Best American Fighter of WW2?

[Gen. Sandworm]

What is your choice for the best American fighter of ww2. I have to say the P-51 looked the coolest and is probably the best known but the P-47 is the best fighter IMO. In the ETO 7 of the top 10 fighter aces flew the P-47.

So whats your choice?

[pdf27]

Grumman Bearcat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F8F_Bearcat), assuming it didn't have to have seen combat service. Failing that the P-51D.

[George Eller]

-

My choice would be the P-47 Thunderbolt for reasons that I've previously posted on this forum.
Runner-up for me would be the F4U Corsair.

Partial quote from following article posted before:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=76510&postcount=49

Now read Rip Collins' words. Rip (back then Lieutenant Collins) was a WW II fighter pilot from the class of 44-C, Aloe Field, Victoria, Texas. Rip was assigned to the 40th Fighter Squadron, a Squadron in the 35th Fighter Group, Fifth Air Force, FEAF (Far East Air Forces) in the Pacific. (There is a link to the 40th at the end of this article.)

Rip flew both the P-47 and P-51 in combat in the Pacific. He is a big fan of the P-47, and took me to task for choosing the P-51 over the P-47 in my article "Best Fighter Planes of WW II." In that he is not alone, but he was the only correspondent who actually flew both in combat, so his words carry a lot of weight. At one point he wrote to me that he could give me a dozen reasons why the P-47 was superior to the P-51. Naturally, I asked him to do just that. After reading his reasons, I asked him if I could use his material (with credit) in an article about the P-47, and he kindly consented. From now on you are reading Rip's words:

For sure, fighter pilots are a different cut of guys. I guess we got spoiled because we were considered the "cream of the crop." In most cases, not all, but most, if you were going into the USAAC, USAAF, USAF, or whatever name it was called at the time, the majority of us young bucks wanted fighters (1055) and not multiengine (bombers, transports, surveillance, rescue, etc.). I've seen the disappointment at "wash out" time, when the primary and basic flight instruction group was split up prior to advanced training. The men that couldn't cut it went on to multiengine advanced training bases, while the "cream" went on to single engine bases to fly the AT-6 Texan (advanced fighter trainer).

It is not unusual to favor your own aircraft. In fact, it is a bit common. We probably all look at this in a different way, and in a different light. And if you didn't get to fly both the Jug and the Mustang, you were at a decided disadvantage. Here are my dozen reasons why the T-bolt was the superior fighter of the two.

1. The Republic Thunderbolt had a radial engine that could take hits and keep on running. I know of an actual case where a Jug brought a pilot back from Borneo after 8 hours in the air. The pilot landed with the master cylinder and three other cylinders blown out of commission. But the Jug kept chugging along, running well enough to bring its pilot back safely to his base at Morotai. I was there.

2. The Jug's radial engine was air cooled, instead of liquid cooled with a radiator system, like the Mustang's V-12. This is significant because one small caliber hit on an aluminum cooling line in a Mustang would let the coolant leak out, and when the coolant was gone, the engine seized, and the show was over.

I took a small caliber hit in a coolant tube over Formosa (Taiwan). When I landed back at base, my crew chief said, "Lieutenant, did you know you got hit?" I replied, "No." He continued, "You took a small caliber shell in the coolant tube on the right side of the engine. I'd give you between 10 and 15 minutes flying time remaining." I had just flown from Formosa, over nothing but the Pacific Ocean, to our fighter strip on Okinawa.

3. The P-47 could fly higher than the P-51. With its huge turbocharger, it could climb to over 40,000 feet. You could just look down at your enemy in a stall and smile.

4. The Jug could out dive the Mustang. As a matter of fact, it could out dive any enemy fighter, and at 7.5 tons loaded, it dove fast! I have personally been in a dive at what we called the "state of compressibility," at nearly 700 mph indicated air speed. I was scared to death, but with a tiny bit of throttle, I pulled it out at about 2,000-foot altitude, literally screaming through the sky.

5. The Thunderbolt had eight .50's. The Mustang had six. That's 33 1/3% more firepower. This made a major difference.

6. The later model Thunderbolt's could carry and deliver 2,500 pounds of bombs. (One 1,000-lb. bomb on each wing, and one 500 lb. bomb under the belly.) This was a maximum load and you had to use water injection to get airborne. But it would do this with sufficient runway. I have done this myself.

In addition to being a first class fighter, it was also a superb fighter-bomber and ground level strafer. Jugs practically wiped out the German and Italian railroads. I have strafed Japanese trains, troops, ships, gunboats, warships, airfields, ammo dumps, hangers, antiaircraft installations, you name it. I felt secure in my P-47.

7. The P-47 was larger and much stronger, in case of a crash landing. The Jug was built like a machined tool. Mustangs had a lot of sheet metal stamped out parts, and were more lightweight in construction. One example was the throttle arm. You can see the difference. What does all this mean? The safety of the fighter pilot.

8. The Thunderbolt had no "scoop" under the bottom. You can imagine what happens during a crash landing if your wheels would not come down (due to damage or mechanical trouble). On landing, it could make the P-51 nose over in the dirt as the scoop drags into the earth. In water (and I flew over the Pacific Ocean most of my 92 combat missions), it could cause trouble in a crash landing because the air scoop would be the first part of the aircraft to hit the water. Instead of a smooth belly landing, anything might happen.

9. The Thunderbolt had a much larger, roomier cockpit. You were comfortable in the big Jug cockpit. In my Mustang, my shoulders almost scraped the sides on the right and left. I was cramped in with all my "gear." I could not move around like I could in the P-47. I found the ability to move a little bit very desirable, especially on seven and eight hour missions.

10. The Mustang went from 1,150-horse power Allison engines to the Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that had 1,590 hp. The Thunderbolt started out with a 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney engine, and ended up with 2,800 war emergency hp with water injection. That's close to twice the power.

11. The Jug had a very wide landing gear. This made it easy to land just about anywhere, with no tendency to ground loop. Many times we had to land on rice paddies and irregular ground. When you set the Thunderbolt down, it was down. In the Far East, England, Africa, and Italy, this helped you get down and walk away from it. To me, that was very important for the safety of the pilot.

12. The Jug's record against all opposing aircraft is remarkable. The ratio of kills to losses was unmistakably a winner. Thunderbolt pilots destroyed a total of 11,874 enemy aircraft, over 9,000 trains, and 160,000 vehicles.

But, the big factor, above all else, it saved pilots in great numbers. Ask most fighter pilots who flew both in active combat and they will tell you that, given a choice to fly either one in combat, it would be the Juggernaut hands down.

Now one last thing: the P-51 Mustang was a superb fighter. I am fully aware of that! But, considering that I flew about every kind of mission the Pentagon could dream up, and a few they didn't know about, I will rate that 8 tons of destruction first as long as I live, and no one can change my mind. I was there. Simply walk up to one of them and see for yourself.

The dictionary defines "juggernaut" as: "any large, overpowering, destructive force or object." That was the P-47 of World War II.

-

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=79279&postcount=56

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=83544&postcount=66

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=90329&postcount=81

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=90510&postcount=85

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=91594&postcount=97

-

[Firefly]

P-51 without a doubt, but it was not strictly US though, having been designed for a British specification and the Brits didnt like it too much and then suggested replacing the Allison engine with the Merlin, thus was borne the best fighter aircraft not only of the US but of the whole war. You cant argue against something that could fly to Berlin and still best any aircraft sent against it. If it wasnt for the Mustang, the USAAF wouldnt have been bombing Germany in daylight.

Oh and it looks fantastic.......

[pdf27]

F8F Bearcat Rare Bear at left, P-51D Mustang Dago Red at right.
http://aafo.com/gallery/week-06/Nellis04_2547_01-06-06_800.jpg

Judge for yourselves, but personally I prefer the Bearcat.

[Panzerknacker]

I like the P-38 lightning , a very underrated aircraft. In the end I pick the P-47.

http://www.82ndfightergroup.com/webreadyphotos/P38%20formation.jpg

[Gen. Sandworm]

P-51 without a doubt, but it was not strictly US though, having been designed for a British specification and the Brits didnt like it too much and then suggested replacing the Allison engine with the Merlin, thus was borne the best fighter aircraft not only of the US but of the whole war. You cant argue against something that could fly to Berlin and still best any aircraft sent against it. If it wasnt for the Mustang, the USAAF wouldnt have been bombing Germany in daylight.

Oh and it looks fantastic.......

Yes on of the best looking planes besides the Spitfire. Maybe I should have included before the Merlin engine and after. Not alot of detail on the P-51 before the merlin engine however, insofar as combat performance. Also I should have included the Bearcat. I just wanted a poll on the best of American fighters of ww2.

The poll can be edited if you wish!?!?

[RifleMan20]

it is defintly the P-51,this plane was fast,fierce,and would scare the living daylight out of a german

[GermanSoldier]

The P-57 Mustang with out a doubt. This plane lead to many victories in the air against the German Air Force. Some Allied soldiers were comfartable in war as long as they had the P-51 Mustang in the air.

[savoy6]

P51 would be probably the most popular...i heard one P47 pilot say in an interview that you got your picture taken with a P51 but if you wanted to come home alive you flew a P47...
personally ,if i had only 1 chance at flying a WW2 plane i'd pick the P40....style wise i'd say i like it the best...

[Sobel]

Has got to be the mustang without a doubt , my choice anyway

[Sergeant Dorr]

I vote P-51 Mustantg because the best escorts of the war the Tuskegee Airmen flew them and they never lost a plane to enemy action.

[ww2artist]

I vote P-51 Mustantg because the best escorts of the war the Tuskegee Airmen flew them and they never lost a plane to enemy action.

The 332nd FG (Tuskegee Airman) also flew P-40s and P-47s (don't believe too many of the '47s saw action with this group, before being replaced with the P-51).

It would be between the P-51 and the P-47 for me......I have to go for the P-51, as they escorted many of my veteran friends all the way to Germany. However, George's post, which has the fascinating veteran's account, has made it a very tough choice! Thanks for that most informative post, George!

As a side note, just finished a 'Jug' drawing for a veteran fighter pilot. It's a gift from a friend and he's no idea about it! Hope it brings back some fonder memories for him.:D

[tankgeezer]

P-38 is my fave, excellent plane, well armed.

[George Eller]

The 332nd FG (Tuskegee Airman) also flew P-40s and P-47s (don't believe too many of the '47s saw action with this group, before being replaced with the P-51).

It would be between the P-51 and the P-47 for me......I have to go for the P-51, as they escorted many of my veteran friends all the way to Germany. However, George's post, which has the fascinating veteran's account, has made it a very tough choice! Thanks for that most informative post, George!

As a side note, just finished a 'Jug' drawing for a veteran fighter pilot. It's a gift from a friend and he's no idea about it! Hope it brings back some fonder memories for him.:D
-

You're welcome ww2artist and thanks for the compliment :D

I have had a long time fondness for the P-47. The P-51 Mustang was a great plane too, although it was a trickier plane for a novice pilot to fly.

I read somewhere that the Israelis who flew both the American P-51 and the British Spitfire in their air force felt that the Spitfire handled better.

I'm sure that the old vet will be pleasantly surprised by your friends gift - great idea ;)

-

[Drake]

My vote definatly goes to the P-47, for the abovementioned arguments by Sandworm and George Eller, but even more for the sheer coolness factor of that rugged beast. It might not look as elegant as the P-51, but it sure looks like it can deliver a fatal blow anywhere anytime :cool:
Oh and I played a game named P-47 on my Amiga when I was a kid :mrgreen:

[redcoat]

I like the P-38 lightning , a very underrated aircraft.
Trouble is, the P-38 had difficulty operating above 25,000 ft due to the cold,
it caused frequent engine supercharger failures, and the cockpit heating was poor, causing intense discomfort to the pilot, and windscreen icing.
It got so bad that 8th USAAF Air Force P-38's had to operate below 25,000. This unfortunately led to them being 'bounced' on a regular basis by higher flying Luftwaffe fighters.
By the end of 1944 the P-38 had been replaced by P-51's in the 8th Air force, and only one fighter group in the MTO still used them as escort fighters

[George Eller]

My vote definatly goes to the P-47, for the abovementioned arguments by Sandworm and George Eller, but even more for the sheer coolness factor of that rugged beast. It might not look as elegant as the P-51, but it sure looks like it can deliver a fatal blow anywhere anytime :cool:
Oh and I played a game named P-47 on my Amiga when I was a kid :mrgreen:
-

A kindred spirit ;) http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

-

[orionRider]

The question is impossible to answer... I will try anyway...

* In 1941, the P-40 was the best against the swarms of japanese 'Claude';
* On the eastern front, Me109 pilots had only one fear: the russian P-39's;
* There is no doubt the old Wildcat was no match for the Zero's;
* The Hellcat however was by far the best carrier-based fighter of the war;
* The Corsair was no doubt the greatest fighter-bomber in the Pacific;
* The Lightning was a nice long-range escort, but not the best dogfighter;
* The Thunderbolt was immune to the flak, which made it an excellent fighter-bomber;
* There was no better long range dogfighter than the Mustang;
* The P-61 was heavy and expensive, but it was the only all-weather and night fighter.

But then if you ask me, the P-51 is the most beautiful aircraft of all times ;)

[Digger]

I've gone with the F6 Hellcat, arguably the safest fighter in the US arsenal, just shading the P-47. Both of these fine aircraft have been terribly 'underdone' in comparison to the P-51.

Regards digger.

[Chevan]

The question is impossible to answer... I will try anyway...

* On the eastern front, Me109 pilots had only one fear: the russian P-39's;


Oh really the ONLY P-39.;)
It seems for me you are a little biased here.
You or do not know the history of the P-39 or simply ignores some obviouse things.
For you know the P-39 was not a best US fighter. it was a not so good in comparition with the other allies fighter and it had the very limited application in the Western front- the alies pilot simply disliked it.
It was an low altitude airctraft that found to be the very effective in the Eastern front where the most of air battle has been fought under 5000 of mettres.
True the p-39 was the great airplain, but it was the worst the tactical datas in comparition with the soviet La-5fn ans Yak-9 all of modification.( since the 1943). Nevertheless the some of famous soviet pilots prefered to fight only in the P-39 ( Pokriskin and Rechkalov for instance). This was their "specialisation".

[Nickdfresh]

-

....

I read somewhere that the Israelis who flew both the American P-51 and the British Spitfire in their air force felt that the Spitfire handled better.

I'm sure that the old vet will be pleasantly surprised by your friends gift - great idea ;)

-

I believe they flew the ME109 as well, ironically.

http://www.milartgl.com/Images_b/b-strange-encounter.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

To anyone who is a P-47 'Bolt affectionado, I'd be interested in the changes in performance form the early models to the final 360-degree canopy variant...

[Nickdfresh]

Trouble is, the P-38 had difficulty operating above 25,000 ft due to the cold,
it caused frequent engine supercharger failures, and the cockpit heating was poor, causing intense discomfort to the pilot, and windscreen icing.
It got so bad that 8th USAAF Air Force P-38's had to operate below 25,000. This unfortunately led to them being 'bounced' on a regular basis by higher flying Luftwaffe fighters.
By the end of 1944 the P-38 had been replaced by P-51's in the 8th Air force, and only one fighter group in the MTO still used them as escort fighters

I think some of these problems were alleviated by none other than Charles Lindbergh in the PTO, where the plane went on to soldier until almost the end of the war. But I could be wrong...

[George Eller]

To anyone who is a P-47 'Bolt affectionado, I'd be interested in the changes in performance form the early models to the final 360-degree canopy variant...
-

Hi Nick,

Quick info from work:

P-47 Thunderbolt
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-47_Thunderbolt

Contains overview of Thunderbolt models:
P-47B / P-47C / XP-47E / XP-47F
P-47C
P-47D / P-47G / XP-47K / XP-47L
XP-47H / XP-47J
P-47M
P-47N


Bubbletop P-47s

All the P-47s to this point had a "razorback" canopy configuration with a tall fuselage spine behind the pilot which resulted in poor visibility to the rear. The British also had this problem with their fighter aircraft, and had devised the bulged "Malcolm hood" canopy for the Spitfire as an initial solution. This was fitted in the field to many North American P-51 Mustangs, and to a handful of P-47Ds. However, the British then came up with a much better solution, devising an all-round vision "bubble" canopy for the Hawker Typhoon. USAAF officials liked the bubble canopy, and quickly adapted it to American fighters, including the P-51 and the Thunderbolt. The first P-47 with a bubble canopy was a modified P-47D-5 completed in the summer of 1943 and redesignated XP-47K. Another older P-47D was modified to provide an internal fuel capacity of 370 US gallons (1,402 L) and given the designation XP-47L. The bubble canopy and increased fuel capacity were then rolled into production together, resulting in the block 25 P-47D (rather than a new variant designation). First deliveries to combat groups began in May 1944.

It was followed by similar bubble-top variants, including the P-47D-26, D-27, D-28 and D-30. Improvements added in this series included engine refinements, more internal fuel capacity, and the addition of dive recovery flaps. Cutting down the rear fuselage to accommodate the bubble canopy produced yaw instability, and the P-47D-40 introduced a dorsal fin extension in the form of a narrow triangle running from the vertical tailplane to the radio aerial. The fin fillet was retrofitted in the field to earlier P-47D bubble-top variants. The P-47D-40 also featured provisions for ten "zero length" stub launchers for 5 inch (127 mm) High Velocity Aerial Rockets (HVARs), as well as the new K-14 computing gunsight. This was a license-built copy of the British Ferranti GGS Mark IID computing gyroscopic sight which allowed the pilot to dial in target wingspan and range, and would then move the gunsight reticle to compensate for the required deflection.

The bubbletop P-47s, per Roger A. Freeman, 56th Fighter Group, p. 81, were nicknamed "Superbolts" by combat pilots in the field.



NOTE: The final version of the Thunderbolt was the P-47N - first built and test flown in July 1944. It was the long-range version designed for use in the Pacific escorting B-29 bombers to Japan. It had a maximum range of 2,170 miles (3,492 km.) with drop tanks, top speed of 467 m.p.h. (752 km/h) at 32,500 ft (685 km/h at 9,145 m) and a service ceiling of 43,000 ft (13,100 m).


By 1944, the Thunderbolt was in combat with the USAAF in all its operational theaters, except the Battle of the Aleutian Islands. With increases in fuel capacity as the type was refined, the range of escort missions over Europe steadily increased until the P-47 was able to accompany bombers in raids all the way into Germany. On the way back from the raids, pilots shot up ground targets of opportunity, and also used belly shackles to carry bombs on short-range missions, which led to the realization that the P-47 could perform a dual-function on escort missions as a fighter-bomber. Even with its complicated turbosupercharger system it could absorb a lot of damage, and its eight machine guns could inflict heavy damage on lightly armored targets. The P-47 gradually became the USAAF's best fighter-bomber, carrying the 500 pound (227 kg) bombs, the triple-tube M-8 4.5 inch (115 mm) rocket launchers, and eventually HVARs. From the invasion of Europe on June 6, 1944, to VE day on May 7, 1945, the Thunderbolt destroyed 86,000 railway cars, 9,000 locomotives, 6,000 armored fighting vehicles, and 68,000 trucks.

Although the P-51 Mustang replaced the P-47 in the long-range escort role in Europe, the Thunderbolt still ended the war with 3,752 air-to-air kills claimed in over 746,000 sorties of all types, at the cost of 3,499 P-47s to all causes in combat. In Europe in the critical first three months of 1944 when the German aircraft industry and Berlin were heavily attacked, the P-47 shot down more German fighters than did the P-51 (570 out of 873), and shot down approximately 900 of the 1983 claimed during the first six months of 1944. In Europe, the Thunderbolt flew more sorties (423,435) than P-51s, P-38s and P-40s combined.

By the end of the war, the 56th FG was the only 8th Air Force unit still flying the P-47, by preference, instead of the P-51. The unit claimed 665.5 air victories and 311 ground kills, at the cost of 128 aircraft. Lieutenant Colonel Francis S. "Gabby" Gabreski scored 31 victories, including three ground kills, Captain Bob Johnson scored 27 (with one unconfirmed probable kill leading to some giving his tally as 28), and 56th FG Commanding Officer Colonel Hubert Zemke scored 17.75 kills.

In the Pacific, Colonel Neel Kearby of the 5th Air Force destroyed 22 Japanese planes and was awarded the Medal of Honor for an action in which he downed six enemy fighters on a single mission. He was shot down and killed over Biak in March 1944.

-

Designers:

Alexander Kartveli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Kartveli

Alexander Procofieff de Seversky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_de_Seversky

-

P-47D Thunderbolt - Specifications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-47_Thunderbolt
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/specs.html

General characteristics
Maker: Republic Aviation Corporation
Type: Single-seat fighter-bomber
Crew: One
Length: 36 ft 1 in (11.00 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 9 in (12.44 m)
Height: 14 ft 7 in (4.45 m)
Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²)
Empty weight: 10,000 lb (4,535 kg)
Loaded weight: lb (kg)
Max takeoff weight: 17,500 lb (7,935 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-2800-59 twin-row radial engine, 2,535 hp (1,890 kW)
Performance
Maximum speed: 426 mph at 30,000 ft (685 km/h at 9,145 m)
Range: 800 miles combat, 1,800 mi ferry (1,290 km / 2,900 km)
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 3,120 ft/min (15.9 m/s), other sources 2,780 ft/min
Armament
8 x 0.5 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns
Up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs
10 x 5 in (127 mm) unguided rockets

-

P-47N Thunderbolt - Specifications
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=90329&postcount=81
http://library.thinkquest.org/2819/p-47n.htm
http://www.cavanaughflightmuseum.com/Thunderbolt.htm
http://rwebs.net/ghostsqd/p-47.htm
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/specs.html

General characteristics
Maker: Republic Aviation Corporation
Type: Single-seat fighter-bomber
Crew: One
Length: 36 ft. 1 in. (11.07m)
Wingspan: 42 ft. 7 in. (12.98m)
Height: 14 ft. 8 in. (4.47m)
Wing area: 332.2 sq. ft. (30.86 sq. m.)
Empty weight: Empty 10,994 lb. (4,987 kg.)
Max takeoff weight: 20,699 lb. (9,389 kg.)
Powerplant: One 2,800-hp Pratt and Whitney R-2800-57,-73,or -77 18-cylinder two-row radial engine
Performance
Maximum speed: 467 m.p.h. (752 km/h) at 32,500 ft (685 km/h at 9,145 m)
Range: 2,170 miles (3,492 km.) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 3,120 ft/min (15.9 m/s), other sources 2,770 ft/min
Armament
8 x 0.5 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns
Up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs
10 x 5 in (127 mm) unguided rockets
10 x 5-inch HVAR air-to-surface rockets

----------

WAR DEPARTMENT
AIR CORP, MATERIAL DIVISION
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
June 18, 1942
P-47B Airplane, A.C. No. 41-5902
Acceptance Performance Tests
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html

-

FLIGHT TEST DIVISION MEMORANDUM
REPORT SERIAL NO. TSFTE-2012
17 September 1946
FLIGHT TESTS OF THE P-47N AIRPLANE
AAF NO. 44-88406
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406.html

-

Pratt & Whitney R-2800
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_R-2800

-

Here are some images and info on my favorite version of the Thunderbolt - the P-47N:

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/8271/p47n01hz0tz1.jpg
From: Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, by The Aeronautical Staff of Aero Publishers, Inc. in cooperation with Edward T. Maloney, curator of The Air Museum, Aero Publishers, Inc., 1966

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3152/p47n02yh5ml4.jpg
From: Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, by The Aeronautical Staff of Aero Publishers, Inc. in cooperation with Edward T. Maloney, curator of The Air Museum, Aero Publishers, Inc., 1966

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9783/p47n03wx8.jpg
http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/p47n_3v.jpg

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/518/p47n04dk4.jpg
From: American Aircraft of World War II, by David Mondey, Chancellor Press, 1996, p 222.

-

[redcoat]

I think some of these problems were alleviated by none other than Charles Lindbergh in the PTO, where the plane went on to soldier until almost the end of the war. But I could be wrong...
The problems were design flaws, I have read that they had rectified at least some of them by the L model, but by then the P-38 had fallen out of favour with the top USAAF brass in Europe, and had already been almost completely replaced by the P-51.

Lindbergh's field of expertise was I believe in fuel management, in effect he devised ways of extending the range by better engine control.

The P-38 had better luck as a fighter in the PTO because Japanese aircraft very rarely operated above 20,000ft

[George Eller]

-
...

I read somewhere that the Israelis who flew both the American P-51 and the British Spitfire in their air force felt that the Spitfire handled better.

I'm sure that the old vet will be pleasantly surprised by your friends gift - great idea

-

I believe they flew the ME109 as well, ironically.

http://www.milartgl.com/Images_b/b-strange-encounter.jpg
-

They did Nick,

The planes were from Czechoslovakia, but they were not very popular as explained below. (I know it's off topic, but just to reply...)


Avia S-199

The Avia S-199 was a fighter aircraft built after World War II by the Avia Company (Avia Akciová Společnost Pro Průmysl Letecký Škoda), a branch of the enormous Škoda Works in Czechoslovakia, built using parts and plans left over from Luftwaffe aircraft production that had taken place in the country during the war. Despite the aircraft's numerous problems and unpopularity with its pilots, it achieved fame as the first fighter obtained by the Israeli Air Force for use during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Czechoslovak pilots nicknamed it Mezek ("Mule"), while in Israel it was officially known as the Sakeen ("knife" in Hebrew). In practice, the aircraft was more often called Messerschmitt or Messer (which also means "knife", in German and Yiddish).

Design and development

Avia had started building Messerschmitt Bf 109Gs straight after the war under the Avia S-99 name, but soon ran out of the 109's Daimler-Benz DB 605 engine after many were destroyed during a warehouse fire. The S-199 continued to use the Bf 109G airframe but, with none of the original engines available, an alternative engine had to be used. It was decided that as a replacement for the original engine, the aircraft would use the same engine (Junkers Jumo 211) and propeller as the Heinkel He 111 bomber. The resulting combination of parts was an aircraft with extremely poor handling qualities. The substitute engine was heavier than, and lacked the responsiveness of, the Daimler-Benz unit, and the torque created by the massive paddle-bladed propeller made control very difficult. This, in combination with the 109's narrow-track undercarriage, made landings and take-offs extremely hazardous. A final hidden danger lay in the synchronization gear, which did not work as it was meant to, leading a few Israeli aircraft to shoot off their own propellers.[citation needed]

Around 550 S-199s were built, including a number of conversion trainers designated CS-199 (armed) and C-210 (unarmed). The first flight took place in March 1947, and production ended in 1949. The last examples were withdrawn from Czechoslovak service (with their National Security Guard) in 1957.

Israeli Service

Israeli agents negotiated the purchase of Avia S-199s from the Czechoslovak government in defiance of an arms embargo that Israel faced at the time. Twenty-five aircraft were obtained, and all but two were eventually delivered. The first examples arrived on May 20, 1948, six days after Israel's declaration of independence, and five days after the commencement of hostilities by Egypt. They were assembled and sent into combat for the first time on May 29, attacking the Egyptian army between Isdud and the current Ad Halom bridge, south of Tel Aviv. This was the first action of 101 Squadron IAF. In combat, the type proved unreliable and performed poorly. One Avia pilot remarked "she tried to kill us on every take off and landing." [citation needed] Furthermore, maintenance problems meant that no more than five were typically airworthy at any one time. However, the type scored victories over its opponents, including the Spitfire. [1] The Avias were mostly withheld from service by the end of October, at which time, only six remained operational. The S-199 continued making sporadic sorties through mid-December; American pilot Wayne Peake flipped one on its back on December 15.


-

Israeli Air Force Museum
http://www.davidpride.com/Aviation/IAF_Main.htm

Avia S-199
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avia_S-199
Avia S-199 ("Messerschmitt"), Spitfire and Mustangs - Israeli Air Force Museum
http://www.davidpride.com/Aviation/images/IAFM_04_019.jpg

Spitfire Mk. IX in the Israeli Air Force Service 1948-1956
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Rev2/1201-1300/Rev1260_whitecrow-Spitfire/rev1260.htm
http://www.davidpride.com/Aviation/images/IAFM_04_087.jpg

North American P-51D Mustang - Israeli Air Force Service
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mustang.html
http://www.davidpride.com/Aviation/images/IAFM_04_029.jpg

Israeli P-51 Mustangs from Sweden
http://www.thescale.info/news/publish/printer_Israeli-Mustangs.shtml

Israeli Air Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Force
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2848/
http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/HomePage/HomePage.aspx?lang=EN
http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/Aircraft/Aircraft.aspx?lang=EN&lobbyID=69&folderID=78&subfolderID=182

101 Squadron - first squadron Israel's air force
http://101squadron.com/101/101.html
http://101squadron.com/welcome.html

Aircraft Types Flown by 101 Squadron
http://101squadron.com/101/aircraft.html

101 Squadron pilots:
http://101squadron.com/101/people.html

This will eventually be a list of all the 101 pilots and others involved with the squadron, with each name linked to a page or list of links about that pilot. I will consider the unit to have formed up on May 21, 1948, the date on which the first Avia S-199 arrived in Israel. Although not officially named the 101 Squadron until later, the unit first took part in operations on May 29.

To start with, here's an alphabetical list, of the following format: Name; nationality; date of arrival in Israel; fate; comments. Dates are 1948 unless otherwise noted.

Click the airplane icon to go to each individual's page.

-

[awack]

Below 25.000 feet ill take the p-51 above 25.000 feet ill take the p-47.

[orionRider]

Oh really the ONLY P-39.
It seems for me you are a little biased here.
You or do not know the history of the P-39 or simply ignores some obviouse things.
For you know the P-39 was not a best US fighter. it was a not so good in comparition with the other allies fighter and it had the very limited application in the Western front- the alies pilot simply disliked it.

Of course, the P-39 had to be the worst US fighter, but in the hands of some soviet aces, they were very successful. I read somewhere that Russian pilots found the P-39 more reliable and generally 'safer' than the more powerful soviet fighters of the time.

[jrw1268]

I vote P-51 Mustantg because the best escorts of the war the Tuskegee Airmen flew them and they never lost a plane to enemy action.

Are you sure they didn't lose any planes in combat???
http://www.geocities.com/mouseman27_2000/tuskegee.htm

[Fennica]

I think I'll revive this briefly.

First; People, we cannot say which is the best, unless you decide the year which is observed.
Most of these frames recieved many upgrades and modifications during the years of service, so do we look at MK1, or the latest Mark?
(this is usually painfully obvious when people compare Western Allies best dogfighter, and yanks hail P-51D while downplay older model Spitfire as a measurement)

These planes had various different roles, some were in the spotlights because of their role, some were in the sidelines.
Some planes flew in the early years, some were late comers in the war.

What do I think:

P51 Mustang; Was a good all around jack-of-all-trades. It exelled in long range escorts due to the long range, but it was NOT feared among Luftwaffe.
-Known weakness; was to score a hit to the scoop, it caught fire right after that. Sometimes Mustangs ripped their own wings off.

P-47 Jug; Prototype got fatter and bigger until it looked, and behaved, like a rhino. And with as much stopping power and strength. It had better firepower due to the two extra HMGs, and could carry quite a lot under its belly, which made it a great in ground attack role. Also it could take a lot of combat damage.
-Known weakness;Like a rhino, turning needs time.

F6F Hellcat; Wildcat grown up. This plane was good all around, though it did not exell in any particular field. Its success was the stiff Japanese way to fight aerial war, and hard lessons U.S. aviators learned in the early war. Lessons which are usually put on Wildcats fault.
-Know weakness; Not really, it really was good all around. Not exellent, but good.

P-38 Lightning; Made before the wars, and flew through them. That is a good merit. Lightning had exellent range and it was swift plane thanks to the two engines. It also was a stable platform, and firepower was consentrated in the nose arc.
-Known weakness; The stable platform prevented turning engagements.

Brewster 239 `Pearl of the skies´; As much as yanks hate the family of this plane, it still is the best scoring fighter in WW2.
It also holds the first place in durability, as the same planes flew combat missions throughout war from 1941 early-to 1945, against every increasing numbers of more advanced fighters.
It also holds the merit of being the top scoring induvidual plane.
Born from Brewsters early models, these planes were stripped from all U.S. NAVY material, engines were replaced to those found in DC-3 transports, and they were sent to Finland.
Too late to enter Winter War, these planes were ready as the Continuation war began.
The 239 is not the "Buffalo", but it was lighter, faster, more reliable(Finnish mechanics rigged the engines) and with great punch of four HMGs.(Finns took out IL-2 ground attack planes with ease, and commented about great hitting power of Colts)
U.S. and British aviators hated it, Finnish pilots loved it.
Known weakness;Old lady which could not be upgraded.

[gumalangi]

P51 it is

[redcoat]

Best USAAF fighter of WW2 ?

Well, there is always this aircraft ;)
http://inlinethumb06.webshots.com/15365/2763647470103014230S500x500Q85.jpg (http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2763647470103014230DIyeAd)

[Dark1995]

p-51 for sure

[snebold]

I´d say the Vought F4U-4. It went into service in October 1944.
Surviability: stated to better than the P-47 (and certainly better than a liquid cooled fighter)
top speed: 718 km/h at 8000m
Ceiling: 12650m
Range: 2500km with centreline drop tank
Warload: Up to 1814kg (rarely used in WWII, (but used in Korea with the AU-1 (F4U-6)))
Acceleration: better than other US single engined fighters (though not as good as the P-38)
Roll: better than the P-51, not as good as the P-47
General manoevrability: good at high speed, bad at low speed (but in this connection, this was a high speed aircraft, so why go slow)
Carrier capable: Yes
Price tag: ?$, but you could have 5 F&F´s for 3 F4U´s (but presumably cheaper than the P-47 and and P-38)

The USAAC could (also) have made use of it as an escort fighter, fighter bomber, night fighter (F4U-4N- and E), recce (F4U-4P)... or what do you think?

The XF4U-3 was a high altitude interceptor version ordered in March 1942, but not ready before 1946. Their R-2800-16(C) engines still had 2000HP available at 12200m. 3 were built by Vought and 13 as FG-3´s by Goodyear and "they were used for very high altitude test flying" (flown to 12200m is also stated).

Found the number, which was 772km/h, but not the altitude (presumably 10000m+)

[Major Walter Schmidt]

Mustang
Cheap and easy to build
Flies to berlin, kills everone else and comes back in 1 piece.
Also, armed with rockets, it was a good ground attack as well as besting Soviet jets in Korea.

[HAWKEYE]

The trickiest thing about the P51 that you don't much hear about is that the 40 gal. fuel tank right behind the pilot made the plane very, very touchy (unstable) until it was run dry, it was the first tank to use, if you didn't get this little tidbit of info when you were transitioning from another aircraft to the Mustang you got a real nasty surprise on your first and maybe your last mission.

I had to pick the F4U Corsair, I love the Jug and the Mustang, but there is just something about that bent-winged bird that I love. The j\Japanese called it "Whistling Death". Of all the aircraft that were kept in service after the war and into Korea the Corsair did the best job, the Jug was scratched, so was the super efficient Hellcat and the Mustang proved too vulnerable to ground fire, but the Corsair could put the ordinance on target and get you home.

http://www.bluejacket.com/usmc/images/f4u_corsair_usmc_majuro-ww2.JPG

[strangeland]

P-51D/H. The P-47 and F6F are runners-up, and the P-40 is vastly underrated.

The mustang was cheap to build, easy to fly, and could escort the bombers all the way to Berlin. It gave great service in both Europe and the Pacific.

It shot down Me-262s over Germany and Soviet jets in Korea, no small feat for a prop fighter.

[HAWKEYE]

The poor little F4F Wildcat was pretty underrated too....If they were flown with the right tactics they could down about anyone...once they were refitted as the FM-1 they could outfight almost any aircraft in the sky.
I do believe that a P61 Black Widow was proven to out turn a Hellcat, which was built just to out fight the Zero....that is a real feat of flying.

Hell,, I guess I should just say I love them all and be done with it......

[redcoat]

P-51D/H. The P-47 and F6F are runners-up, and the P-40 is vastly underrated.
Small quibble. While the P-51H entered operational service just before the end of WW2, it didn't see any combat.

[triggerfinger]

I say the P-51. It's just got the firepower

[HAWKEYE]

I say the P-51. It's just got the firepower

The P-47's got two more machineguns that the Mustang.....Bob Johnson said that the first time he fired the eight .50's on his Thunderbolt he thought that the plane would shake apart and stop in midair.....thats firepower.

[Sickles]

You gotta love the P-51 and the Corsair. There is always an argument about the performance comparisons of these two great aircraft. The ease of handeling the P-51 seemed to make it a favorite to its pilots and it had no major performance weaknesses. The Corsair was just awsome but tough to handle in the naval capacity. The edge P-51

[HAWKEYE]

Yes the Corsair was a beast if you did not have top notch training in it's quirks, it used to be called the "Ensign Eliminator" before they found out how to control the problem of one wing losing lift before the other at slow landing speeds. (Pencil sized piece of triangle stock attached to the underside of the wing root intake). The big assed P&W engine and the set back cockpit made it hard to impossible to see where you are going on take offs ane especally landings. Pilots learned to make wide turning sweeps on approach so they could see the deck, then trusted the LSO to get them on deck. The early F4U had landing gear that was just too bouncy and they had a hard time staying on deck once they got back on it. Once all these problems were ironed out the Navy and Marines found that they had one of the best fighter, ground attack, dive bombers in the world.

http://www.west.net/~graywolf/photos/landing.jpg

Oh Wow.. found these while looking up Corsair pics.. Enjoy!!

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Chino2006/Highlights/index.html

[Sickles]

Lets not forget the F6F Hellcat.

Kill ratio is one stat that can reveal more about a fighter than any other single stat. 19/1 kill ratio for Hellcat vs. Corsair 11/1. Hmmmmm............

There was something intangible about the Hellcat that does not show up on the specification sheet. It was big, slower than most of its allied contemporaries, but it could turn, take battle damage, was a dream to fly.

[redcoat]

Lets not forget the F6F Hellcat.

Kill ratio is one stat that can reveal more about a fighter than any other single stat. 19/1 kill ratio for Hellcat vs. Corsair 11/1. Hmmmmm............

It say's more about the quality (or lack of ) of its opponents than anything else

[gumalangi]

It say's more about the quality (or lack of ) of its opponents than anything else

Sir,

i met you in other forum, you seems have many doubts in US account on their claims,.. i remember in one forum on guy really looked up on P47, no doubt a great plane, however he seems made a God out the steel bird.

however I seems to agree with your assesment, if infact all claims of all US airplanes are correct, than, The force of Germans or Japan are gone down to zero before end of war,..

Cheers
G

[redcoat]

Sir,

i met you in other forum, you seems have many doubts in US account on their claims,.. Cheers
G
All claims made by ANY airforce in WW2 are prone to be overclaims.
In his book "The Most Dangerous Enemy, a History of the Battle of Britain", Stephen Bungay makes the following observations

"Claims are usually used to show who got what. This may be of interest to the participants, but it is knowing the total losses inflicted on the enemy in the air, whoever caused them that matters, Because of its importance, both sides insisted on rigorous citeria for confirming claims, which had to to be independently witnessed by another pilot or verified through the location of the crash-site. Dispite this , it is an endemic feature of all air-fighting that claims are too high , by a factor of at LEAST two. There are good reasons for this.
The first is simple mistakes usually made by inexperienced pilots. If he was firing at an enemy machine and it dived steeply away, a new pilot might think he had a kill. In fact, engines usually emit smoke when an aircraft bunts, They can also get into spins, fall out of control and then recover low down out of sight.
The second is that verification is very difficult and also dangerous. To be accurate, the observing pilot, who is usually fighting for his life, rather than playind umpire, would have to follow the victim from the first bullet strikes on it, to its crashing into the ground. All he would usually be able to see would be several plane firing at each other, catch a glimpse of one spinning down a few seconds later, and then perhaps an explosion on the ground some time after that. All three impressions might be connected. On the other hand the spinning plane may have recovered in cloud and gone home and the crash be of an entirely different machine actually shot down in a different dog-fight. When moving at 200-300mph in three dimentions large distances are covered very quickly. Pilots who tried to follow down aircraft they had hit usually turned into victims themselves. Experienced pilots forgot about confirming claims and kept their precious height for better purposes.
Multiple claims were also a major reason for over claims, the same machine would be seen and attacked by different pilots at different altitudes and in different stages of disintergration and be identified as different machines"

[gumalangi]

All claims made by ANY airforce in WW2 are prone to be overclaims.


However may i interrupt,. it will be easier to identified a genuine claime, should the claim made above the occupied land,.. where as the claims can be justified by the land force,..

this case to RAF during BoB,.. and Luftwaffe during the Allied bombing over germany,.. (the kills claims of two airforce during the particular conflict looked very accurate,. the luftwaffe event put so called,. bailed out score on the top of kills score :D )

However,.. the claims by allied force during the later stage of airwar., are harder to justified due to the fact it was the mouth of the pilot is the source of information,..

but i guess, like the USN submarine tonnage claims over IJN, this was cross cehck to IJN shipping records after the war,. and somehow the claims were down significantly...

Cheers

[A_rod]

Wasnt the Mustang originally a close support plane, dive bomber? to start out and later was converted to a fighter, espeically when its engine was replaced with the Merlins

[A_rod]

I saw a show on the mustangs my impressions were it was not an easy plane to fly pilots stated that when flying a P51 altitude was your friend, the more distance you had from the ground the better

[christophe1992]

the p51 was the best on great heights. how closer to the ground the lesser it performanced it had another disadvantage the engin block could be destroyed with one shot. but still a good aircraft:). the p38 was the 3d fastest aircraft of the us it was fast enough to intercept zeros and manouvreable enough to excape from them when attacked. it could use many weapons rockets,.50 mgs and other things. i had good range.

[SS Ouche-Vittes]

P47 is the best! Its huge! Its got long range! Its got 8 .50 cals! It has a radial engine! It can take lots of damage! I love it! In the future I would like to build a 1:2 scale model for me.

[flamethrowerguy]

8 .50 cal machine guns? Now I can imagine what I read about the devastating effect of the US "jabos" on enemy colomns.

[snebold]

I have edited #post 35 with this: XF4U-3 speed attained (in 1946) was 772km/h; and 3 F4U´s cost as much as 5 F6F´s.

We´ve had some quotes for the price in $ for the P-51 and P-47, does anybody know the price of any of the other US fighters?