Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: WING47 on December 20, 2009, 12:06:26 PM

Title: P-51H
Post by: WING47 on December 20, 2009, 12:06:26 PM
      The P-51H is a late war variant of the P-51. Only 555 were built. It did go into service during WWII.

      The specifications for it was a top speed of 487mph at 25000ft. Climb rate was about 3700 ft per Minuit.
I'm not sure about cornering radius,acceleration,and overall maneuverability but the 2000 HP Merlin plus
less weight than the other Mustangs would surly bring it around pretty quick.Its Length was 33.33ft
and wing area is the same as the other Mustangs.

     I do admit being a Mustang addict myself I'm a little jealous of those late war Spitfire XVI and XIV guys as
well as those F4U-4s. So a new P-51 would make many of us Mustang pilots happy.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: EDO43 on December 20, 2009, 12:26:51 PM
I don't believe the H saw any combat.  The same issue with the Bearcat.  Although it may have been deployed, it didn't fly any combat sorties.  Therefore I do not believe it's a viable addition to the game.  I don't know exactly how HTC determines the criteria for an addition but I believe the aircraft must have been used operationally in combat to be included in the planeset.  I may be mistaken but I do know that there are qualifiers if you will, for what can and cannot be added to the game as far as late war aircraft are concerned.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Shifty on December 20, 2009, 12:28:21 PM
Sounds like they suffered the same fate as the F8F Bearcat, deployed yet not seeing combat therefore not likely to be seen in the game.

"Even though some units in the pacific received the P-51H before VJ Day, they did not see any action."

I got the info here.

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/p51variants/P-51H.shtml
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: AWwrgwy on December 20, 2009, 01:25:11 PM
Didn't see any service in Korea either.  Due to the process of making it lighter and increasing its performance it was deemed to fragile for combat.  It's stress limits were considerably downgraded.

Instead, the P-51D weathered on in a ground attack role in Korea flown by the U.S., Australia and South Korea.


wrongway
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Templar on December 20, 2009, 03:04:16 PM
Sooo we are stuck with that poor old rattletrap D model as the best we can get in a P-51 oh well too bad......  :neener:  :banana:  :airplane:
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Kweassa on December 20, 2009, 07:32:58 PM

 You can always ask them for a 150 octane for a moderate perk option.

 Say, 15 perks.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: gyrene81 on December 20, 2009, 10:43:48 PM
Nothing wrong with the runstangs in the game now.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Templar on December 21, 2009, 12:03:05 AM
I was joking sir. I agree with you and like the ponies!  :cheers:
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: bravoa8 on December 21, 2009, 12:07:01 AM
I don't mind another 51 but, I'd rather have something else like a new tank.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: oakranger on December 21, 2009, 01:24:32 AM
We could get the K model.  The only difference between the K and D is that the K's prop where 2" shorter.   
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Larry on December 21, 2009, 01:33:34 AM
I want the best P51 variant, P-51C.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Ack-Ack on December 21, 2009, 01:49:53 AM
Isn't the only difference between the B and the C is location of production with the B being built in California and the C in Texas?  Other than that, from what I've read there is no difference between the B and the C.  Both were produced and entered operation service at the same time.


ack-ack
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: oakranger on December 21, 2009, 02:22:56 AM
Isn't the only difference between the B and the C is location of production with the B being built in California and the C in Texas?  Other than that, from what I've read there is no difference between the B and the C.  Both were produced and entered operation service at the same time.


ack-ack

HUH, i thought that the C was a two setter. 
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: 5PointOh on December 21, 2009, 04:03:53 AM
Ack Ack is correct, the difference is between B and a C is point of mfg.  As far as the D and the K,  viturally identical other than the previously mention Aeroproducts smaller diameter  propeller.  Only thing I've like to see for the 51s is the 150oct perk option and the added dorsal fin for the B/Cs in AH.  Still a great plane in AH.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: gyrene81 on December 21, 2009, 06:47:13 AM
Hey, if it was made in Texas it's gonna have to be perked.  :D  We can't have a Texas runstang...wait, maybe it would be better, at least we wouldn't have to chase it 3 sectors for a fight.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: RTHolmes on December 21, 2009, 08:14:12 AM
Only thing I've like to see for the 51s is the 150oct perk option

have you seen what 150 does to spit and tempy performance? be careful what you wish for :D
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Masherbrum on December 21, 2009, 08:15:57 AM
Isn't the only difference between the B and the C is location of production with the B being built in California and the C in Texas?  Other than that, from what I've read there is no difference between the B and the C.  Both were produced and entered operation service at the same time.


ack-ack

Not only THAT, the guns were prone to jamming as on the B.   A stopgap Variant until the Bubble Top D, seeing as the Specs are identical to the B as well. 
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: saantana on December 21, 2009, 09:00:25 AM
I hope we get that bearcat sometime.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Larry on December 21, 2009, 01:44:00 PM
Dam you ackack you ruined my bait!
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Strip on December 21, 2009, 04:02:00 PM
No, your bait was old and stale to begin with....
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Shifty on December 21, 2009, 07:45:26 PM
I hope we get that bearcat sometime.

I'd love to see the Bearcat as well, however it didn't see combat and we'll likely never see it added to the game.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Larry on December 22, 2009, 12:06:09 AM
No, your bait was old and stale to begin with....

and yet it got a few bites
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: oakranger on December 22, 2009, 01:40:18 AM
I'd love to see the Bearcat as well, however it didn't see combat and we'll likely never see it added to the game.

yea, they where in service right at the end but did not get a chance.  Dam, it would have been interesting to see how they stood up against IJ AC.

Same gos for British and u.s. jets.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: sluggish on December 22, 2009, 03:18:58 PM
If we need another Pony it should be the Apache...
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: stephen on December 23, 2009, 12:21:35 PM
4 twenty mil's would be nice..., I believe the Apache was so armed, correct?
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Strip on December 23, 2009, 12:25:34 PM
Comparing the Apache to even the P-51B is like comparing the Spitfire MkI to the Spitfire MkXVI.

Many would be extremely disappointed in it, about 100 or so came with four 20 millimeter Hispanos if I am not mistaken though.

Strip
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Sol75 on December 23, 2009, 01:44:54 PM
Bah, if we get the 51h and the f8f, I want a P-38K!

Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: oakranger on December 23, 2009, 01:59:04 PM
Bah, if we get the 51h and the f8f, I want a P-38K!



What was so special about thed 38K?
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Strip on December 23, 2009, 02:07:23 PM
I hope your joking Oakranger....if not, here.

The P-38K-1-LO is the rarest variant, only one was ever built from scratch, another was modified from different model. So rare in fact that only photos that exist are of the heavily modified version. There are no know photos of the scratch built P-38K, the best preforming P-38 of the war. It had a initial takeoff climb of over 4,800 fpm and service ceiling of 45,000 feet or more! It was predicted to break 450 mph at critical alt while having 10-15% greater range.

This is the hot rod special of P-38s!

Strip
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: oakranger on December 23, 2009, 02:37:13 PM
I hope your joking Oakranger....if not, here.

The P-38K-1-LO is the rarest variant, only one was ever built from scratch, another was modified from different model. So rare in fact that only photos that exist are of the heavily modified version. There are no know photos of the scratch built P-38K, the best preforming P-38 of the war. It had a initial takeoff climb of over 4,800 fpm and service ceiling of 45,000 feet or more! It was predicted to break 450 mph at critical alt while having 10-15% greater range.

This is the hot rod special of P-38s!

Strip

I am not a P-38 driver.  so i really do not know much about them.  what kind of gun package and payload did it have?
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Westy on December 23, 2009, 03:49:53 PM
"Bah, if we get the 51h and the f8f, I want a P-38K!"

Unlike the 51H and the F8F the 38K never saw production let alone deployment
to squadrons in-theater before VJ day
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Sol75 on December 23, 2009, 07:31:13 PM
I hope your joking Oakranger....if not, here.

The P-38K-1-LO is the rarest variant, only one was ever built from scratch, another was modified from different model. So rare in fact that only photos that exist are of the heavily modified version. There are no know photos of the scratch built P-38K, the best preforming P-38 of the war. It had a initial takeoff climb of over 4,800 fpm and service ceiling of 45,000 feet or more! It was predicted to break 450 mph at critical alt while having 10-15% greater range.

This is the hot rod special of P-38s!

Strip

Yep, actually I believe it was closer to 5500fpm, with WEP.

As far as loadout/guns  standard 38 gun package 4x50 cal, 1x20mm Hispano.  Loadout? dunno, I don't believe in those ugly green things that go boom.. so not sure on that one.

Sol
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Ack-Ack on December 23, 2009, 07:35:53 PM
I am not a P-38 driver.  so i really do not know much about them.  what kind of gun package and payload did it have?

Same gun and ordnance package as the regular P-38s.  

This is a photo of the test bed P-38K (heavily modified P-38E).
(http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Xp-38k.jpg)

The test bed, P-38K-1-LO, was flown to Elgin Field for evaluation by the USAAF and flown against the P-51B and P-47D.  The results were rather surprising with the P-38K beating both the Mustang and Jug in every category of measured performance.  Not only did the P-38K beat the P-51B and Jug, it showed to be vastly superior to these two planes.  From a standing starting on the runway, the P-38K could take off and climb to 20,000ft in 5 minutes flat.  Fully loaded had an initial climb rate of 4,800fpm (Military Power) and under WEP, over 5,000fpm was predicted.

ack-ack
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: oakranger on December 24, 2009, 12:03:46 AM
Same gun and ordnance package as the regular P-38s.  

This is a photo of the test bed P-38K (heavily modified P-38E).
(http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Xp-38k.jpg)

The test bed, P-38K-1-LO, was flown to Elgin Field for evaluation by the USAAF and flown against the P-51B and P-47D.  The results were rather surprising with the P-38K beating both the Mustang and Jug in every category of measured performance.  Not only did the P-38K beat the P-51B and Jug, it showed to be vastly superior to these two planes.  From a standing starting on the runway, the P-38K could take off and climb to 20,000ft in 5 minutes flat.  Fully loaded had an initial climb rate of 4,800fpm (Military Power) and under WEP, over 5,000fpm was predicted.

ack-ack

So, why didn't they put it into production?
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: BnZs on December 24, 2009, 08:08:58 AM
So, why didn't they put it into production?

Have you ever read "The Dilbert Principle"?
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Strip on December 24, 2009, 08:27:55 AM
The War Department was unwilling to stop production while Lockheed retooled their production lines, even though it was scheduled to only take around a month.

Strip
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: oakranger on December 24, 2009, 11:51:02 AM
Have you ever read "The Dilbert Principle"?

no
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: whels on December 24, 2009, 12:43:20 PM
If a plane was in production, and in squadron service in WW2 it should be in AH eventually.

You want a P51 for MA fights? Mustang III (Brit P51B). Modified to chase V1s. would do
450mph @ 5k  :D
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: smoe on February 04, 2010, 05:18:03 PM
Quote
Didn't see any service in Korea either.  Due to the process of making it lighter and increasing its performance it was deemed to fragile for combat.  It's stress limits were considerably downgraded.

Instead, the P-51D weathered on in a ground attack role in Korea flown by the U.S., Australia and South Korea.

Probably the biggest reason the H didn't go to Korea is the D's were very cheap post WWII. The government was probably giving away the D's for nothing in order to use up the spare parts stockpiled for a Japanese invasion.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Ack-Ack on February 04, 2010, 06:06:28 PM
Probably the biggest reason the H didn't go to Korea is the D's were very cheap post WWII. The government was probably giving away the D's for nothing in order to use up the spare parts stockpiled for a Japanese invasion.

The main reason why the H didn't see any action in Korea was that it was deemed not suitable for combat in Korea.  Due to its lighter structure than the D model, the H model was considered to be more subsceptible to damage than the D and therefore unsuitable for the role it was intended to be used in (ground attack) in Korea.  The D was a proven commodity, while the H wasn't.

ack-ack
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Chalenge on February 04, 2010, 07:03:41 PM
So, why didn't they put it into production?

Dogfighting isnt how wars are won because you still need bombers and by 1945 the dogfights had moved to 30k and above as escorts ran into fighter defense. In Korea the fights went even higher and the P-38 could not match the P-51 at the higher altitudes. The P-38 could fly high and it could fight but it could not fight at high alt at high speed and the fact that the American brass failed to grasp this (and some people in AH still havent) cost a lot of lives in WWII.

Aside from all that... the P-38 was the primary long range fighter in the Pacific until America moved its attention from Europe to Japan (primarily) and the P-38 production was VERY important until then AND to retool to produce the 'K' would have taken P-38s out of production for too long a period. I believe all P-38 squadrons were refitted with P-51s once the Pacific campaign received primary focus.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Ack-Ack on February 04, 2010, 08:26:21 PM
Dogfighting isnt how wars are won because you still need bombers and by 1945 the dogfights had moved to 30k and above as escorts ran into fighter defense. In Korea the fights went even higher and the P-38 could not match the P-51 at the higher altitudes. The P-38 could fly high and it could fight but it could not fight at high alt at high speed and the fact that the American brass failed to grasp this (and some people in AH still havent) cost a lot of lives in WWII.

Aside from all that... the P-38 was the primary long range fighter in the Pacific until America moved its attention from Europe to Japan (primarily) and the P-38 production was VERY important until then AND to retool to produce the 'K' would have taken P-38s out of production for too long a period. I believe all P-38 squadrons were refitted with P-51s once the Pacific campaign received primary focus.

wow...stick to studies at fuel conservation at 35,000ft or tests on the effects of being bitten by red scorpions because when it comes to the P-38 (history and performance) you really have no clue.

Man, the P-38 would have sucked in your vapor/fraud-ware game.

ack-ack
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Chalenge on February 04, 2010, 09:31:22 PM
wow...stick to studies at fuel conservation at 35,000ft or tests on the effects of being bitten by red scorpions because when it comes to the P-38 (history and performance) you really have no clue.

Man, the P-38 would have sucked in your vapor/fraud-ware game.

ack-ack

So your one of the moonbats huh? Not surprising.

The information comes from history and you should try reading a book or two some time and you might actually have some facts to back up your urban myth. Since you arent using any facts to back up your rant I propose your an idiot.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Ack-Ack on February 04, 2010, 10:56:01 PM
So your one of the moonbats huh? Not surprising.


You know what's funny?  This is what Wiki has to say about the usage of Moonbat. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbat)

Quote
Examples of usage
A popular put down of Chalenge, an expert in high altitude fuel conservation, frequently uses "Moonbat" as a defensive response. Some have attributed this to the long lasting effects of being bitten by a red scorpion and his 'black-ops' missions for the CIA during the 1st Gulf War.

Quote
The information comes from history and you should try reading a book or two some time and you might actually have some facts to back up your urban myth. Since you arent using any facts to back up your rant I propose your an idiot.

The P-38 was designed to be a high altitude interceptor and at 28,000ft was faster than the P-51D, had a higher service ceiling than the Mustang and could out maneuver it.  P-51 with drop tanks did have a farther range but with drop tanks the P-38 was able to roam everywhere the Mustang could.  Hell, the Thunderbolt could easily out perform both the Mustang and the Lightning at high altitudes.

The only thing you got right in your previous post was the War Production Board rejecting Lockheed's request to retool their production line for the K.  Even though it would have taken less than 2 weeks, the WPB said no.  

Don't know why you mentioned the P-38 and Korea since it was largely out of the US inventory by that time, with maybe a few here and there rotting at some ANG base.  Nor know why you even brought Korea into the discussion as the P-51D was used in the ground support role and rarely conducted operations at altitudes it performed at in the ETO during World War II.

After VE-Day when the Mustangs started to show up in the Pacific in greater numbers, the P-38 units in the PTO did not give up their Lightnings for Mustangs like the 8th AF P-38s in the ETO.

Honestly, it's you that should crack a book sometime.  Like milk, it might do you good.

ack-ack
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Masherbrum on February 04, 2010, 11:32:02 PM
Dogfighting isnt how wars are won because you still need bombers and by 1945 the dogfights had moved to 30k and above as escorts ran into fighter defense. In Korea the fights went even higher and the P-38 could not match the P-51 at the higher altitudes. The P-38 could fly high and it could fight but it could not fight at high alt at high speed and the fact that the American brass failed to grasp this (and some people in AH still havent) cost a lot of lives in WWII.

Aside from all that... the P-38 was the primary long range fighter in the Pacific until America moved its attention from Europe to Japan (primarily) and the P-38 production was VERY important until then AND to retool to produce the 'K' would have taken P-38s out of production for too long a period. I believe all P-38 squadrons were refitted with P-51s once the Pacific campaign received primary focus.

 :rofl :rofl :rofl
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: vonKrimm on February 04, 2010, 11:38:58 PM
Did the Pony-H fly escort missions for bombers?  If so, does that not count as a combat mission?  :headscratch:
I'm sure some WWII escort pilots would be rather irked if their missions were counted as something other than "combat" only because no enemy planes lifted to meet them.  Also, what about ground-attack mission?  Are those combat mission or not combat missions.  What about escort fighters that strafed targets of opportunity while RTBing.  Is that or is that not "combat"?
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Ack-Ack on February 05, 2010, 12:21:06 AM
Did the Pony-H fly escort missions for bombers?  If so, does that not count as a combat mission?  :headscratch:
I'm sure some WWII escort pilots would be rather irked if their missions were counted as something other than "combat" only because no enemy planes lifted to meet them.  Also, what about ground-attack mission?  Are those combat mission or not combat missions.  What about escort fighters that strafed targets of opportunity while RTBing.  Is that or is that not "combat"?

Widewing posted the numbers of P-51Hs that were deployed to the Pacific in another thread. 

Iwo Jima... Four P-51H fighters were delivered on or around August 3, 1945 and were used to fly standing patrols around Iwo Jima to enable pilots to become familiar with them. No Japanese aircraft were encountered. A small detachment of Marine F7F-2Ns were deployed and began night ops the evening before the shooting stopped. No enemy aircraft were encountered in their one combat patrol. F8F-1s equipped two squadrons on carriers, but were still several days from joining Halsey's fleet when Japan surrendered. Given another week... Who knows?

Stateside, whole squadrons were operational with the F7F and F8F as early as June, 1945. Nonetheless, all of the above never fired a gun or dropped ordnance on an enemy during WWII. F7F-3Ns ruled the night sky over Korea for more than a year. F8Fs saw combat in Vietnam with the French Air Force. The P-51H was never deployed to Korea. F-82s did see combat in Korea, shooting down several Yak-9Ps.


My regards,

Widewing

ack-ack
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Chalenge on February 05, 2010, 12:32:55 AM
George Noory is looking for you two... really.  :noid
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: gyrene81 on February 05, 2010, 11:14:17 AM
Chalenge...no offense bud but...you really missed the mark on this:
Dogfighting isnt how wars are won because you still need bombers and by 1945 the dogfights had moved to 30k and above as escorts ran into fighter defense. In Korea the fights went even higher and the P-38 could not match the P-51 at the higher altitudes. The P-38 could fly high and it could fight but it could not fight at high alt at high speed and the fact that the American brass failed to grasp this (and some people in AH still havent) cost a lot of lives in WWII.

Aside from all that... the P-38 was the primary long range fighter in the Pacific until America moved its attention from Europe to Japan (primarily) and the P-38 production was VERY important until then AND to retool to produce the 'K' would have taken P-38s out of production for too long a period. I believe all P-38 squadrons were refitted with P-51s once the Pacific campaign received primary focus.
First, air superiority is required to win a war and that is won by aerial combat which can occur at nearly any altitude...bombers don't establish air superiority, fighters do. As for the rest of your assertions on the P-38 vs the P-51...I have read the books, you're wrong.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Ack-Ack on February 05, 2010, 01:48:29 PM
George Noory is looking for you two... really.  :noid

Why am I not surprised that this is the only response that you're capable of after being shown how utterly and completely clueless you are?  Must be the lack of oxygen at 35,000k or you're still suffering the lingering effects of being bitten by a red scorpion.


ack-ack
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Chalenge on February 05, 2010, 04:42:47 PM
Chalenge...no offense bud but...you really missed the mark on this:First, air superiority is required to win a war and that is won by aerial combat which can occur at nearly any altitude...bombers don't establish air superiority, fighters do. As for the rest of your assertions on the P-38 vs the P-51...I have read the books, you're wrong.

For the very reasons I stated the P-38 was removed from service in Europe.

Capt Eric Brown - Chief Test Pilot - RAE Farnborough 1944-1949

(Speaking about the Typhoon and Tempest)
The Typhoon originally was a bit of a disaster. As a fighter it never made the grade; it was too heavy and its Sabre engine was very unreliable. And it had a problem that it had a weakness in the structure in one of the joints near the tail. What happened was the Sabre would cut out and restart again. When it cut suddenly and at speed you get a tremendous swing as the torque changed. This put the side strain on the rear fuselage which would eventually lead to a failure at the rear. Make no mistake it was a great ground attack aircraft this was its forte. And it could take a lot of damage and had tremendous firepower.

The P-47 was no good as a fighter at high altitude because it had a very low Mach number but it was a very good ground attack aircraft. The Americans had some shocks because when Doolittle became head of the United States Eighth Air Force in December 1943 he had had some disastrous raids with B-17s escorted by P-38 Lightnings and Thunderbolts. He came to Farnborough to ask for help as he was a long way from home. I was very involved and he gave us three aircraft: a LIghtning a Thunderbolt and a P-51 Mustang. You see the whole scenario in fighting had changed. Up to the beginning of 1943 it was all below 20000 feet. Suddenly the B-17s arrived and went up to 30000 feet. It was a different ball game because you were into compressibility problems and high Mach numbers. The enemy fighters were the 109 and the 190 and we had tested these even at that stage in the war because we had managed to get crashed aircraft repaired.


Now pay attention.

We found out that they could fight up to a Mach of 0.75 or three quarters the speed of sound. We checked the Lightning and it could not fly in combat faster than 0.68. So it was useless. We told Doolittle that all it was good for was photo-reconnaissance and had to be withdrawn from escort duties. And when we tried the Thunderbolt it could only manoeuvre up to 0.71. But thank God they had the Mustang and it could do 0.78. And the funny thing is the Americans had difficulty understanding this because the Lightning had the two top aces in the Far East.

Im not going to unsquelch ack just to see his latest ravings...

(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/moonbat.jpg)

Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Ack-Ack on February 05, 2010, 05:29:15 PM
For the very reasons I stated the P-38 was removed from service in Europe.

Capt Eric Brown - Chief Test Pilot - RAE Farnborough 1944-1949

(Speaking about the Typhoon and Tempest)
The Typhoon originally was a bit of a disaster. As a fighter it never made the grade; it was too heavy and its Sabre engine was very unreliable. And it had a problem that it had a weakness in the structure in one of the joints near the tail. What happened was the Sabre would cut out and restart again. When it cut suddenly and at speed you get a tremendous swing as the torque changed. This put the side strain on the rear fuselage which would eventually lead to a failure at the rear. Make no mistake it was a great ground attack aircraft this was its forte. And it could take a lot of damage and had tremendous firepower.

The P-47 was no good as a fighter at high altitude because it had a very low Mach number but it was a very good ground attack aircraft. The Americans had some shocks because when Doolittle became head of the United States Eighth Air Force in December 1943 he had had some disastrous raids with B-17s escorted by P-38 Lightnings and Thunderbolts. He came to Farnborough to ask for help as he was a long way from home. I was very involved and he gave us three aircraft: a LIghtning a Thunderbolt and a P-51 Mustang. You see the whole scenario in fighting had changed. Up to the beginning of 1943 it was all below 20000 feet. Suddenly the B-17s arrived and went up to 30000 feet. It was a different ball game because you were into compressibility problems and high Mach numbers. The enemy fighters were the 109 and the 190 and we had tested these even at that stage in the war because we had managed to get crashed aircraft repaired.


Now pay attention.

We found out that they could fight up to a Mach of 0.75 or three quarters the speed of sound. We checked the Lightning and it could not fly in combat faster than 0.68. So it was useless. We told Doolittle that all it was good for was photo-reconnaissance and had to be withdrawn from escort duties. And when we tried the Thunderbolt it could only manoeuvre up to 0.71. But thank God they had the Mustang and it could do 0.78. And the funny thing is the Americans had difficulty understanding this because the Lightning had the two top aces in the Far East.

Im not going to unsquelch ack just to see his latest ravings...

(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/moonbat.jpg)



Unfortunately for you, you're still wrong as to the reasons why the P-38 was removed from escort fighter duties by the 8th AF.  Note that it was only the 8th AF that did this and it had more to do with the mentality of the 8th AF high command than anything else.

Nice try and next time try and throw the ball a little harder.  These fat pitches you're giving me just makes if easy to hit them out of the ball park.


ack-ack
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Masherbrum on February 05, 2010, 06:16:51 PM
Unfortunately for you, you're still wrong as to the reasons why the P-38 was removed from escort fighter duties by the 8th AF.  Note that it was only the 8th AF that did this and it had more to do with the mentality of the 8th AF high command than anything else.

Nice try and next time try and throw the ball a little harder.  These fat pitches you're giving me just makes if easy to hit them out of the ball park.

ack-ack

Too true.   Next Chalenge will tell us that the P-38 wasn't the first US plane to land on the Japanese Mainland after V-J Day.   :noid
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Guppy35 on February 05, 2010, 11:25:03 PM
For the very reasons I stated the P-38 was removed from service in Europe.

Capt Eric Brown - Chief Test Pilot - RAE Farnborough 1944-1949

(Speaking about the Typhoon and Tempest)
The Typhoon originally was a bit of a disaster. As a fighter it never made the grade; it was too heavy and its Sabre engine was very unreliable. And it had a problem that it had a weakness in the structure in one of the joints near the tail. What happened was the Sabre would cut out and restart again. When it cut suddenly and at speed you get a tremendous swing as the torque changed. This put the side strain on the rear fuselage which would eventually lead to a failure at the rear. Make no mistake it was a great ground attack aircraft this was its forte. And it could take a lot of damage and had tremendous firepower.

The P-47 was no good as a fighter at high altitude because it had a very low Mach number but it was a very good ground attack aircraft. The Americans had some shocks because when Doolittle became head of the United States Eighth Air Force in December 1943 he had had some disastrous raids with B-17s escorted by P-38 Lightnings and Thunderbolts. He came to Farnborough to ask for help as he was a long way from home. I was very involved and he gave us three aircraft: a LIghtning a Thunderbolt and a P-51 Mustang. You see the whole scenario in fighting had changed. Up to the beginning of 1943 it was all below 20000 feet. Suddenly the B-17s arrived and went up to 30000 feet. It was a different ball game because you were into compressibility problems and high Mach numbers. The enemy fighters were the 109 and the 190 and we had tested these even at that stage in the war because we had managed to get crashed aircraft repaired.


Now pay attention.

We found out that they could fight up to a Mach of 0.75 or three quarters the speed of sound. We checked the Lightning and it could not fly in combat faster than 0.68. So it was useless. We told Doolittle that all it was good for was photo-reconnaissance and had to be withdrawn from escort duties. And when we tried the Thunderbolt it could only manoeuvre up to 0.71. But thank God they had the Mustang and it could do 0.78. And the funny thing is the Americans had difficulty understanding this because the Lightning had the two top aces in the Far East.

Im not going to unsquelch ack just to see his latest ravings...

(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/moonbat.jpg)



I wouldn't even begin to know where to start in trying to educate you on this one.  Makes me wonder why they were borrowing 9th AF 38s to escort the bombers in the Fall of 44.   Of course the MTO 38 Groups were in it til the end over Germany as well, but whose counting.  And as Karaya mentions it was Clay Tice of the 49th FG and wingman who were the first American fighters to land in Japan.

Do keep in mind that it was the guys in the Jugs, 38s and the first B Pony drivers who essentially won the airwar over Germany prior to D-Day.  And if you really want to press the issue, it's probably fair to say that in terms of USAAF fighters in the ETO, it was the Jug that was the one that mattered most.  And I'm saying that as a P38 and P51 fan.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Hajo on February 05, 2010, 11:39:49 PM
Dan.....it seems we have to educate some spam can drivers  ;)

Do more reading on the P38 and the P47.  The P38 served in the Med and europe until VE day.

The P47 did also.....then......take a look at the total kills by squadron and remember that most P51 squadrons flew Jugs

and /or P38s before they transitioned to the P51.

Both the 47 and 38 were very fine air to air combat aircraft as WELL as ground attack.  Both were very versatile.

I can suggest some books if need be.  And I know Dan would be able to suggest many many more.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Masherbrum on February 05, 2010, 11:54:50 PM
I wouldn't even begin to know where to start in trying to educate you on this one.  Makes me wonder why they were borrowing 9th AF 38s to escort the bombers in the Fall of 44.   Of course the MTO 38 Groups were in it til the end over Germany as well, but whose counting.  And as Karaya mentions it was Clay Tice of the 49th FG and wingman who were the first American fighters to land in Japan.

Do keep in mind that it was the guys in the Jugs, 38s and the first B Pony drivers who essentially won the airwar over Germany prior to D-Day.  And if you really want to press the issue, it's probably fair to say that in terms of USAAF fighters in the ETO, it was the Jug that was the one that mattered most.  And I'm saying that as a P38 and P51 fan.

Excellent post Dan.    :airplane:
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Chalenge on February 06, 2010, 01:00:25 AM
I wouldn't even begin to know where to start in trying to educate you on this one.  Makes me wonder why they were borrowing 9th AF 38s to escort the bombers in the Fall of 44.   Of course the MTO 38 Groups were in it til the end over Germany as well, but whose counting.  And as Karaya mentions it was Clay Tice of the 49th FG and wingman who were the first American fighters to land in Japan.

Do keep in mind that it was the guys in the Jugs, 38s and the first B Pony drivers who essentially won the airwar over Germany prior to D-Day.  And if you really want to press the issue, it's probably fair to say that in terms of USAAF fighters in the ETO, it was the Jug that was the one that mattered most.  And I'm saying that as a P38 and P51 fan.

Im saying that on the basis of looking toward Korea and the way aircraft were developing. Neither the Jug nor the Lightning were even considered that late and for the reasons I mentioned not simply because there were hundreds of Mustangs lying around. Their time (47s and 38s) was past.

The only P-38 in Korea was a can opener.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Guppy35 on February 06, 2010, 02:23:02 AM
Im saying that on the basis of looking toward Korea and the way aircraft were developing. Neither the Jug nor the Lightning were even considered that late and for the reasons I mentioned not simply because there were hundreds of Mustangs lying around. Their time (47s and 38s) was past.

The only P-38 in Korea was a can opener.

Lets face it.  The time was past for the 51 as well. 

From purely an economic standpoint, the 51 was the better option postwar.  From a ground attack standpoint in Korea, the P47N would have been the better bird for ord and loiter time as well as pilot survival.  One hit in the coolant tank and the 51 was in trouble.  The 51D got the job because it was available in numbers.  The  casualty rate of Korean war 51s was horrific.

They  flew 62, 607 combat sorties in Korea and lost 341 to enemy action.  Consider the F80 flew 98,515 combat sorties and only lost 143 aircraft to enemy action.  474 Mustangs were lost to all causes in Korea. 

Also understand that P47s were requested for Korea, but logistically it was easier to get 51s as there were a lot of them awaiting scrapping in Japan that were pulled from storage for Korea. It was also easier to draw 51s from the Air National Guard units.  There were still Guard units operating 47s but there were no P47 spares in Japan but there were 51 spares so the decision was made to go with the 51.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Raptor on February 06, 2010, 02:28:32 AM
Im saying that on the basis of looking toward Korea and the way aircraft were developing. Neither the Jug nor the Lightning were even considered that late and for the reasons I mentioned not simply because there were hundreds of Mustangs lying around. Their time (47s and 38s) was past.

The only P-38 in Korea was a can opener.
In Korea the P-51 was used for ground attack missions, it did not escort bombers or engage with Migs.  In WW2 the P51 was not assigned to ground attack roles as frequently because it could not take the same amount of damage as a P38 or P47. The P47 used a radial engine that was reported to take a 37mm round and keep flying. The P38 had two engines to get the pilot home safely.

Now something you are not considering is economics. At the end of the war the US did not need nearly as many variants of aircraft for peace time roles. The P-38 cost nearly three times as much as a P51, the P47 cost around twice as much as a P51. The main reason the P51 remained after WW2 is it was the cheapest of the three. Now Korea comes around and they buy F-86 Sabres to be a competitive fighter, however they still have many P51s sitting around because they were not disposed of after WW2. Therefore they put them into service in a ground attack role. If the USAF had P47s or P38s readily available, they would have preferred to use them as ground attack aircraft in Korea.
Title: Re: P-51H
Post by: Wmaker on February 06, 2010, 04:08:40 AM
The P-38 was designed to be a high altitude interceptor and at 28,000ft was faster than the P-51D

At least when talking about the normal 1625hp power setting for the P-38L this is incorrect according Mr.Dean's AHT.

HTC has the speeds more or less straight out of the AHT:
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/genchart.php?p1=0&p2=18&pw=2&gtype=0]http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/genchart.php?p1=0&p2=18&pw=2&gtype=0)