[Franek Grabowski]

Ruy
I think I will discuss all the Seafire related matters in a separate thread, just give me a few days. Nonetheless I feel obliged to note that I never claimed it was the best carrier aircraft, just only it was considered the only one able to fight German fighter aircraft on it's own terms, that Seafire remained in use on carriers well into 1950s and that it happenned a Spitfire(!) landed on a carrier without an arrester hook.
Corsairs and Hellcats never saw any significant use within range of German fighters and were never fully employed in ETO or MTO. Their successes in SWPA must be viewed in perspective of their opposition and also actual Japanese losses.
You also tend to show the aircraft were of similar performance, therefore it did not matter. But tell me when it matters? If Polish pilots scored against Germans in PZL P.11 does it mean those were aircraft comparable in performance? 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, it is just only most authors have no slightest idea what thery are telling about.

Six Nifty .50s

The RAF used Spitfires and Mosquitos in the Far East but their record vs. Japan was not very impressive, especially after we discount inflated pilot claims.

Inflated claims apply to other combatants as well. Having in mind there is no detailed log of what Japanese lost and a fact that I was unable to get an answer from the people supposed to be experts on how Japanese loss record system worked, I would put that question still open.
It is a fact however, that Spitifres and Mosquitoes experienced some problems due to overheating and this was a serious limiting factor.

Because the Mustang and Spitfire were too flimsy for ground attack, and the Typhoon was a flop in its intended role as an escort fighter.

That happens Spitfires were widely used in ground attack duties in Europe and I did not hear too many complaints. I may call a friendly pilot within few days and ask for his opinion.

On the other hand, the Thunderbolt was excellent at both missions, and was immediately popular with the RAF pilots in the Far East. Not surprisingly, "versatility" was cited by them as the Thunderbolt's best asset. By that time, the USAAF had plenty of long range fighters in the skies over Burma and the RAF did not need their own.

Well, anyone would be happy when changing Mohawks or Hurricanes for a factory fresh Thunderbolts. This is not a fair argument.

The other alternative for the RAF was to replace every Hurricane with a combination of Mustangs, Spitfires, Typhoons -- and Tempests if available. That would be expensive, impractical, and probably impossible. When given a choice, it does not make sense to use four different aircraft when one type can meet the requirements.

RAF would have send Mustangs to Burma because they were destined for. They already send Buffaloes to SWPA although they found they were unsuitable for hot weather. But they found them unsuitable to ETO as well and they had to send something there. No composition was necessary, Japanese never had as strong anti aircraft artillery as Germans did.

8th Air Force pilots viewed that as a mistake. Maybe the Tac Recons, Jabos and Buzz Bomb chasers preferred more power at low level, but the escort pilots did not want a loss of power at high altitude.

Well, this is another question but in effect 8 AF was anyway chasing most Germans on low level - most of Normandy combats were.

If that were true, the Messerschmitt Bf 109 would not have stayed in production.

The Germans continued to upgrade it because the Focke Wulf 190 had poor performance above 20,000 feet -- the engine lost so much power that it was a sitting duck at 28,000 or more. I suppose the Dora 9 was somewhat improved -- and helped by the intentionally lowered performance of Merlin engines at high altitude.

I was discussing Allied approach!

Besides, the P-51A was faster than P-51D at low altitude. The Allison engine was more durable and burned about 30% less fuel on cruise settings.

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.

If the P-47N (or just the wings) project was started a year earlier, there was no need for Mustangs with Merlin engines.

This aircraft was designed specifically for SWP and having increased weight had little chance with lighter German types.

If weight is that important, then British and German fighters would have been easy meat for Japanese pilots.

Japanese had no powerful engines and this was their main problem. Anyway, by building extremally light designs, they were able to compensate this weakness. And weight is always an enemy of a good plane - it is basic engineering rule. Such aircraft like P-47 or B-17 were simply overdimensioned, thus overweighted, thus stronger than comparable designs - performance suffered.

Juha
P-47N had no clearly longer range than Mustang, it was almost the same. There was another important thing - engine. Merlin was optimised for European conditions and overheated, this caused a lot of problems. P-47 had enough performance to have a safety edge against Japanese fighters.