighter below 20,000ft, and by FAR superior as a ground-attack aircraft.  . . .

I think this is true if both plane have nearly the same E but what the mustang does best is reset a bad or going bad situation. 

[Ack-Ack]

Ok, & PRU Spitfires regularly did trips to the 'Big City' too..
Question is, what damage did they do to the LW there?

You'd have to look at the BDA and AAR reports from the B-17 crews that flew those missions, the P-38 was in the escort role. 

Frighten a little mouse under a chair at the Air Ministry, perhaps?

Actually, what was it Goering said about - when he knew the war was lost?
When he saw Lightnings over Berlin? No.. it was Mustangs, wasn't it..

For some reason you're under the misconception that I stated somewhere the P-38 was a better over all plane than the P-51, which I clearly have not.  I've said the P-38 was a better ground attack platform and not as vulnerable to ground fire as the P-51.  The fact is the P-51 was very susceptible to ground fire, its Achilles' heel was its cooling system in the belly which led to many losses during ground attack missions.

In Korea, a lot of the P-51 pilots would have their ground crew install extra armor on the Mustang because of how vulnerable the Mustang was to ground fire.

ack-ack

[J.A.W.]

Has anyone got a copy of the `44 USN 'fighter conference'?

Where they tested the USAAF birds against the Navy types?

From memory, there was a poll taken, with the pilots voting on attributes..

The `47 beat out the Navy R-2800 types for best hi-alt' performer,
& the `51 was  best <25kft & O/A best..[P-38 didn't rate].

The USN knew they'd had it pretty easy air-wise in the PTO,[compared to combat against the LW] & they even went to the trouble of checking out the `51 on a CV..

A.A., please find the G/A claim/loss stats to back up your P-38 belief..

AFAIR, the size, fragility & instant ID factors all contributed to the `38
being flak bait in the GA role, which why it was relegated to the
medium bomber/level bombing routine.

Navy planes in the PTO, [esp' Zero] could eke out long ranges by flying real low & slow over open ocean, that would get you dead quick smart over CAP/flak happy Europe , or a fleet at sea..

& G.S., so true - your `47 egg pic is a great yolk..  

[J.A.W.]

Urban Drew flew `51Ds in the ETO, &  `47Ns in the PTO.
He preferred the pony ride to the porky gas-hog..

One of the reasons the `47 was not used in Korea was the fact that
a max load T-bolt needed a l-o-n-g 5kft take-off roll..

& Gen C. Le May like-wise preferred/stipulated the P-51 for B-29 escort.

Sm, the RNZAF operated the F4U in the Solomon Is [PTO],
but dumped them for `51s when they could get 'em.