[ArtieBob]

Dear Franek,

I would like to address some of the points in your post

1. Allison P-51s: “But by 1944 there were no jigs available and no production run was possible”. I cannot comment on the tooling being destroyed, but the engineering of V-1710 engines in Mustangs continued through the war. IIRC, the final development of the Mustang lineage, the P-82, did have V-1710 engines. Certainly, It was within the capability of WWII US aircraft industry to tool up quite rapidly for production changes. It should also be noted that the P-82 was also a heavier a/c than either the P-51 or P-47 in any version (BTW, a squadron was based near my home in the late 1940s and IMHO they were the most exciting piston fighter ever to see and hear make a low pass).

2. P-47N: “ This aircraft was specifically designed for the SWP and having increased weight had little chance with lighter German types.” IIRC, by the beginning of 1945, the Eighth Air Force had made the decision to standardize on the P-47N as it’s long range escort fighter and some had been delivered to England in early 1945, but did not make it to squadron service prior to V-E day. I really do not believe the USAAF would have made that decision if the P-47 was of inferior performance, either in range or fighter to fighter combat. Not when P-51s were in great supply as well as flight and ground crews. Slightly off topic-one the main reasons I would have selected a P-47 would have been the R-2800 engine. By 1944, the same basic engine that was in the late P-47s had run a 100 hour test at 2800 HP and flash readings to 3800 HP. This was a stock engine, except for the size of the supercharger and the ADI system. What this meant in actual service was that although not “bulletproof”, the engine could absorb the stress of extended overboost and WEP with little effect on reliability.

3. Weight: “Such aircraft like P-47 or B-17 were simply overdimensioned, thus overweighted, thus stronger than comparable designs - performance suffered.” I really believe your opinion on that issue also needs to be questioned. EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL, it is true that lighter is better! But in the real world of aircraft design almost nothing is equal between two designs (unless they share some major components, like the engines, then they diverge). One must look at the design of the P-47, it was a lineal development of the P-35, XP-41, P-43 and XP-44. The growth in size was a result of the use of a turbo-supercharged R-2800 and specifications set by the Air Corps. This meant tradeoffs in some areas, but from everything I have been able to learn, the P-47 was really a pretty good handling machine and aerodynamically clean for a WWII piston fighter. If just being smaller and lighter were the only criteria, then the Caudron 714 should have been the best fighter of WWII, hands down. IMHO, neither the B-17 or P-47 were overweight, but had very sturdy, easy to maintain airframes that could accept severe combat damage and make it home with crew survival (In a war of attrition, not a performance parameter to be ignored). It would seem to me, the real criteria for evaluating if an aircraft is overweight is to compare the ratio of empty to loaded weight. I suspect the P-47 does not come off too bad in that parameter, otherwise it could not have the fuel carrying capacity for long range operation.
4. Other participants in this discussion: “Sorry, performance figures are clear, it is just only most authors have no slightest idea what thery are telling about.” My question is; does this statement refer to others who have contributed to this thread? If that was your intent, then I would like to ask, what is your background? Why would you be qualified to state that they (including me) might “have no slightest idea what they (sic) are talking about”? If you were not referring to the other TOCH participants, then my last question is moot.

Best regards,

Artie Bob