This is a summary of his 12 points (italics are quotes from the article):
1. Air-cooled radial engine was more reliable and could take hits and keep on running, even with inoperable cylinders.
2. The Jug's air-cooled engine did not have the Achilles' heel that the Mustang did: A small-caliber hit on an aluminum coolant line could down a Mustang in minutes, even if the fighter was otherwise undamaged.
3. The P-47's big turbocharger enabled it to fly higher than the P-51 (over 40,000 feet).
4. The Jug could outdive the Mustang.
5. The Thunderbolt had eight .50's. The Mustang had six. That's 33 1/3% more firepower.
6. Later model Jug's could carry 2,500 lbs of bombs.
7. The P-47 was larger and much stronger, in case of a crash landing. The Jug was built like a machined tool. Mustangs had a lot of sheet metal stamped out parts, and were more lightweight in construction.
8. The Thunderbolt had no "scoop" under the bottom, so it handled ditchings and gear up landings much better.
9. The Thunderbolt had a much larger, roomier cockpit. You were comfortable in the big Jug cockpit. In my Mustang, my shoulders almost scraped the sides on the right and left. I was cramped in with all my "gear." I could not move around like I could in the P-47.
10. The Mustang went from 1,150-horse power Allison engines to the Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that had 1,590 hp. The Thunderbolt started out with a 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney engine, and ended up with 2,800 war emergency hp with water injection.
11. The Jug had a very wide landing gear, which was especially valued when landing on rough fields.
12. The Jug's record against all opposing aircraft is remarkable. The ratio of kills to losses was unmistakably a winner. Thunderbolt pilots destroyed a total of 11,874 enemy aircraft, over 9,000 trains, and 160,000 vehicles.
But, the big factor, above all else, it saved pilots in great numbers. Ask most fighter pilots who flew both in active combat and they will tell you that, given a choice to fly either one in combat, it would be the Juggernaut hands down.
Now one last thing: the P-51 Mustang was a superb fighter. I am fully aware of that! But, considering that I flew about every kind of mission the Pentagon could dream up, and a few they didn't know about, I will rate that 8 tons of destruction first as long as I live, and no one can change my mind. I was there. Simply walk up to one of them and see for yourself.
I guess that the fact that the Mustang is more aesthetically appealing than the Thunderbolt probably has something to do with its continuing popularity.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29366 posts, RR: 61 Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 32711 times:
I have read some accounts from US Air National Guard Pilots that where pulled from P-47 units in the states and then sent to P-51 units in Korea during that war. A lot of them feel they got shortchanged on aircraft, and that the P-47 would have been a better aircraft for the mission.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 32665 times:
There is no "best". Both were designed with different goals in mind and performed remarkably well in those roles.
If pilots in Korea might have been better served with P-47s that's because the P-51 was designed specifically as a high altitude escort and patrol fighter and not a low level ground attack aircraft (which is the role it was pressed into). Can't blame the aircraft for being misused...
Ozair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 680 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 32653 times:
I would have to say personally the P-51, but from an actual war record the P-47 wins hands down.
Any idea what the unit cost of these aircraft were, was the P-47 significantly more expensive due simply to size and equipment?
Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter): The Thunderbolt had eight .50's. The Mustang had six. That's 33 1/3% more firepower.
Everything I( have read on this point seems to say that for air-to-air 6(or 4 for the A and B model) was enough but when it came to air-to-ground the more the merrier!
Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter): The Mustang went from 1,150-horse power Allison engines to the Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that had 1,590 hp. The Thunderbolt started out with a 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney engine, and ended up with 2,800 war emergency hp with water injection.
Not really sure what the engine size has to do with it? Both had comparable speed. The 2800hp is a false figure anyway, any engine used for more than 20 minutes at this rating will have won it's last race. The injection systems and boost zones on almost all WW2 aircraft were a use once only type.
Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter): The Jug's air-cooled engine did not have the Achilles' heel that the Mustang did: A small-caliber hit on an aluminum coolant line could down a Mustang in minutes, even if the fighter was otherwise undamaged.
I've read that this was a big problem, especially later in the war when the air-to-air was not as important.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8422 posts, RR: 13 Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 32403 times:
Actually Spacepope, I believe that there were 15,386 Mustangs produced in the USA, plus a few in other countries, making it the most-produced American fighter of WWII (I guess the most-produced American fighter of all time).
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 32269 times:
Quoting Jwenting (Reply 2): If pilots in Korea might have been better served with P-47s that's because the P-51 was designed specifically as a high altitude escort and patrol fighter and not a low level ground attack aircraft
The P-51 started out as an attack aircraft, the A-36A Apache.....
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29366 posts, RR: 61 Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 32259 times:
Quoting SATL382G (Reply 7): The P-51 started out as an attack aircraft, the A-36A Apache.....
I am going to argue that, the P-51 started out as a British Fighter, the Mustang I. They ordered it because North American did not want to license build P-40 Tomahawks for them and promised them a completely new design in 3 or 4 months, I don't remember specificly.
The American Army Air Corps did not want the Mustang because it was not built to their specifications, but they needed airplanes, so they ordered the "Dive Bomber" version...the A-36.
Only later did they relent and order arguably one of the best fighters of the way.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 32256 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 8): I am going to argue that, the P-51 started out as a British Fighter, the Mustang I. They ordered it because North American did not want to license build P-40 Tomahawks for them and promised them a completely new design in 3 or 4 months, I don't remember specificly.
Well Ok the A-36A didn't come along 'til a year later. However I stand by my assertion that the originally delivered P-51s were ground attack machines. To qoute the USAF Museum website:
"The P-51 was designed as the NA-73 in 1940 at Britain's request. The design showed promise and AAF purchases of Allison-powered Mustangs began in 1941 primarily for photo recon and ground support use due to its limited high-altitude performance."
"Rejected by Fighter Command the Mustang was gladly accepted by Army Co-operation Command, where a really fast and manueverable aircraft was needed for the fighter-reconnaissance concept then being developed"
In any case none of the original Allison engined P-51s ever successfully operated as high altitude escorts. It wasn't until the RAF equipped one with a Merlin and blower that the P-51 showed a high altitude potential.
DeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1699 posts, RR: 37 Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 32198 times:
It's funny that this topic came up. I work in a military aviation museum and often find myself in the World War II section discussing warbirds with various patrons. A lot of people are astounded to hear what a role the P-47 played in the war, and moreover it had a better overall combat record than the P-51. I don't feel as though the role of the P-47 has really ever been portrayed accurately as there is a clear bias in the mind of the public as it relates to being able to recognize the role of the -47 vs. the -51. Clearly the -51 has had the limelight. Granted, they were not exactly designed for the same role-however they were used in overlapping roles which lumps them together so to speak. A perfect example of this phenomenon would be the Tuskegee Airmen. With talking to most people you hear somehting along the lines of "those were the black aviators of WWII in those red-tailed Mustangs". Well yeah they did fly a pretty large group of Mustangs but most people don't even know that they had a fairly effective inventory of -47's as well. The -47 was such a solid aircraft and I find it so fitting that the A-10 was named the TBolt II in succession as they truly are both herculean machines.
There is a story from WWII that attributes to the durability of the P-47. Apparently two Bf.109's were in hot pursuit of a -47. In a last ditch effort to shake the 109's off, the pilot of the Jug flew his aircraft through a huge window in a bombed-out factory and came out another huge window on the other side. The aircraft lost 2 or 3 feet of each wing (cant remember the exact amount), sustained considerable damage to the propellor, control surfaces, as well as not to mention debris in the engine yet the pilot managed to fly the thing back to England. The 109 pilots were so shocked that they took pictures of the damaged bird and escorted it out to the coast. I have read several accounts of this story is various newsletters and publications and knowing how well-built the P-47 was I don't have any difficulty in believing it.
Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Bsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 31922 times:
A couple of minor points that may not affect the overall verdict in this forum:
I regret to say that this has developed into a purely US argument, and a misnamed-one at that. A discussion of "Best WWII Fighter" can only consider air-to-air combat, since ground attack is a different ballgame altogether and does not come under the title of, "Fighter".
A numerical/statistical verdict can only be given if we consider number of aircraft built/flown to the number of kills. Even that statistic is biased, since we also need to consider the number of enemy aircraft available to kill.
Indeed, should we not consider development/build aspects? For example, the Spitfire was a beautiful aircraft that performed rather well, yet it was a difficult to build. Therefore, the time taken to produce one was significantly longer than, for example the Hurricane (which was the main combatant during the Battle of Britain). In the grand scheme of things, this made it a less effective fighter.
While we are there, we should perhaps also consider 'peripheral' aspects such as training. It has been shown, time and time again, that the most important factors in any air to air engagement are (not necessarily in this order):
- manoeuvrability (and general aircraft performance)
- weapons (accuracy, range, payload and firepower)
- operating range
- pilot training
- overall battle tactics
If you change any of these factors, the outcome of a prolonged battle change significantly. IMHO, I think that many of the German designs were equal or better than what the Allies put up against them. Given equal numbers, tactics, training, and geographical positions, the results could/would have been much different, even if the final outcome remained the same.
There are so many parameters involved that I cannot give an honest response to the question. I merely salute those who flew, wherever they came from, and to the genii who designed them.
The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
MissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 31890 times:
Quoting Kukkudrill (Reply 6): My impression is the Mustang superseded the Jug in the air-to-air role in the European theatre. Can anyone confirm?
That's right, the primary reason for this was the longer range of the Mustang. Mustangs could go all the way to the target with USAAF B-17s, whereas the Jugs came up a bit short, even with drop tanks. I've heard unescorted bomber pilots would fly into flak to get away from the German fighters.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1357 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 31848 times:
A recent article in an aviation historical journal claimed that the USAF would have been much better off with P-47s in Korea than Mustangs, largely because the main employment was ground attack.
Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter): The Jug was built like a machined tool. Mustangs had a lot of sheet metal stamped out parts, and were more lightweight in construction.
If that meant the Mustang was cheaper and quicker to build, then this point counts to the Mustang's favor.
Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter): 10. The Mustang went from 1,150-horse power Allison engines to the Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that had 1,590 hp. The Thunderbolt started out with a 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney engine, and ended up with 2,800 war emergency hp with water injection.
And yet, the Mustang was a bit faster. Faster on less power means less fuel consumption, which means less load on the logistics chain, or more missions that can be supported for a given amount of resources.
As I recall reading, the Mustang's cruise speed was 350mph, whereas other fighters (including Tbolt) cruised well below 300. Speed conferred safety.
If you judge a fighter by its kill ratio, look no farther than the Hellcat, which held a 19:1 kill ratio, compared to the Corsair's measly 11:1.
Ruger11 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 50 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 31822 times:
I have to say I've always liked the thunderbolt, you HAVE to admit, nothing short of the A-10 could ever live up to the name "Thunderbolt II"!!!
that said, from a purely admiration of design standpoint I've always regarded the P-38 Lightning as my "Favorite" fighter. I think overall it just screams imagination and it's a work of art. Fast, sleek, powerful, and it could climb high, dive fast (WAY TOO fast at first, but they fixed that) and later on they even made a bomber version that carried bombs internally, and a VIP transport version!! linda crazy stuff.
Back on topic, Air ti air, I dunno this pilot sas the P-47 is better and I've got no reason to doubt him... but one thing I can say, I'm a Marine and I'd d#$% sure rather have a Thunderbolt doing Close air support... P-47 OR A-10!!
Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 31858 times:
I thought the USN flew Corsairs not the USAF. I recall reading somewhere that for quite a while jet aircraft were considered unsuitable for carrier operations because of their lack of acceleration. The reason why the Corsair outlasted the other two types may simply have been this.
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life