[Six Nifty .50s]

Greetings from the Zone of the Interior, U.S. of A.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

I suppose USAAF could have done what they did even with P-36 or P-40 but is this an argument P-51 was generally better than P-47? Sorry, performance figures are clear.

Which performance figures?

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

most authors have no slightest idea what thery are telling about.

Unless the authors personally engaged P-47s in combat, their opinions are unnecessary. Based on their practical experience, several German fighter pilots suggested the Thunderbolt was a more dangerous and troublesome opponent than the Mustang.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

P-47N was designed specifically for SWP and having increased weight had little chance with lighter German types

Some enemy pilots assumed that was true of the older Thunderbolt, because of its immense size, but they paid for that mistake with their lives.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Having in mind there is no detailed log of what Japanese lost

I will not forget that many people once used the same excuse about German records. Certain Japanese loss reports have survived, and probably these are no less honest than their opponents. Like every other air force, RAAF Spitfire units inflated shootdowns substantially. One figure quoted amounted to about 7:1 overclaiming. I'll look into it more on next trip to the library.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Spitfires were widely used in ground attack duties in Europe and I did not hear too many complaints

One cannot escape common knowledge that liquid-cooling systems were easily knocked out with one bullet or shell splinter.

Another factor is that Spitfires and Merlin Mustangs had persistent structural problems, especially when put into high speed dives. Both planes showed an alarming tendency to shed their wings or tail on pullout. It was an adventure to plug all of the coolant leaks on the P-51B. In 1942, 36 Spitfires were under investigation for structural failures and in 24 cases the tail unit broke off in flight. By 1944, the Spitfire was often used as a fighter-bomber and another hazard was found in that the engine mounting U-frames would buckle in dive pullouts.

The A-36 at least had dive brakes to control descent, so these were safer to fly while vertical bombing. But otherwise, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to pilot a Mustang or Spitfire with a ground attack unit.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

I was discussing Allied approach!

Well the main interest of Jagdwaffe (B-17s and B-24s) did not dive down to drop bombs from low altitude, so the German response is a relevant point.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Airmen of 309 Sqn had a different opinion about Allison Mustang, nonetheless I agree, it was a stunning low level aircraft. But by 1944 there were no jigs available and no production run was possible.

The best part of the Merlin was the 2-stage supercharger attached to it; not the engine itself which was fragile. Main bearings were weak, and the carburettor was worthless until replaced with the American type.

On average the Allison lasted three times longer before rebuild, even though manifold pressure was often overboosted to about 20 lbs. -- not recommended by the manufacturer, but the engine held together reliably. Note that air racing teams flying P-51Ds installed Allison connecting rods to prevent their Merlins from blowing up. Without this modification, the Mustangs could not compete with the speedy Bearcats at Reno.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

in effect 8 AF was anyway chasing most Germans on low level - most of Normandy combats were

Not many air combats took place over towns inside Normandy. The Luftwaffe did not often penetrate the fighter cover surrounding that part of France -- at least not when the sun was shining.

Besides, the Luftwaffe was short of petrol by the autumn of 1943, so the Focke Wulfs and Messerschmitts usually did not bother with Allied fighter-bombers, medium bombers and their escorts, or other fighter patrols that were not tied to B-17s and B-24s. What little avgas remained on tap was needed for training.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

You also tend to show the aircraft were of similar performance, therefore it did not matter. But tell me when it matters?

It is widely believed by fighter pilots that in tens of thousands of engagements, the overwhelming majority of pilots shot down were hit by gunfire from another pilot who was not seen by the victim. Thus, I would challenge you to identify the number of combats in which a difference in 'maneuverability' made a difference in the outcome.