Originally posted by Rebel_Yell_21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
One could easely argue that
1. The Dora is better in every point you mentioned above ( except low speed maneuverability, wich is equaled by roll rate)
Agreed, the Dora was no better and lacked range.
The only clear advantage for the Dora was firepower.
Sergio
One could even more easily argue the Dora isn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
P 51?
cheaper than the far more capable P38, and less demanding of pilot training
longer legs than the far more reliable and survivable P47 (until the 47N, of course)
production already established far too soon to abandon it to the P63
a fighter that was adequate for demands at the time, while allowing for huge and cheap production, to flood the skies with overwhelming numerical superiority
mind you, its does look good, and makes for a great sport/recreational ship
i called crowd control, but they said they dont do p51 threads anymore... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Haigotron:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Let the party begin
Oh, it just isnt what it used to be round here![]()
What exactly, was the P-38 more capable of? While it had great potential right from the day the US entered the war, Lockheed was very slow to ramp up production to useful levels, and the cockpit layout was atrocious, from an ergonomic standpoint. The P-38 was harder to fly to its combat potential, much more difficult to maintain, and was not available in the necessary numbers when it was most needed.Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
P 51?
cheaper than the far more capable P38, and less demanding of pilot training
Those qualities are not exactly force multipliers. Had it not been so, the Mustang line would have ended with the Allison engined P-51A.
Reliability for a worker that can't get to the 'job site' isn't reliability. The Mustang was able to get to central Europe at a time when the P-47 couldn't, and it was perceived by its pilots (many of whom had flown the P-47 in combat) at least, to be more air combat capable at all altitudes. Ground attack is another issue.longer legs than the far more reliable and survivable P47 (until the 47N, of course)
The P-63 was appraised and found wanting in performance compared to the already in full production Mustang, just as the quite able bubbletopped P-40Q was. Too little, too late.production already established far too soon to abandon it to the P63
So you're another who thinks that the Mustang appeared over Germany in January 1944 in overwhelming numbers, instead of slowly building that strength while at the same time steadily subtracting from German fighter strength & pilot experience from Jan-May of 1944? Please, read something that isn't all pictures...a fighter that was adequate for demands at the time, while allowing for huge and cheap production, to flood the skies with overwhelming numerical superiority
Agreed, but that does little to explain the relative absence from the sport/recreational arena of other contemporary fighters which were just as numerous at the end of the war...mind you, its does look good, and makes for a great sport/recreational ship
cheers
horseback