I have read all the comments that the
P51 is or is not the best Fighter Plane. It was!
First comparing the performance of all the WW2 aircraft. All had
similar and competitive performance envelopes and were successful at
their missions.
Of course there is technical information why one plane was a bit
superior to another.
BUT Pilot experience and tactics were key. That is why a High
Altitude Lumbering Plane like the P47
was very successful. Pilots applied those Lumbering aspects to great
effect.
Nothing wrong with being a Large Plane when you use it in its
element.
YET what sets the Mustang apart from all others is that it was the
most cost effective fighter made
up to that time. Its performance matched with every aircraft made
and could do it in
the enemies back yard.
The next consideration. North American was a well organized and
managed company.
They were easy to make and one of the lowest cost to produce. NA had
3 major successes that
proved to be the best of their era and venerable for many decades
after. The P51, A26 and F86.
The Mustang regardless of configuration had compatible engine
components available wherever
they fought.
Operational cost the lowest. Especially fuel/hour. Part availability
made it easy to maintain. Carried a comparable war load and able to
fight well at all altitudes.
Performance and cruise speed was far faster and more economical then
any other fighter in WW2.
It could be used on short unimproved airfields. Which was the case
in Korea and a reason P47s were not used.
A key reason, its range and loitering to get to and stay in the
fight. They were a bit more stealthy
with small lines that could blend better into the background easier
then a big beautiful BLUE plane, or twin engine or the larger
fighters.
Egress was key. With the Mustangs speed and loiter time they could
break off the fight from the
enemy and usually could not chase them home. Even if they had the
fuel to do so. Loitering time was a wonderful aspect for ground
support.
As an example it was the same one reason why the Zero was so good.
It nailed us in the Philippines
and had better high altitude performance then most of our planes at
the time. But dog fighting always degraded to lower altitudes where
flight envelopes became more equal. So we did ok against it.
Below 20k most aircraft had competitive performance and the battles
were fairly even. The ability to fly higher was always an advantage.
It gave you choice when to attack or leave. A pilot had to be
careful to dogfight above 25,000ft. Not enough air. Considering a
B-17 can out maneuver a Me110 above 30k.
At high altitude an aircraft can do a lot of banking but hard
turning you could cause a high speed spin out.
A characteristic problem the MIG had with its tail getting in the
way of the air stream.
But high speed turning without bleeding off energy was a Mustangs
forte' at all altitudes.
An example, some Reno Air Racer clipped their planes wings too much.
Could run like stink on the
straight-a-ways but hung a Hard 10 to get wing to grip for the
turns.
The clipped wings did not have enough lift. The turn took away too
much energy and the speed was bled away. Then got passed.
Now for ground support the Thunderbolt and Corsair were considered
more rugged. Maybe a little better in some aspects but not
necessarily so. The Corsair and Thunderbolt were both subject to
getting
their large oil coolers and lines hit. They would burst into fire
just about every time.
Corsairs until the AU-1 were often downed by small arms fire
during Korea. The first African
American pilot flying a Corsair was lost to prepared small arms
rifle fire. They hit his oil cooler.
His buddy from the same carrier crash landed his Corsair to help
him. But could not as he was
lodged in his wreck and died. A is a great story about bravery and
loyalty. Love for a dear and
valued friend.
Examining the features of the Thunderbolts Turbo Supercharger and
its oil system would be just
as subject to the predations of antiaircraft fire as a Corsair.
Unless those areas were hardened.
The Mustangs if hit in the radiator would be able to fly out of the
area and the pilot rescued.
But overall the anti aircraft fire hit and knocked down all our
planes. The AD1/4, A26, Tigercats, Corsairs,
Mustangs in Korea all had a similar loss per sortie records. This
includes shoot downs in highly defended areas.
WW2 appears to have the same loss records per sortie. The vast
majority of fighter aircraft shoot
downs was lost to ground fire.
During Korea the Jets (F80's, F84's and F86's) replaced the props
and were more rugged and resistant to small arms fire. But they got
nailed too. Most of the good stuff thrown up were 50cal, 20mm, 30mm
and 37mm. The Saber survived the best because of their speed.
So to recap. The Mustang was the Best. It was the most potent and
most cost effective and overall
plane any of the combatants produced in WW2. It went on to service
air forces for several more decades.
This the cost/value factor is one of the main reasons why the US
Navy is converting to the Super Hornet.
It matches nearly all competing aircraft in performance and
capability. BUT the key element, it costs about $1,400/hour to
operate compared to the F14 which runs about $6,000/hour to operate.
Boom for the Buck, Performance for Performance the Mustang was the
Best Fighter Aircraft and Fighter Bomber Solution we had in WW2.
Dan Fahey
|
