PDA

View Full Version : P-47M Was Better then P-51B/C/D Mustangs



REDHAWK_1
08-20-2005, 02:33 PM
Having been a P-51 Mustang Fan since I was a kid. To say that the Mustang was the Best Fighter Plane of WW2 is totaly not true. Grant you that the P-51 Mustang was one of the Best Fighter Plane of the war, but it wasnt thee Best. The P-47M was alot Faster and had a higher service ceiling then the 51. It had twice the horsepower then the Mustang. The P-47M/N had a P&W 2800-57 (C) engine while the Mustang had a Packer Melrin engine @1750 Hp. It had 8 50 Cal MG and the Mustang only 4-6 50 Cal MG.
The P-47M @ 34,500ft @2800RPM,75"HG and WEP speed was 507mph. At 25,000ft @2800RPM max sped 453mph and at 30,000ft max sped 470mph. Also the P-47M could carry 2,500lbs of bombs. Plus the fact the P-47 could almost outdive any aircraft without tearing off it wings. The Mustang however had a problem with it wings tearing off in a dive till the problem was fixed. The P-47M however wasnt produce in great numbers, only 130 M models were produce.If the P-47M models was produce in great numbers as the 51 was then the Mustang wouldnt be as famous as it is now. Also the P-47 could take more damage then a Mustang. Alot of P-47 pilots actually flown back to thier bases with 20mm cannon shells stuck in the cly heads.
Here are the facts about the P-47M:
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/republic/p-47m.htm
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47.htm
http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/aircraft/p-47/7.html
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.html
http://www.chuckhawks.com/p47.htm
Here is the link to the Mustang Wing Problems:
http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/forums/
You will find it on Page 4 under P-51 Structural Failures.
As I said b4 I am a very big fan of the P-51 Mustang and think it is one of the best fighter ever made, but every one forgets that the Mustang was design to be a High Alt Fighter and Bomber Escort Fighter in which it did it job very well. But to say that the Mustang won the war would be untrue, the planes that really won the War u would have to look to the Allied Bombers and thier crew who actualy won the war, the Fighters just help with it.

fordfan25
08-20-2005, 02:52 PM
yep. and i believe the f4u-4 was even better than the p-47m. not quit as fast up high but could carrey more bombs/rockets,was just as tough if not tougher,more manuverble and could take off and land on carriers. pluse WAS produced in large numbers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and if im not mistaken had close to the same range.

all of above is subject to correction. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


of course id be happy with just a realistic p-47D and f4u-1 in the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif



the mustang was a great plane and it was in the war from what 1943 and didnt see any real noticble improvements in performnce sept for the up to 6 .50's untill the end or the war if im not mistaken

now if you want to compair the p47m to the p-51H wich was in flight dureing the war just saw no fighting. that might be more entersting

carguy_
08-20-2005, 02:54 PM
Just remember there will be no P47M in IL2.

danjama
08-20-2005, 02:57 PM
P47 dives in game are so so wrong. Fix it!

fordfan25
08-20-2005, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Just remember there will be no P47M in IL2.

yep. just blue colored super planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

fordfan25
08-20-2005, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
P47 dives in game are so so wrong. Fix it!

agreed and the dm needs beefing up as well.

JG7_Rall
08-20-2005, 03:46 PM
better than***

REDHAWK_1
08-20-2005, 05:03 PM
1c we want the P-47M, not just Russia planes all the time!!!!!!!!!!!! If we could have the correct FM and DM on the 47's then u see the LW pilots really whine LOL WE WANT THE P-47M!!!!!

Badsight.
08-20-2005, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by REDHAWK_1:
To say that the Mustang was the Best Fighter Plane of WW2 is totaly not true. i know i know , all the top scoring allied pilots flew Lavochkin La-7's

p1ngu666
08-20-2005, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by REDHAWK_1:
To say that the Mustang was the Best Fighter Plane of WW2 is totaly not true. i know i know , all the top scoring allied pilots flew Lavochkin La-7's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

carguy_
08-20-2005, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by REDHAWK_1:
1c we want the P-47M, not just Russia planes all the time!!!!!!!!!!!! If we could have the correct FM and DM on the 47's then u see the LW pilots really whine LOL WE WANT THE P-47M!!!!!

IIRC lawyers took care of that for you few months ago.No more US planes.

73GIAP_Milan
08-20-2005, 06:05 PM
Don't beg for a new P-47 version..

be smart and beg for a properly modelled P-47 version in both flight and damagemodel. I'd love to see that 100 times more then a new model which we won't get no matter how many times we ask 1C:Maddox.

PBNA-Boosher
08-20-2005, 07:47 PM
Hrm... More versions of YAK please!

Rjel
08-20-2005, 08:00 PM
I think trying to compare one fighter plane to another is like comparing apples and oranges. The P-51 is considered the "best" by many simply because it did so many different things very well. Speed, range, altitude, firepower and menouverability, it did so many of these well. Then remember, as someone else said earlier, this was done almost in cookie cutter style. It wasn't until the H model that major changes were made to reduce weight and increase performance. At 487 mph, the P-51H would have been able to fight even the German jets on a more favorable footing. If I remember correctly, the P-47M was really not much more than a test bed for the later P-47N engine and wasn't seriously connsidered for large scale production.

Bearcat99
08-20-2005, 09:18 PM
Did someone say it was the best? I dont understand the context of the original post. To say that any one plane was the best is had to do anyway..... Fighter? Fightert bomber? Axis? Allied? What year? How much action did it see? etc etc etc... you cant say any one plane was "the best" ... anyone who does is just showing how little they know about WW2 aircraft...

Slickun
08-20-2005, 09:40 PM
There were more P-51B/C/D/III/IV's at 72-81" hg flying than P-47M's ever took to the air. Add 100-300 or so HP and it becomes a different bird than the 67" versions.

Compare the late war, high boost 1945 Mustangs to the P-47 and -4, not the Mustangs flying at 67" hg.

The P-47 didn't get faster than the P-51D @ 67" until about 15,000 feet. It didn't catch a higher boosted version until even higher altitudes. High boost Mustangs were substantially faster than the M on the deck.

The only P-51 the M out-accelerated was the D at 67". All other P-51's out accelerated the P-47M.

The P-47M had a good roll rate, but not as good as the Mustang at higher speeds.

The P-51 and P-47 had comparable dive performance.

The P-51 didn't go into compression until it reached higher speeds than the P-47. It stayed controllable at higher speeds.

Climb rates vs high boost Mustangs are comparable.

The high boost Mustangs enjoyed the same turning advantage the 67" versions enjoyed over earlier P-47's.

Mustangs were longer ranged than the M.

The M's enjoyed the same advantages over the Mustang that all P-47's enjoyed over all Mustangs.
Better firepower
Better gun platform
Better as it got higher. The M lowered the altitude where the Jug surpassed the Mustang a bit.
More robust.

I recently engaged in a rather long discussion about the Mustang and the -4 Corsair. I only compared the 67" to the -4. My opinion was that they were very comparable in the air to air realm.

The Corsair and Jug were both, always, better ground attack planes. The P-47 and Corsair were outstanding in that venue, the P-51 simply good.

Slickun
08-20-2005, 09:45 PM
Mustang was originally thought of as a superb low level plane. The Merlin added altitude to the mix. It lost nothing in the low level area. This is a myth, that the Merlin P-51 was a high level plane not very good down low.

fordfan25
08-20-2005, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by 73GIAP_Milan:
Don't beg for a new P-47 version..

be smart and beg for a properly modelled P-47 version in both flight and damagemodel. I'd love to see that 100 times more then a new model which we won't get no matter how many times we ask 1C:Maddox.

all though id love to see a good M moddled in the game. i agree with you

Slickun
08-20-2005, 09:57 PM
A Mustang III or IV, or Iwo Jima P-51D, operating at well over 2000 hp, is a monster.

The Mustang III's, especially, with a weight of 9200 pounds, running 81"/2045 hp at 4000 feet, are just about on the P-51H power to weight ratio. They could draw just under 2000 hp at 0 feet.

Their acceleration was well over 5 feet per second per second, 0 feet, starting at 250 mph. This eclipses the P-38L by quite a margin at 1725 hp/70" map.

Their speeds at medium altitudes increased markedly.

Already a dive acceleration and zoom monster at 67", one can imagine the effect 300 more hp had at 81".

The Brits got a well used one, with a bit of polish, to go 405 on the deck. Other tests show speeds over 390 on a consistent basis.

The sustained turn got better. The use of 10 degrees combat flaps became more efficient, as the plane had more punch to keep speeds up.

Remember, there were far more high boost Mustangs than P-47M's in 1945.

fordfan25
08-20-2005, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
A Mustang III or IV, or Iwo Jima P-51D, operating at well over 2000 hp, is a monster.

The Mustang III's, especially, with a weight of 9200 pounds, running 81"/2045 hp at 4000 feet, are just about on the P-51H power to weight ratio. They could draw just under 2000 hp at 0 feet.

Their acceleration was well over 5 feet per second per second, 0 feet, starting at 250 mph. This eclipses the P-38L by quite a margin at 1725 hp/70" map.

Their speeds at medium altitudes increased markedly.

Already a dive acceleration and zoom monster at 67", one can imagine the effect 300 more hp had at 81".

The Brits got a well used one, with a bit of polish, to go 405 on the deck. Other tests show speeds over 390 on a consistent basis.

The sustained turn got better. The use of 10 degrees combat flaps became more efficient, as the plane had more punch to keep speeds up.

Remember, there were far more high boost Mustangs than P-47M's in 1945.


please with the way the stangs DM is moddled in this sim the wings would rip off the moment you started the engien.

fordfan25
08-20-2005, 10:02 PM
by the way wernt there mustang D's with the 6 .50s and bubble tops that were at the same Lv of boost as the mk3's?

Slickun
08-20-2005, 10:19 PM
The Brits had a few P-51D's they called the "Mustang IV". About the same number as there were P-47M's, IIRC. They were run at the same boost levels, same engine (the -7).

There were two Mustang V's, the XP-51G. One reportedly got up to 497 mph on a -7 engine.

Mustangs on Iwo Jima almost certainly operated at 80" map with 145 octane fuel. These were all P-51D's, 3 FG's worth.

The different hp's available to the Mustang are almost bewildering.

Slickun
08-20-2005, 10:34 PM
All this being said, the Me-262 was the best Fighter A/C of WW2.

It CRUISED at other A/C top ends. 4 x 30 mm. Nuff said.

fordfan25
08-20-2005, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
All this being said, the Me-262 was the best Fighter A/C of WW2.

It CRUISED at other A/C top ends. 4 x 30 mm. Nuff said.


hardly. it was just fast nothing more. it was a match waiting to light. low bomb LB load,short range and if the smoke trail was any thing like in the game it woulda been an easy target to see comeing thus avoided on its attack run if in a fighter or targeted if in a bomber. it was a fast bomber intersepter and decent ground pounder. o and butt ugly. that was its most uber feature be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Cajun76
08-20-2005, 11:48 PM
All this shows is that the P-47N is a better choice than the M.

Badsight.
08-20-2005, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
hardly. it was just fast nothing more. it was a match waiting to light. low bomb LB load,short range and if the smoke trail was any thing like in the game it woulda been an easy target to see comeing thus avoided on its attack run if in a fighter or targeted if in a bomber. ignorance reigns supreme

if this game is anything to go by then we should be saying the Me-262 is the ONLY plane to go over 9000 points on a single ammo load

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

IRL , speed was life

Aaron_GT
08-21-2005, 02:06 AM
P47 dives in game are so so wrong. Fix it!

Low altitude or high altitude? At low altitude they probably only need a small amount of tweaking. Dive tests on various US types (TAIC) tests against the Zero show comparatively small separations at the end of dives (up to 300m) so I think people may expect too much. But it is something that is being investigated.

With regard to how good the P47M was a big factor that favours the P51 is cost, both to manufacture and to run (lower fuel consumption).


Alot of P-47 pilots actually flown back to thier bases with 20mm cannon shells stuck in the cly heads.

Probably a few rather than a lot. And all planes have their stories of incredible damage resistance, so you have to look at the number that didn't come back as well.


The P-47M @ 34,500ft @2800RPM,75"HG and WEP speed was 507mph.

Most modern studies suggest that this is not an accurate figure as it was not repeatable and may have been due to instrumentation problems. 470-490, yes, 507, unlikely.

Aaron_GT
08-21-2005, 02:10 AM
low bomb LB load

1000kg - about 2200lb, i.e. the same as the P47.

The Me262's big problems were when landing or taking off, and the lack of decent metals to make the engines with meaning low serviceability rates and a need to overhaul frequently given the pressure the LW was under at the time.

It was certainly not as maneouverable as the P47 so wouldn't be able to dogfight in the traditional sense, but BnZ would be effective. For attacking bombers sufficient speed to be able to virtually ignore escorts was ideal, although it must have made targetting bombers 'interesting'.

Aaron_GT
08-21-2005, 02:14 AM
The M's enjoyed the same advantages over the Mustang that all P-47's enjoyed over all Mustangs.
Better firepower

The difference in firepower between 6 and 8 guns is going to be pretty small, to be honest. Targeting is going to outweigh the difference in the number of guns. The leap from 4 to 6 is much more significant.

Ankanor
08-21-2005, 03:17 AM
targeting can always outweigh the number of guns. But 1/3 increase of firepower WILL make a difference for the average pilot.

Aaron_GT
08-21-2005, 04:36 AM
Actually it won't make much difference for the average pilot. The chances of N hits on a target does where N is low does not increase linearly with the number of guns: in other words if you are off target then you are barely any more likely to hit with 8 guns over 6. If you are dead on target you will tend to put almost 1/3 more rounds on target, which is of some advantage, but the advantage isn't all that huge if you have a good firing solution to begin with (it will tend to go down with 6 guns anyway). It is significant and worth doing, though, for a plane with the ability to carry as much weight as the P47, although a 6 gun loadout for the P47 was a supported configuration from the B onwards when extra range was required. The difference between 4 and 6 guns is more more significant, though, so it was worth upgrading from 4 in the P51B to 6 in the P51D.

Slickun
08-21-2005, 08:12 AM
Aaron, I hear you. Let me give another perspective. Be advised, this is one pilot's opinion, filtered through a second party. You are getting it third hand.

My Pop said the 8 guns were tremendous. I asked him exactly what we are talking about, how much more effective was it really, over 6 guns?

Now, Pop flew and fired BMG set-ups ranging from one 30 cal in the AT-6 Texan to the 6 gun wing set-up in the P-51, 6 Brownings in the nose in the F-80 and F-86, 8 wing guns in the Jug, to a myriad of 50 cal set-ups in the B-26 Invader. B-26 Invader 50 cal sets ranged from 6 to 10 to 14 to 18, depending on whether the turrets were locked forward or not. Dad had a ton of experience firing Brownings at aerial AND ground targets, in combat and out.

He felt the extra two guns made a huge difference. It put the Jug over the top so to speak. Whether you just got a glancing blow, or were dead on target, the extra 1600-2000 rounds per minute really chewed the target up. He said the difference was kind of startling.

I asked how they knew how many rounds they had left, since there was no round counter. Dad said that after a while, you kind of knew, but what guys in his squadron did was load the two outer guns with 100 fewer rounds.

I asked if they could tell the difference. 2 fewer guns firing, 25% less firepower. His response was "Oh yeah".

Aaron_GT
08-21-2005, 11:47 AM
He felt the extra two guns made a huge difference. It put the Jug over the top so to speak.

There's also the factor of differing convergence issues between the P51 and P47 due to gun location. It might be that this adds to the effectiveness in the P47.


the extra 1600-2000 rounds per minute really chewed the target up. He said the difference was kind of startling.

It's probably only half a dozen more rounds on the target at most in a given firing solution. I am sure that could make a statistically significant difference over many trials, but one that would be smaller than ones relating to quality of targeting.

fordfan25
08-21-2005, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
hardly. it was just fast nothing more. it was a match waiting to light. low bomb LB load,short range and if the smoke trail was any thing like in the game it woulda been an easy target to see comeing thus avoided on its attack run if in a fighter or targeted if in a bomber. ignorance reigns supreme

if this game is anything to go by then we should be saying the Me-262 is the ONLY plane to go over 9000 points on a single ammo load

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

IRL , speed was life </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
"ignorance reigns supreme"

yes it sure does http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Slickun
08-21-2005, 03:14 PM
I want to fly in the fastest plane. I won't be touched. What fool would turn with a better turner?

Boom and zoom, baybee. Just ONE lousy round in the other guy, and bye bye most of the time.

Some of us on the board, me included, need to be reminded once in awhle...this game with its emphasis on low level slow turning doesn't reflect the advantages PERFORMANCE had in WW2.

The 262 was the Man.

fordfan25
08-21-2005, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
I want to fly in the fastest plane. I won't be touched. What fool would turn with a better turner?

Boom and zoom, baybee. Just ONE lousy round in the other guy, and bye bye most of the time.

Some of us on the board, me included, need to be reminded once in awhle...this game with its emphasis on low level slow turning doesn't reflect the advantages PERFORMANCE had in WW2.

The 262 was the Man.


like i said it was fast nothing more http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

lrrp22
08-21-2005, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
I want to fly in the fastest plane. I won't be touched. What fool would turn with a better turner?

Boom and zoom, baybee. Just ONE lousy round in the other guy, and bye bye most of the time.

Some of us on the board, me included, need to be reminded once in awhle...this game with its emphasis on low level slow turning doesn't reflect the advantages PERFORMANCE had in WW2.

The 262 was the Man.


like i said it was fast nothing more http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but it was REALLY fast!

.

Jaws2002
08-21-2005, 04:27 PM
Just try to imagine ETO with like 500 opperational 262's in mid 1944. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif