Was the P-51 really that good?
Re: Was the P-51 really that good?
Man hours?
Ask and ye shall receive.
Plane Company Jan. 1943 Jan. 1944
B-17 Boeing at Seattle 35,400 18,600
B-24 Consolidated Vultee at San Diego 24,800 14,500
B-25 North American at Inglewood 14,800 10,700
C-46 Curtiss at Buffalo 113,000 49,500
C-54 Douglas at Santa Monica 142,100 62,600
P-38 Lockheed-"B" at Burbank 14,800 9,600
P-47 Republic at Farmingdale 22,200 9,100
pg 333
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/VI/AAF-VI-10.html
Unit costs can also be found on pg 360
While the -51 is not mentioned here, I have seen 12,000-13,000 hours at the start of production and dropped to 2,077 hours in 1945.
Ask and ye shall receive.
Plane Company Jan. 1943 Jan. 1944
B-17 Boeing at Seattle 35,400 18,600
B-24 Consolidated Vultee at San Diego 24,800 14,500
B-25 North American at Inglewood 14,800 10,700
C-46 Curtiss at Buffalo 113,000 49,500
C-54 Douglas at Santa Monica 142,100 62,600
P-38 Lockheed-"B" at Burbank 14,800 9,600
P-47 Republic at Farmingdale 22,200 9,100
pg 333
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/VI/AAF-VI-10.html
Unit costs can also be found on pg 360
While the -51 is not mentioned here, I have seen 12,000-13,000 hours at the start of production and dropped to 2,077 hours in 1945.
Re: Was the P-51 really that good?
Yes, I have seen sources with around 10k h and a drop of 1/3 in 45 (it seems to be a common law 1/3 to 1/4, in the tank industries about 40%).
I wonder which plane had the most impact (before the P-51), i.e. was resonsible for the most casualties (Fighters).
I wonder which plane had the most impact (before the P-51), i.e. was resonsible for the most casualties (Fighters).
- Nickdfresh
- Banned
- Posts: 224
- Joined: 27 Jul 2007, 14:59
- Location: United States
Re: Was the P-51 really that good?
I can't remember where I read it, but some pilots thought the P-38L was a better pure fighter than the P-51D - but only in the hands of a very experienced pilot. But the P-51 was easier to learn to fly and cheaper and easier to produce...
Re: Was the P-51 really that good?
Yes, just like the XF-11, Howard Hughes certified
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: Was the P-51 really that good?
Late model of the P-38 were very good airplanes. But whole different thing than a P-51. Two engine huge aircraft. Very good gunnery platform , because the pilot had no parallax shooting the guns. Awesome "boom and zoom" ability.Stiltzkin wrote:Yes, just like the XF-11, Howard Hughes certified
If anything , I think the (P-51 ) should have been called the (F-51) , and the P- 38 should stay the (P-38) or perhaps have had designation of both P-38 and maybe (A-38).
Pure dogfighting ability , yea, P-51 better dog-fighter outside of that, the P-38 (later models) btter aircraft all around. And the 2 engines and larger frame made it a tougher and more reliable aircraft, with about the same speed and (a better range IIRC, as could carry more reserved fuel.)
Re: Was the P-51 really that good?
a better range IIRC, as could carry more reserved fuel.)
Re: Was the P-51 really that good?
And that diagram sums up beautifully why the P-51 was the preferred escort fighter of WWII.
Re: Was the P-51 really that good?
People say all sorts of stuff. Have read some comments from an American advisor to the Nationist Chinese Airforce saying that the P40N was better than the P51D as it was easier to fly well and P40N was already way faster than anything the Japanese were flying over China at that time.Nickdfresh wrote:I can't remember where I read it, but some pilots thought the P-38L was a better pure fighter than the P-51D - but only in the hands of a very experienced pilot. But the P-51 was easier to learn to fly and cheaper and easier to produce...
There's context, or maybe my guy was fibbing a bit to try and big up the planes they were receiving i.e. he would have preferred the Mustangs, but was trying to encourage his guys who had to use what they had, even if it wasn't they really wanted.
Yeah, it's a good diagram. Although, I'd quibble with you about WW2. Over Japan, later on but still WW2, thought the late war P-47 had more range than the contemporary P51(K model???)Pips wrote:And that diagram sums up beautifully why the P-51 was the preferred escort fighter of WWII.
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: Was the P-51 really that good?
Once the 300 gal tanks started being used(44) P-38 's were flying 950-1000 mile missions in the Pacific. And were close to that earlier in the Aleutians on some mission.Stiltzkin wrote:EOV-Range-Map.jpga better range IIRC, as could carry more reserved fuel.)
wiki -cause I lazy
The varying models of 38's and 51's had of course varying range. However for non -escort missions, the 38 could fly further. The 51 had a better ability to loiter out of 800 miles, but the 38's could fly 1000 mile missions.In the second half of 1944, the P-38L pilots out of Dutch New Guinea were flying 950 mi (1,530 km), fighting for fifteen minutes and returning to base.[90] Such long legs were invaluable until the P-47N and P-51D entered service.
Note also the 2 highest US aces flew 38's (Bong , McQuire). And in Europe while the 51 had better loss rate 1.1% to the 38 1.3% overall, (wiki agin)The 38 flew alot of mission when the Allies did not have airsuperioty so suffered a lot of losses before the 51 was flying missions. So might be arguable the later models of 38's (or discounting losses in 42 early 43, the 38 might well come out with a lower loss rate to the 51 or near equal. (did not research the subject that far). Plus the sheer numbers of models of 38 and 51's makes exact judgment on range and effectiveness difficult. Though it has already been done I am sure. But just not going to dig through library or research this topic that seriously. One thing though,the P-38 with 2 engines was redundant in that respect compared to the 51. This would be of greater importance in the Pacific with over water missions. A P-38 with one engine failure "might" make it home, the same cannot be said for a 51. Of in WWII many long aircraft were single engine and used in huge numbers over water.
Re: Was the P-51 really that good?
"In March 1942, General Arnold made an off-hand comment that the US could avoid the German U-boat menace by flying fighters to the UK (rather than packing them onto ships). President Roosevelt pressed the point, emphasizing his interest in the solution. Arnold was likely aware of the flying radius extension work being done on the P-38, which by this time had seen success with small drop tanks in the range of 150 to 165 US gal (570 to 620 L), the difference in capacity being the result of subcontractor production variation. Arnold ordered further tests with larger drop tanks in the range of 300 to 310 US gal (1,100 to 1,200 L); the results were reported by Kelsey as providing the P-38 with a 2,500-mile (4,000 km) ferrying range"
They were mostly used in Recon missions or pure "transport" (flight). Such tanks would be a bit of a disadvantage during dogfights.
They were mostly used in Recon missions or pure "transport" (flight). Such tanks would be a bit of a disadvantage during dogfights.
Re: Was the P-51 really that good?
Not only that, but the P-38 suffered from a lot of problems in the ETO doing high altitude escort missions. First, the heating was inadequate and the pilots almost froze to death. Then engines started to fail, because they weren't designed to operate in the cold of NW Europe at 25,000 feet. Eventually, these problems were corrected but three other problems couldn't be corrected:Nickdfresh wrote:I can't remember where I read it, but some pilots thought the P-38L was a better pure fighter than the P-51D - but only in the hands of a very experienced pilot. But the P-51 was easier to learn to fly and cheaper and easier to produce...
1) Unlike the P-47 and P-51, the P-38 couldn't' dive well. Its "do not exceed speed" was very low compared to the other two planes. As a result, the FW 190 and ME 109 could dive and escape from the P-38 - but they couldn't from the P-47 and P-51.
2) Both the P-51 and P-47 were more better dogfighters over 20,000 feet
3) The P-38's unique shape meant it could be seen and recognized as hostile aircraft at much longer distances than the P-47/P-51.
And of course, the P-38 suffered from the usual drawbacks of a 2 engine fighter. It was more complex, was harder to fly, and required more training that a single engine fighter. It was also a bad strafer, since all its firewpower was in the nose, and its large size and strung out cooling system made in vulnerable to AAA.
Re: Was the P-51 really that good?
Its a great map, but it ignores the fact that the P-47 was modified to have even greater range than the P-51D. People forget that the 56th fighter group - Zemke's wolf pack - used the P-47 all throughout the war and were either the 1st or 2nd highest scoring fighter group in Europe. The P-51 was a better dogfighter - especially below 20,000 feet, but the P-47 would've gotten the job done, regardless . In fact, most of the 8th AF fighters during "Big Week" and well into May 1944, were P-47s.Stiltzkin wrote:EOV-Range-Map.jpga better range IIRC, as could carry more reserved fuel.)
The P-51 "saved the 8th AF and won the war" meme is very overdone. The P-47 was good enough, and 8th and 15 AF would've still got the job done.
Re: Was the P-51 really that good?
So were the later ones, but...Stiltzkin wrote:Such tanks would be a bit of a disadvantage during dogfights.
...I think you're exactly right there. From what I understand, those early Allied drop tanks (your quote was from 1942) were altitude limited. If the plane climbed too high the pressure build up (or what ever the opposite of "build up" is) caused the tanks to pop, with all the fuel leaking out.Stiltzkin wrote:They were mostly used in Recon missions or pure "transport" (flight).
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: Was the P-51 really that good?
Same as the P-51 and all other fighters. That is why they were called "drop" tanks in the first place.. Planes used to them outward bound and dropped them when they were going into combat, so they would not lower maneuverability and speed, or they often dropped them when the fuel was exhausted , because even empty they affected planes' maneuverability, speed and range.Stiltzkin wrote:[
They were mostly used in Recon missions or pure "transport" (flight). Such tanks would be a bit of a disadvantage during dogfights.
Re: Was the P-51 really that good?
So were all of them fitted with four K-17 aerial photography cameras?Same as the P-51 and all other fighters