Ruy

Part of this discussion became a question of P-47 was better than P-51 or not. In my opinion I do not reveal any truth because it is obvious Mustang was superior and I think those figures say it best. I took Joe's data just to avoid time taking typing but if you consider them wrong, you may feel obliged to post comments here and send them to Joe as well.
Also you noted that the data is selective - what do you want else? I would love to have drag and lift coefficient characteristics but I have not seen them anywhere.

Those figures also clearly show range advantage of Mustang - 600 miles - a decisive factor if we discuss long range missions like the Big Week.

Your choice but I see I am alone with Juha, so this means an end.

No end here! I think overall the P-47 was the better design. In my opinion much of the Mustang´s popularity among enthusasists is based on external appearance. The P-47 simply doesn´t look "hot". But, everybody should know that sometimes the evil wears a pleasant face.

Jukka
As yet we have T-bolt heavier, slower, with lower range, less economical and more expensive than Mustang. Show your points please why do you believe it was a good aircraft? Any figures?

Well, will dig into sources first. But it is clear that Baugher´s data is not too reliable. His data seems to be mostly based on standard books like the Putnam series which means that e.g. the power setting used to get the data is missing. It is obvious from the P-47 climb data, that WER with ADI is not used.

Range data for escort purposes should allways be based on the cruising speed used by the escorted bombers. Some data in AHT uses IAS that is very favorably to the P-51 (the same as its best range IAS, co-incidence? I don´t think so.)

I'll be honest and explain why I must bow out.

There was little mention in this thread of Thunderbolt superiority, although arguably it was more versatile and regardless of your "data" there were certainly areas where the Thunderbolt was superior in performance/capability. The main discussion was about the fact that the US AAF could have finished the job with the Thunderbolt.

Now the reason I cannot continue this debate is that a good case will take a lot of my time, time I might add that would be better spent adding new features to the forum :)

I love a good debate, although I tend to become bitchy at times (please don't take that too serious...).

So, I have to decline, but the thread won't go away, so maybe at a later date I'll rejoin in earnest!

We might also continue the finer art of Japanese fighters (perhaps in a different forum category though).

P47 or P51 RAF ????
 

Ruy,

I have enjoyed reading these posts. It has given me tremendous insight into the relative performances of the P51 & P47 and their contribution to the victory over the German fighter arm. :lol:

Great stuff and I look forward to a similar debate of the bombers. :shock:

Regards

Hi all,
very interesting discussion! However, there is one point I am missing. I think the better fighter is not that one with better performance - may it be the Jug or the Mustang - but that one, that had the better kill vs. lost-ratio. Is there anybody, who has the numbers and can help out here?
Just another thought: IIRC the Jug HAD to be big, because it was constructed around the existing R-2800 engine.

Robert

Kill vs Loss is not the best qualifier, since there are many other factors involved, like quantity, quality of pilots, quantity and quality of enemy. Like I wrote earlier, the average Jagdwaffe pilot in 1943 was a more dangerous enemy compared to the one in 1945.

Fighting 1942 IJN fighter pilots can not be compared to fighting 1944 IJN fighter pilots.

Its the context that tells so much more.

If we are only looking at (basic) performance stats and kill/loss ratios, we are not looking much further than our nose...

grumble...I promised to keep out!!

Sorry :oops:

Robert
I am afraid nobody calculated kill vs loss ratios, just only claim vs loss ratio. I regard both of them to be quite different things. The latter numbers were linked in this thread.

Jukka
Feel free to correct mentioned figures. I took those that I had at hand but I am not sure if I have any first hand data for Mustang.

Why? Some homework concerning bomber escort tactics I am afraid. ;)
The key of successfull escort was not to keep with the bombers but to sweep in advance and to attack the enemy on the way. Planning of mission was quite a complicated thing.

That seems to be conventional wisdom, but there is a flaw.

Yes, sweeping ahead is the best way to fight enemy fighters, to keep them away from your bombers and to knock them out at a disadvantage, BUT you need sufficient numbers of escorts to do this properly, since if your sweep isn't 100% successful, your bombers will be undefended against those interceptors which manage to get through.

So the best escort tactics is layered - fighter sweep(s) combined with close escort. If you have too few escort fighters you're probably better off providing close escort. Perhaps it isn't the most effective, but it will be better for bomber moral (and you don't have to remind me of the Battle of Britain). Lets not forget that it is the bomber crews that will be shot down...

So again, its all in the context, even when discussing conventional wisdom.


I'm at work and its a slow day...cannot work on the forum, but I can participate a little IN it, doesn't do much good for my reputation...however this isn't about Thunderbolt vs Mustangs, so perhaps it doesn't count :D