P51D and Vought and no other
My vote for the Corsair. Capable fighter aside, how can you not fall in love with the beautiful gullwings?
Boyington liked the Buffalo…I think…I was doing research for my blog post on the Flying Tigers and ran across this quote:
(I’ve edited the quote as this is a family friendly board…)
“… I remember asking him about the Brewster Buffalo (Then, Now and Always, my favorite aircraft). I had no sooner finished saying the word ‘Buffalo’, when he slammed his beer can down on the table, and practicaly snarled, “It was a DOG!” (His emphasis). Then he slowly leaned back in his chair and after a moment quietly said, “But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armorplate, radios and other ****, they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little ***** could turn and roll in a phonebooth. Oh yeah–sweet little ship; but some engineer went and ****** it up.” With that he reached for his beer and was silent again…”
(Source: http://www.warbirdforum.com/pappy.htm)
They also saw service as low level fighter escort for the tactical bombers of the 2TAF RAF. The most famous mission in which they were employed in this role was as escorts to the Mosquito bombers on the Amiens prison raid
Am i not right in thinking the mustangs the RAF used where from the photo recconisans Sqs?
Sure if it wasnt for the RAF , there wouldnt have been the mustang we all love ,or better yet it was the rolls royce merlin in the thing that made it great , if not for that it would have still been the A-10(???) with the allison engine ,
Correct. What’s amazing is that the American design group basically rushed the P-51 through with what they had, and little support from either the British or American gov’t, and still produced something quite amazing once it was paired with the stellar Merlin.
Even with the Allison, people forget it was pretty good as a fighter at low-level, a very good ground attack platform, and that the USAAF adapted it to a role as a dive-bomber for a short time…
i go with the mustang fast and sleek
but the corsair is a big capable weapon
I would say the Hellcat…I think the F6F itself and the engine can take more hits than the P51 and continue to fly and the ability to operate off carriers or land.
MIKE M.
Good point. No other airplane that saw considerable action had a 19/1 kill ratio like the Hellcat.
It’s hard to tell which is best, and kill ratios certainly don’t do much to help.
It’s impossible to compare japanese planes in the Pacific to German planes in ETO.
If I remember correctly, the japanese planes, for most of the war, had no armor or self-sealing tanks, which explain why they were blown-up so easily.
here’s some info about the P51 in RAF service. Quite a few of the packard-Merlin versions saw squadron service.
It seems that many of the pilots preferred the Malcolm hood (like the Spitfire had but an even better rear view) rather than the clear teardrop type.
My Dad’s squadron were re-equipped with Mustang III’s and (p51B or C) and IV’s (D and K) in Nove 1944 in NE Italy, theywere already flying strikes into Yugoslavia.
http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/must1.html
and some on the Malcolm hood
http://www.aimhigherjets.com/P_51_RAF_Poland_p/ahj-403.htm
Timbo in Oz
Thank you for the links.
For the mustang, it was all engine…but for the Spitfire, it was about the wing. I don’t know, but I’d probably say the Spitfire would be my plane of choice at low altitudes.
Stats can be deceiving, did the Hellcat shoot down more planes than any of the other USA fighters or did it have a higher kill to loss ratio?? There can be a great big difference in the two.
I checked:
Wiki says the Hellcat had the best overall kill score with over 5000 downed to the Corsair’s 2000 +. But the Corsair was regulated to more bombing and ground attack missions later in the war while the F6F was tearing up the IJN fighters head to head facing mostly bottom of the barrel Japanese pilots.
The Corsair was a great little-heralded dive bomber as well, they used the landing gear for dive breaks and could really blow the hell outta stuff…the little gear doors on the front of the gear were actually designed to be used as dive brakes.
The Corsair bore the brunt of fighter-bomber missions, delivering 15,621 tons of bombs during the war (70% of total bombs dropped by fighters during the war).
You would want the Spitfire IX for low altitude, but for high altitude you would need the Spitfire XIV (top speed 446mph at 26,000ft) of which the German ace Galland once said “The only good thing about the Spitfire XIV was that there were so few of them” 
The Corsair bore the brunt of fighter-bomber missions, delivering 15,621 tons of bombs during the war (70% of total bombs dropped by fighters during the war).
and a quote from the P-47 thread.
P-47´s […] delivered 132482tons of bombs
somehow doesn´t add up… (anybody else who thinks the P-47 number is high?)
The only good thing about the Spitfire XIV was that there were so few of them"
Always wondered why there were so few, they were not introduced that late. Lack of Griffon engines?
For the price of 3 F4U´s you could have 5 F6F´s, that would probably make the latter popular among those behind the desk?
Or maybe the Corsair’s figures (15,621 tons) are a bit low to be claiming 70 percent of total bombs dropped by fighters during the war. Assuming a half ton of bombs (two 500 lb bombs = 1/2 ton) per sortie, we can double total tons by two and come up with an estimated 31,242 sorties. If we assume 500 lbs of bombs per sortie, we can multiply 15,621 x 4 and come up with an estimated 62,484 sorties. The P-47 Thunderbolt flew approximately 546,000 combat sorties.
Republic P-47 Thunderbolt
http://www.p47millville.org/P47-Millville.cfm?pageName=P47-Thunderbolt
Combat Statistics:
546,000 combat sorties with a combat loss rate of only 0.7 percent.
132,000 tons of bombs dropped
135 million rounds of 50 cal. fired
1-1/2 million hours of combat
20 million gal of fuel consumed
11,878 Enemy planes destroyed; 1/2 in the air; 1/2 on the ground
160,000 military vehicles destroyed
9,000 enemy locomotives destroyed
More victories than any other American aircraft in W.W.II
The Tank’s Formidable Enemies
http://www.aero-web.org/history/wwii/d-day/8.htm
The Ninth Air Force and the Second Tactical Air Force had vast quantities of fighter-bombers. IX TAC, for example, had twenty four squadrons of Republic P47 Thunderbolts, while 2 TAF had eighteen squadrons of Hawker Typhoons. Both were beefy, powerful aircraft, capable of absorbing considerable battle damage and still returning to base. Of the two, the P47 was the more survivable, in part because it had a radial piston engine. The Typhoon had a liquid-cooled engine and “chin” radiator installation that was vulnerable to ground fire. Affectionately known as the Jug, the P47, on occasion, returned to base not merely with gaping holes from enemy defenses, but with whole cylinders blown off its engine. Pilot memoirs reveal that while the P47 was regarded with affection and even fierce loyalty, the Tiffie (as the Typhoon was dubbed) had earned an uncomfortable respect and awe bordering on fear.
Both fighter-bombers had, for their time, prodigious weapons- carrying capabilities. Both could lug up to a 2,000-lb bomb load, one 1,000-lb bomb under each wing. Typically, however, both operated with smaller loads. A P47 would carry an external belly fuel tank and one 500-lb bomb under each wing; many were also configured so that the plane could carry air-to-ground rockets, typically ten 5-in HVARs (high-velocity aircraft rockets). P47s on an armed reconnaissance mission would usually operate three flights, two armed with a mix of bombs and rockets, and the cover flight carrying only rockets. Over 80 percent of the bombs dropped by P47s during the European campaign were 500-lb weapons; less than 10 percent were 1,000-lb bombs, and the difference was made up by smaller 260-lb fragmentation bombs and napalm. While acknowledging the spectacular effects and destructiveness of rockets, the AAF considered bombs more effective for “road work” due to accuracy problems in firing the solid-fuel weapons.
USAAF fighter aircraft, all of them, delivered a total of 216,929 tons of bombs on targets.
Tonnage delivered by fighters by theater:
ETO: 92,856
MTO: 61,429
POA: 2,274
FEAF: 41,141
CBI: 18,680
Alaska: 549
Did the P-47 deliver some 60% of this tonnage? I would not be surprised.
However, the claim of more victories than any other US type is just plain preposterous nonsense.
Credited claims for aircraft flown by US pilots by theater:
Pacific Theater (includes Aleutians, Central Pacific, South Pacific and Southwest Pacific operating areas):
F6F = 5,257
F4U/FG = 2,155
P-38 = 1,700
F4F/FM-1/FM-2 = 1,408
P-47 = 697 = Fourth Place
P-40 = 661
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 297
P-39/P-400 = 288
P-61 = 64
F2A = 10
P-36 = 3
P-70 = 2
P-26 = 2
P-35 = 1
European Theater:
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 4,239
P-47 = 2,686 = Second Place
P-38 = 497
P-61 = 59
Spitfire = 15
F6F = 8
Beaufighter = 6
P-39/P-400 = 3
F4F = 2
Mediterranean Theater:
P-38 = 1,431
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 1,063
P-40 = 592
Spitfire = 364
P-47 = 263 = Fifth Place
F4F = 26
Beaufighter = 25
P-39/P-400 = 25
Mosquito = 1
China-Burma-India Theater, including the AVG:
P-40 = 741
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 345
P-38 = 157
P-47 = 16 = Fourth Place
P-39/P-400 = 5
P-61 = 5
P-43 = 3
Or, we can break it down by just European opponents?
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 5,302
P-47 = 2,949 = Second Place
P-38 = 1,928
P-40 = 592
Spitfire = 379
P-61 = 59
Beaufighter = 31
P-39/P-400 = 28
F4F/FM-2 = 28
F6F = 8
Mosquito = 1
Or, just against the Japanese?
F6F = 5,257
F4U = 2,155
P-38 = 1,857
F4F/FM-2 = 1,408
P-40 = 1,402
P-47 = 713 = Sixth Place
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 642
P-39/P-400 = 293
P-61 = 69
F2A = 10
P-43 = 3
P-36 = 3
P-26 = 2
P-70 = 2
P-35 = 1
I know, let’s add them all together:
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 5,944 = 1st Place
F6F = 5,265 = 2nd Place
P-38 = 3,785 = 3rd Place
P-47 = 3,662 = 4th Place
F4U = 2,155 = 5th Place
P-40 = 1,994 = 6th Place
F4F/FM-2 = 1,436 = 7th Place
Spitfire = 379 = 8th Place
P-39/P-400 = 321 = 9th Place
P-61 = 128 = 10th Place
Beaufighter = 31 = 11th Place
F2A = 10 = 12th Place
P-43 = 3 = 13th Place tied
P-36 = 3 = 13th Place tied
P-26 = 2 = 14th Place tied
P-70 = 2 = 14th Place tied
P-35 = 1 = 15th Place tied
Mosquito = 1 = 15th Place tied
A definitive FOURTH PLACE for the P-47. And from whence come the numbers? Official USN and USAAF statistics and various well known compilations such as the works of Frank Olynyk or Ray Wagner.
These are credits awarded for shooting down enemy aircraft. Maybe someone wants to inflate scores by counting aircraft destroyed on the ground . . . sorry, that’s not the way the game is played.
And while it is certainly true that the F4U delivered more bomb tonnage than the F6F, 15,621 to 6,503 it is also interesting to note that F4U pilots a higher percentage of fighters per credit than did the F6F. 78% of F4U credits were for enemy fighters versus 72% for F6Fs. The overall USN/USMC fighter types percentage of credits for enemy fighters was 71%, the overall percentage for all USN types was 70%.
And the noted F4U’s 70% of fighter bomb tonnage? That is 70% of USN/USMC fighter delivered bomb tonnage, not ALL fighter delivered tonnage.
Rich
Wow Rich! That’s a lot of good information. VERY informative. Thanks.