A interesting take on the P-47...

This guy makes it sound like I've been simply wasting my time trying to accomplish anything with a P-47 because everything about it was hopeless.
 
Thought this would start a conversation .He was kinda hard on the P-47 series, as most "journalist" are. Most love the P-51, but the good 'ol P-47 did the most damage everywhere it served and took on the best the enemy had Long before the P-51 did. Did have something to say nice about it but you are right ,it did seem biased as usual and not based on pure facts that the P-47 would bring you to the fight and back to base better than any other fighter would. I love the "Jug" ! A big,beautiful,beast ! Regards ,Scott
 
My son is taking after his uncle ( Talon )and building some missions.The ones he has been doing are the P-47 in N.G. The 348th fighter group,Commander Neel Kearby with 22 victories and received the MOH for 6 victories in 1 engagement.In the pacific he had the most victories in a P-47.

Hiede
 
A lot of myths in this article . After much more in depth research found that the P-47 was superior to the P-51 and P-38 in very many ways. That i pretty much already knew. Do the research yourselves and you will find out the same.Bias and myths are hard to overcome ,but the real truth is out there. Should have picked a better article ! Regards,Scott
 
Not the best-researched article I've seen on the Jug.

Regarding dive speed and compression effects at near-transonic speeds, the general in charge of fighter escorting of daylight bomber raids was concerned with reports of fighters getting into dives at high altitude and being unable to pull out :pop4:, so the Royal Aircraft Establishment were tasked with discovering the limits of control of the main US fighters in the theatre. The clear winner of these trials was the P-51, so it was preferred as an escort fighter in Europe.

At higher altitudes where the air is thinner, the speed of sound actually is lower than at ground level, plus the thinner air means less drag to slow an aircraft down. A diving fighter at these altitudes much more easily reaches speeds near the speed of sound and compression effects, where some of the airflow over the wing and control surfaces is badly affected by the speed, can jam the controls. Some aircraft recover control as they slow down in the denser air nearer the ground and can pull out of the dive, some don't.

The Air Force adapted their tactics as the daylight raids progressed, with fighters sent well ahead of the bombers to take out Luftwaffe fighters before they got airborne or climbed to intercept the B-17s. The Thunderbolt was perfectly capable in that role as an effective ground-attack fighter.

As usual, the real picture is more complex than a short piece can tell.
 
I read the autobiography of Bud Fortier who flew both the 47 and the 51 and he liked the 51 but he had reservations about it as well.
Eventually ground attack missions were a growing part of any fighter wing and the liquid cooled engine was a liability in that role.
They lost quite a few squadron mates who pulled off the target and said "see you after the war" when they found they were streaming coolant from a rifle caliber round. They also lost one when the pilot landed to pick up a downed squadron mate and his coolant boiled over.

He was briefly assigned to an experimental ground attack unit that received the better P-47 propellers and was very impressed but when he returned to his wing they had switched to Mustangs.

I think the 56th FG was arguably the best wing of the war and showed what could be done with the Thunderbolt and what a difference great training made.
Bud's wing tried to emulate some of the tactics of the 56th but just could not pull it off.

The P-51 is a great aircraft but I roll my eyes when I hear it dubbed the plane that won WW2 (as I do with all such broad statements)

There are just some aircraft that have such a legion of fanboys (A-10 F-14 ect) that usually make any nuanced in depth discussion a waste of time.
 
In reading about my Father's war (Korea) the choice of the P-51 over the P-47 was one of operational economics, more than mission suitability. The pilots involved have voiced mixed feelings about the choice. It turned out that we lost a significant number of Mustangs and Pilots (335/264) with more than half of that to ground fire and a third more to accidents. That could have been greatly reduced if we had gone with the nearly indestructible, but more expensive to operate Thunderbolts that were still in active service at the time.
 
MajorMagee said:
In reading about my Father's war (Korea) the choice of the P-51 over the P-47 was one of operational economics, more than mission suitability. The pilots involved have voiced mixed feelings about the choice. It turned out that we lost a significant number of Mustangs and Pilots (335/264) with more than half of that to ground fire and a third more to accidents. That could have been greatly reduced if we had gone with the nearly indestructible, but more expensive to operate Thunderbolts that were still in active service at the time.
Click to expand...

I understand the Korean War ground fire was especially terrifying, the lessons of WW2 flak batteries having been well learned. :pop4: :dizzy:
 
Being a pilot for 25 years I have flown some vintage aircraft.I traveled across the USA to find them.Today only a few P-47's are flyable,same with other WWII aircraft.

2 weeks ago I flew a P-51D for the third time,great aircraft but not my favorite.

Since I am qualified on multi engine aircraft ( also jets ) I got to fly a P-38 a few years ago,little bit more powerful and faster then my Baron 58.Wasn't my cup of tea but a nice experience.

My Great Uncle flew the P-47 and P-51 during the war and liked them both saying both had there good and bad points.The P-47 could take damage,out dive and was better at ground attack but the P-51 was easier to fly,more agile and better range.

He also had a P-47 that was used for air shows.I got to fly it for the last time in 2000,he sold it in 2003 to a collector.It's now being restored for the last 5 years.I liked the P-51 much better.

My favorite is the F4u-d,it's about 800lbs lighter than the P-47,faster,tighter turn radius,better climb rate and carried 4000lbs of external bombs and rockets,at times napalm.

It was also superior to the F6F and P-51 in all ways mention above.After the landing gear was strengthen to eliminate the bounce when landing on carriers and the British formed a new landing pattern ( 1943 ) it became widely used in US carrier operations.It was used mainly for ground support in Korea.

Hoping to fly a Spitfire some day and there is a P-40e in Canada I'm going to see this summer.

Hiede
 
Hi Hiede , You are blessed to have such skills. Would love to fly a real P-47 not just on a pc. To experience to joy of flight in these vintage WW II aircraft must be a great thrill. Thanks for sharing and please feel free to enlighten us on your experiences further . I'm disabled so it will never happen for me,so it just simulation for the time being. Worked on the F-14 weapon guidance systems while in the Navy and always had a love for aircraft. This,at least, gives me a outlet. Take care. Regards,Scott
 
An impressive list there, you have connections I'd give a kidney for! Closest thing to a warbird I have in my logbook is a Helio Courier that had some military service in its distant past. Spitfire is the top my pipe dream list.
 
Gecko

My connections are through family,most served in the military.

Sixstrings there is a P-51 with 2 seats and sometimes they take people for a flight but usually used for flight training.

A Spitfire IX was fully restored in 2021 and last I heard hasn't had it's flight tests yet.

A F6F has also been recently restored,it took 11 years.

So far only 1 P-47 is flyable that I know of.

The Planes above go for about $4 million or more.

6 months ago I did buy a replica of a Fokker Dr1,it's 3/4 size and a kit and estimated time to build is 400 hours.It arrived and is being built now and should be ready sometime this summer.

Hiede
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top