Author Topic: P-47 vs P-51 in WWII  (Read 3803 times)

Offline Puck

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
P-47 vs P-51 in WWII
« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2002, 01:38:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Weren't P-38's routinely being  flown across the Atlantic to England as early as 1943?  No lack of range there.  And wasn't the range of the Lightning exceeding that of the Mustang by 1945?  Have no sources handy to verify.

Anybody out there know for certain?

Regards, Shuckins


The 38 could fly just this side of forever, but it took a special touch.  It has some really squirly handling characteristics in the earlier models.  AFIK, most pilots preferred the 47 (and 51 when it came out).  By then Lockheed had pretty much resolved the high speed handling problems and compressability issues, but the machine's reputation was already sealed.  It didn't help that the fuel used in North Africa was frequently sub-standard, and the Lightning wasn't very tolerant of poor fuel.

The P38 had an easier time in the pacific.  Most of those machines had the 'fixes' identified in North Africa, and the fuel supply was better controlled.

Again, AFIK, the pilots who learned how to work with the 38s quirks wouldn't give it up for anything, and it sure was a pretty airplane.  My dad loved watcthing them fly.

They were expensive to operate, though.  Each engine needed several separate parts.  Twin engine meant twice the maintenance, etc.  Like a lot of the things Kelly Johnson did the 38 was ahead of its time; maybe too far.

For a lot of reasons the 47 took over quite a bit of the 38s escort duty, and was then supplanted by the 51.  You can argue all day that the 51 walked into an arena the others had already softened up (and to an extent this is true) but the 51 was still a very nice aircraft.
//c coad  c coad run  run coad run
main (){char _[]={"S~||(iuv{nkx%K9Y$hzhhd\x0c"},__
,___=1;for(__=___>>___;__<((___<<___<<___<<___<<___
)+(___<<___<<___<<___)-___);__+=___)putchar((_[__
])+(__/((___<<___)+___))-((___&

Offline H. Godwineson

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 551
P-47 vs P-51 in WWII
« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2002, 01:50:17 PM »
Capt. Virgil Hilts,

Glad to see you finally got out of the cooler! :D

Hope nobody else has already used that line!


Regards, Shuckins

Offline fd ski

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1532
      • http://www.northotwing.com/wing/
P-47 vs P-51 in WWII
« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2002, 01:55:41 PM »
Yak , Migg and Lagg is what broke LW back.

Offline Puck

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
P-47 vs P-51 in WWII
« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2002, 01:59:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by fd ski
Yak , Migg and Lagg is what broke LW back.


Herman Goring broke the LWs back.  Hitler didn't help any, and throwing their best and brightest into a meat grinder rather than a training academy sealed their fate.

You have to wonder, though, how long the war would have lasted if Hitler hadn't opened two fronts...  :eek:
//c coad  c coad run  run coad run
main (){char _[]={"S~||(iuv{nkx%K9Y$hzhhd\x0c"},__
,___=1;for(__=___>>___;__<((___<<___<<___<<___<<___
)+(___<<___<<___<<___)-___);__+=___)putchar((_[__
])+(__/((___<<___)+___))-((___&

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
P-47 vs P-51 in WWII
« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2002, 02:13:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by fd ski
Yak , Migg and Lagg is what broke LW back.


ya your right..
but the Jug broke its femur!

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
P-47 vs P-51 in WWII
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2002, 02:57:21 PM »
Quote
One table giving 1944 sortie and loss totals for all combat aircraft has been found in the US archives. Its loss numbers are only about one-third of Groehler's, and probably include only total losses and writeoffs resulting from combat, a more common definition of the term. The data:



1944 - All Combat Types

Total West / Eastern Front / West/East
 
Sorties /  182,004 /  342,483 /  0.53
 
Losses /  9768 /  2406 /  4.06
 
Losses/Sortie /  0.0537 /  0.00703 /  7.66

 
Quote
4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front.


Luftwaffe Aircraft Losses By Theatre

[list=1]
  • During the period in question, a constant 21-24% of the Luftwaffe's day fighters were based in the East - but only 12-14% of the Luftwaffe day fighter "losses" occurred in this theater.
  • During this period, a constant 75-78% of the day fighters were based in the West. The turnover was enormous: 14,720 aircraft were "lost", while operational strength averaged 1364.
  • During this period, 2294 day fighters were "lost" in the East; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 14,720/2294 = 6.4 to one.
  • During this period, a constant 43-46% of all of the Luftwaffe's operational aircraft were based in the East. It should be noted that these included entire categories (for example, battlefield recce, battle planes, dive bombers) that were used exclusively in the East, because they couldn't survive in the West..
  • During this period, a total of 8600 operational aircraft were "lost" in the East, while 27,060 were "lost" in the West; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 27,060/8600 = 3.41 to one.
  • [/list=1]

    The eastern front tied up the a considerable amount of resources but the bombing campaign by the western allies is what broke the lw. No one can seriously believe that the p38 was the plane, or could have been the plane, to do this.

    fdiron said

Quote
The P51 had ~10,000 victories in the ETO. Many more than either the P38 or P47.


I have read this as well.  Its pretty clear to me that the p51 was the plane. According to Butler the lw in the west was able be maintain an average operational dayfighter strength of 1364 while 14,720 aircraft were "lost".

Quantity has a quality of its own.........

Offline Samm

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
P-47 vs P-51 in WWII
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2002, 03:31:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Puck


That's a new documentary, produced by the History Channel using some of the film shot at Hap Arnold's insistance during the last few weeks of the war.  Something like 80 hours of footage, but Arnold decided after the war it was too much for the public.

I have a copy of it.  Sits next to Gun Camera Footage, How Not to Land on a CV(N), How to fly the P38, and the 8th AF 50th reunion.  Just watched it last night, in fact  :)


No "Thunderbolt" was made in 1947 by William Wyler, three years after he made "Memphis Belle", it has an introduction by James Stewart .

Offline Puck

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
P-47 vs P-51 in WWII
« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2002, 03:59:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Samm


No "Thunderbolt" was made in 1947 by William Wyler, three years after he made "Memphis Belle", it has an introduction by James Stewart .


Ah!  There are two documentarys named Thunderbolt, and I was thinking of the wrong one.

Silly me  :)
//c coad  c coad run  run coad run
main (){char _[]={"S~||(iuv{nkx%K9Y$hzhhd\x0c"},__
,___=1;for(__=___>>___;__<((___<<___<<___<<___<<___
)+(___<<___<<___<<___)-___);__+=___)putchar((_[__
])+(__/((___<<___)+___))-((___&

Offline whgates3

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1426
P-47 vs P-51 in WWII
« Reply #38 on: September 16, 2002, 04:01:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Puck

...You have to wonder, though, how long the war would have lasted if Hitler hadn't opened two fronts...


w/out the ETO's eastern front, Stalin's eastern ambitions (as evidenced by his entry into PTO concurrent w/ conclusion of ETO) may have aided put down the imperial japanese much more swiftly - from vladivostok to tokyo is only slightly longer than london to berlin, but the topic of this thread is

Quote
Do you think the ruggedness of the P-47s made the more important difference in the AirWar over Europe or do you feel the Mustangs and their long range capability really made the difference ?


key phrase being "AirWar over Europe", which does not include the very important role the Jug played in tactical support for ground troops.  Mustang wins

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
P-47 vs P-51 in WWII
« Reply #39 on: September 16, 2002, 05:23:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by fd ski
Yak , Migg and Lagg is what broke LW back.


wrong:) see wotan's post.
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
P-47 vs P-51 in WWII
« Reply #40 on: September 16, 2002, 05:27:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by -ammo-


wrong:) see wotan's post.

Ya Im back on the other side of the fence again...
The jug broke the LWs back!
and the pony held it down!

Offline Daff

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 338
P-47 vs P-51 in WWII
« Reply #41 on: September 16, 2002, 07:08:36 PM »
"The P51 had ~10,000 victories in the ETO."

Huh?...that must include 'ground kills'


Daff

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6137
P-47 vs P-51 in WWII
« Reply #42 on: September 16, 2002, 07:27:20 PM »
From what I've been told by actual fighter pilots from the 1st, 20th, 55th, and 475th, the P-38 had no handling vices other than compressibility in a dive from above 25,000 feet. The closest other characteristic that might be termed a vice was that it tended to float a little on landing. The twin engine layout allowed it to have zero net torque, it had a very low stall speed with gentle stall departure (if it even departed, you had to be in an extremely tight turn to actually depart) and relatively easy recovery. It had a short take off run, was easy to land, and generally a pleasure to fly.

If you violated the takeoff procedure, you could lose an engine on takeoff, and if you were not prepared or trained, that could kill you.

The only significant changes to the airframe that modified handling characteristics made between the F model and the end of production of the L model was the addition of the dive flaps. That and a change to the fillet radius where the wing attached to the center nacelle only affected the dive characteristics.

The P-38 was a big plane, but if handled properly, could turn with most anything, had an excellent climb rate, and great acceleration. Using differential throttle application, you could turn a P-38 extremely tight.

With a 4:1 kill to loss ratio in combat against the Luftwaffe, it was more than capable as a fighter, and an escort fighter, and did a great job of ground interdiction.

The P-38 was not known for engine problems in North Africa, and had a tremendous record in both North Africa and the Mediterranian.

The proper throttle setting for range on the P-38 was 1600 RPM, 50+ inches of manifold pressure, and mixture to auto lean. The P-38 had no equal in range at any time in World War II, among Allied fighters. The P-38 was the FIRST Allied fighter over Berlin, by itself, even the bombers had turned back.

The P-38 did well in the Pacific because General Kenney loved the plane, had confidence in it, and instilled that confidence in his men. The 8th AF was lead by bomber command staff, and when it came to fighter operations, until Doolittle came along, they were totally incompetent.

The P-38 could and did operate at altitudes in excess of 28,000 feet over the Pacific regularly, and it's just as cold at 28,000 feet over New Guinea as it is at 28,000 feet over Regensburg. The cold weather thing is pure B.S. The P-38 did have cockpit heating problems, but the improper operation of the plane was the problem with regards to mechanical failure.

The problem with cold weather operation in Europe was that pilots were running the Allisons at 2000 RPM, 20 inches of manifold pressure, and mixture in auto rich. The oil and coolant were so cold they almost congealed, and sometimes did. The cylinder head temperatures dropped so low that the gauges didn't even register. Anyone with common sense knew this could not work, but it was procedure, and that was that. It not only wasted precious fuel, it caused turbochargers to overspeed because the regulators froze, it caused engines to stall and backfire when the throttles were advanced, it caused plugs to foul constantly, resulting in rough engines and premature returns.

The minute some intelligent pilot ran his manifold pressure up to 50 inches, and switched his mixture to auto lean, the problem stopped. Even after this was discovered, the 8th did a poor job of getting the information out.

Another problem was the poor quality British Petroleum fuel. It had the tel anti knock compound blended poorly, right before the fuel was loaded in the plane. The early P-38 (pre J models)had a bizarre intercooler, which was actually a corrugated metal duct that went from the carb to the wingtip and back. In these, the tel dropped out of the fuel, and cuased detonation. In the J and later models, the intercooler was a regular core type, with a door that controlled temperature. When pilots left the door open at cruise, the tel dropped out due to excessive cooling. When Doolittle arranged to have Shell (his former employer) deliver good quality fuel to Britain, these problems stopped.

The oil coolers also had doors, and when left open at cruise, they would chill the oil, which caused the same problems as low temperature brought on by using the wrong cruise settings.

Lockheed had already solved this problem in 1943, back in the early spring, but once again, they were not allowed to stop production for a few days to make the changes, until late in 1943 at a model change.  They had automatic engine temperature controls ready for the G models, but they didn't appear until the J model.

It was quite common for pilots to file an early return report claiming mechanical problems, and for the maintenance crew to file a report stating the plane had no such problems.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6137
P-47 vs P-51 in WWII
« Reply #43 on: September 16, 2002, 07:44:02 PM »
The secret to the success of the P-51 is easy to see. Now, don't get me wrong, the P-51 is a fine aircraft, with several great attributes, and some vices no one wants to talk about. The truth about the P-51 is really more impressive than the bogus legend.

The P-47 was escorting the bombers to the limit of its range, and releasing them to the P-51 and the P-38. The P-47 had great numerical superiority to the Luftwaffe, and wisely the Luftwaffe was wont to engage the P-47 when they could wait and face a third as many (or less) P-38s and P-51s over their own territory. Eventually, the Luftwaffe was FORCED to attack the bombers while the P-47 was escorting them en masse, but it was not by choice that they did it.

Once the P-51 reached an equal level of deployment to the P-38, the P-38 and the P-47 began to spend most of their time on ground interdiction missions, while the P-51 faced an already broken Luftwaffe, short on pilots and fuel, without enough fuel or experienced pilots to train new pilots. The Luftwaffe was dying off, severely damaged by the P-47, and the early missions of P-38s and ever increasing numbers of P-51s. The P-51, reaching deployment levels equal to the P-38 in April of 1944, spent the next year facing a Luftwaffe that was already in decline, and sinking faster every day.

The P-51's claim to being the plane that broke the Luftwaffe's back just doesn't fly. The P-51 is to the P-38 and the P-47 what the Spitfire is to the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6137
P-47 vs P-51 in WWII
« Reply #44 on: September 16, 2002, 07:58:09 PM »
The P-47, while not without its own problems, was tough, reliable, powerful, and an excellent platform for both air to air and air to ground combat. Flown properly, it could and did defeat the very best the Luftwaffe had to offer, in planes and pilots. Had the 8th AF put the 108 gallon and larger drop tanks on the P-47 when they should have, the P-51, and possibly the P-38, would quite possibly have been also rans. The P-47 gave far more than it took, and deserves far more credit than it gets. While everyone thinks Bodie is only a P-38 fan, you should read his book on the P-47, and his newest book on the 8th AF. Bodie gives the credit where it's due.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe