Allied Fighter Ranges and B-17 Crossfire Diagram

[Dadtallica]

A couple cool pictures I came across. Had to be terrifying approaching a set of B17s! I thought the P47’s had more juice than that.

[oboe]

Excellent finds, Dad!

I think the second diagram shows why the P-51 was so important to the Allied cause.  It really 'saved' the U.S. bombing campaign, or at least brought its costs in men and materials down.  Could've had it earlier in the War too, if USAAF air leaders had been more open in their thinking.  Took many too many lives to get them to reconsider their "The bomber will always get through" belief.

I wonder how the long range P-47N would've done on ETO deep escort duty?

[Dadtallica]

Excellent finds, Dad!

I think the second diagram shows why the P-51 was so important to the Allied cause.  It really 'saved' the U.S. bombing campaign, or at least brought its costs in men and materials down.  Could've had it earlier in the War too, if USAAF air leaders had been more open in their thinking.  Took many too many lives to get them to reconsider their "The bomber will always get through" belief.

I wonder how the long range P-47N would've done on ETO deep escort duty?

That’s what I was thinking. With wings and belly tanks I would have thought the 47M/N could go for a ways. I did not know the 38 could beat it. Assuming this is accurate.

[oboe]

P-47N had longer legs than the M, since they increased the wingspan and added internal wing tanks.  I think the M was just a D-40 with a more powerful engine and the wing hard points removed, not positive though.

I think the N was designed for the longer distances in the Pacific Theater; not sure when it was introduced into combat.  I think the 8th was pretty settled and happy with their P-51s by the time the P-47N came into service.   Still would've been interesting to see how the 56th would've done with them...

[MiloMorai]

Why think when it is not that hard to check?

The M was a 'hot rod' and had many problems only just getting into real no problem combat in the last month or so.

[Brooke]

P-38L's in Pacific were, in 1944, doing combat radius of 950 miles.

A lot of the range issue in WWII wasn't just the plane itself, but just making bigger drop tanks.

[Eagler]

Daylight bombing without fighter escorts looks almost criminal when you look at the losses..England thought we were nuts

I think the jury is still out if the damage they caused was worth the cost..

Eagler

[Mongoose]

Note that the range of the Thunderbolt is listed as of 1943.  The P-47 M and N models started flying in 1944. 

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p47_12.html

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p47_13.html

So the Lightning had a longer range until the later versions of the Thunderbolt.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

For that P-38 range, the question is "which P-38?" The G and H model went to Berlin with ease. The J model had entered service, albeit in limited numbers, and it had 110 gallons of internal capacity that the G and H did not. Also, that was during the time when the P-38 was being flown with the wrong cruise settings.

[fuzeman]

A video from Greg on the P-47's range.

[MiloMorai]

A video from Greg on the P-47's range.

Lots wrong in that video.

[Brooke]

Greg is awesome.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Greg is awesome.

He does some nice videos with good information. He's not infallible. But he's usually really close to the factual truth. That's why some have "issues" with him.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

A video from Greg on the P-47's range.

Yep. Good stuff there.