WWII Fighter Pilot Prefers the P-47 Thunderbolt Over the P-51 Mustang | WW2 Veteran History

[@flintgrind]

My dad flew a P-47 in the ninth air force. They bombed bridges and did close air support, that kind of thing. Dad didn't like talking about the war, but one thing he said was one reason he came home was the 47. I could tell he had great respect, maybe fear, of the FW 190. He talked about them sometimes. He said BF 109's would dive through their formation sometimes and run like hell. But the 47's just went on about their business. One thing few people know is, 47 pilots spent a month in the field with a tank platoon as forward observers, calling in air strikes. I don't know who got picked for the duty or why, but it's one of those lost facts.

[@mongol33t]

masonry

[@kurthays1034]

Same for my dad. He also flew the 47 for the 9th. He loved that airplane.

[@justaguynamedmax8207]

Now days those observers woukd be air force combat controllers

[@unhippy1]

I spoke to an WW2 RAF typhoon pilot...they also got put with ground units to control airstrikes

[@throngcleaver]

@@justaguynamedmax8207 Tactical Air Control Party, or TACP is what the Air Force calls them now. Also, there is a specialty called JTAC, or Joint Terminal Attack Controller, which includes Air Force, Navy, and Marine personnel. NATO stills calls it FAC, or Forward Air Controller.

[@stevethomas760]

I saw an interview with Col Billy Edens, P47 pilot, but have been unable to find it again. An incredible story. His daughter is married to a friend of mine. Met him at their wedding. These guys were the real deal.

[@Running-withscissors]

First thing I thought of when this video popped up was "I imagine Hurricane pilots in Britain feel the same about the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain"

[@tgwazu]

I’m just an amateur history buff, but always thought the 47 was the best WWII fighter. EIGHT 50s, and plenty of armor plating - the flying tank. Even the Germans had immense respect for 47s. Nice to hear someone who knows confirming my sentiments.

[@BARelement]

The P 47 actually didn’t have much armor and no more than it’s contemporary fighters. What it did have was a huge turbocharger system that would catch bullets, and a radial engine which are known to be tougher than inlines so no comparison there. Overall it’s the only plane with a turbo system like that of that size so of course it’s ruggedness is unique for that reason, however it’s not well armored. The il-2, and Corsair had more armor, but again that big turbosupercharger (turbocharger) system really was astonishing in its ability to soak up damage.

[@anarchyandempires5452]

First thing first there's a very good reason we replace the P-47 with the mustang, so stop kissing it's wily. Fact of the matter is the P-47 was effectively outclassed in every regard by the mustang D. The p-47 was a compromise design that served fantastically for the duration but that didn't surpass our enemies in any category except speed. It's maneuverability made it as agile as a bus, which is pretty adequate considering its size was almost that of a bus. It's ability to climb was actually the worst of any of the allied fighter craft still serving by the time it entered the field of battle, it's range was while not necessarily poor compared to its counterparts entirely inadequate for it's mission, and contrary to popular belief the thunderbolt wasn't armored it only had the Barest of protection for its pilot and a handful of the most critical components of The Craft, which didn't really matter so much as even the most well protected of components in the craft were only really capable of deflecting high caliber machine gun munitions rather than the auto cannons that were so prevalent in German fighters and even then they only had a chance of deflecting heavy machine guns at only a few angles and only after the round had already traveled an extensive distance, also again this protection was reserved exclusively for the absolute most critical of components AKA The pilot seat and a small plate covering a portion of the engine from above. In reality the only advantages that the p-47 had were its excellent speed and rather decent armament, as well as the fact that it was an allied aircraft as such spare parts, good maintanace and well-trained pilots were never in short supply. The mustang had all the advantages of the p-47 and none of the disadvantages, while it lost two of its machine guns the placement of its remaining six made them just as effective as the eight of the P-47, it had just as powerful an engine as a p-47 yet it was almost half the size and half the weight of the jug making it faster and much harder to hit, it was quite agile and could out dogfight a BF-109 or out run an FW-190 it was also both cheaper to produce and easier to transport. We removed the p-47 from fighter and escort duties because the P-51 could do its job better it's as simple as that, the P-47 just didn't have the range to effectively escort bomber formations into and out of Germany, the mustang did, the P-47 was fast but that's all it was, the P-51 was agile could climb into the skies like an angel and was still faster, the men make it the machine not the other way around but the fact is the more cards a pilot could pull the greater his chances of survival, to leave the P-47 in fighter duties would be to un-necessarily risk good pilots, yeah chances are they're going to win the P-47 is still an excellent aircraft it still has the speed advantage on the grand majority of whatever it could meet in the field and it's 8 .50cals can definitely cut anything the luftwaffe put into the sky to shreds and it's pilots are the best trained pilots in the worl, but the mustang and it's pilots are just better equipped for that job. The P-51 was a fighter extraordinaire, the lord of the skies untouchable by anything the enemy could throw at it short of a jet fighter, out of 10 fights it was going to win 9, the P-47 would only win 8 no point in losing that one extra pilot, not when there's something that the P-47 really truly Excel at, the P-47 was really good at blowing everything up, that's why most of those pilots stayed with their Thunderbolts instead of being switched to mustangs because there was surprisingly little to kill in disguise but there was plenty to kill in the ground and the most Veteran core of pilots we had were really good at ducking bullets and making things go kaboom, they just had to switch targets.

[@anarchyandempires5452]

@@gone547 the word you're looking for is energy fighting, the problem the P-47 had in energy fighting was its weight and less than aerodynamic design, in a dive the P-47 could reach some astounding speeds, and in a straight away the P-47 could likely outrun almost everything the luftwaffle had, the problem was that with that weight came a very slow acceleration as well as a terrible ability to climb, this basically means two things. 1: so long as the P-47 is either at a higher energy state or at a higher altitude than its enemy it will almost always win as it can retain energy well and strike multiple times before the enemy can energy drain it enough to counter it, the fighter however is quite susceptible to energy drain tactics but luckily because of the quality of American training during the war this hardly ever approved to be a concern, still this was a problem that was never addressed as it was endemic to the very design of the fighter. 2: if the P-47 is at a lower altitude than the enemy and doesn't have a substantial energy advantage it will easily get energy trapped by a half decent pilot, the terrible agility of The P-47 means that it can't Alternate into maneuver fighting to try and drain it's opponents energy and regain an energy advantage, it also can't run away as it's acceleration would leave it vulnerable to pursuit fire. Basically there's a lot more to energy fighting than just hit and run, after all you both still occupy the same area in the sky and are moving at similar speeds, yeah you can probably outrun the enemy in short order but even in a few seconds they can still pump a lot of steel into you.

[@sg0310]

@@gone547 Yes, primarily because of a lack of german fighters they went into every fight outnumbered basically. Boom n zoom and energy fighting were definitely the standard at that point but it doesn't mean planes wouldn't turn. In fact if a german 109 or 190 saw a p-47 diving on them all they had to do was hit a few sharp turns, either they p-47 has to break off and reclimb, losing a lot of energy and time with its slow climb rate, or trying to turn with the german planes which could outturn a p-47 with ease. Another issue with the p-47 is its acceleration isn't great, try to maneuver to much and that p-47 is dead as both the 190 and 109 had better acceleration(not 100% sure the 109 did) and climb rate. The p-47 was a great plane in its own right, arguably the best fighter bomber of the war, but as a pure fighter it was very hard to use and very easy to counter. If i'm engaging fighters i'd much rather be in a p-51, p-38, corsair, or even hellcat

[@matthewamendt7530]

@@anarchyandempires5452 kzbin.info/door/ynGrIaI5vsJQgHJAIp9oSg if you want to stop thinking/acting/posting in black and white and understand the world doesn't work that way. Or just keep sipping the koolaid :D

[@Trapper50cal]

My grandfather was a P-47 pilot in WWII, over a hundred missions in the European theater and ended up with a 6 handicap at his local Country Club in Florida 45 years later...Jug got him home safe :-)

[@ditto1958]

Greg at Greg’s Airplanes and Automobiles does an excellent job of making your point He has an 8 part series on the P47 and reaches the conclusion that the P47 was better, but was larger and much more expensive than the P51 and it may have been a financial decision by the USAAF The P38 was also an excellent plane but also was extremely expensive

[@ditto1958]

Sadly, history tends to get distilled into brief narratives that no one questions and often are not true The P 47 and the B24 liberator get lost and people think the B17 and P51 won the war in Europe In the Pacific, the narrative is that the wildcat was hopelessly inferior to the zero, and then only the hellcat saved our butts there In fact, the wildcat was an excellent plan and its own rights, and once our pilots learned to exploit its strengths, and avoid its weaknesses, it did extremely well in fact the hellcat did not replace the wildcat, as it continued to be produced and used throughout the war, serving on smaller escort carriers that were too small for the Hellcat We would’ve won the war with liberators, thunderbolts and wildcats The B-17, P 51, F6F were all superior planes, but we had many others that were outstanding and have been largely forgotten

[@muskepticsometimes9133]

Yes Greg's ,p47 series first rate. Watching this whole series I think P47 better plane My take they are both good planes. The P47 much better for ground attack so they moved it there. Post WW2 Taiwan had choice of p47 or p51 they took the jug.

[@vincevega1000]

Thunderbold cost a buncha $!

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Re: "He has an 8 part series on the P47 and reaches the conclusion that the P47 was better, but was larger and much more expensive than the P51 and it may have been a financial decision by the USAAF " Early in the war and in the years just prior to it before the U.S. was drawn into the war, but after it had started already in Europe and in China (Japan and China were at war by the 1930s), the U.S. War Department and military planners alike realized how off-guard and badly we'd been surprised. Suddenly, heretofore tight purse strings in Congress were loosened up and R&D money was plentiful. Contracts were let with multiple firms and competing designs, simply because no one at that time had the capacity - as was the case later in the war - to make enough air-frames for the USAAF, USN and USMC, not to mention foreign contracts. The P-47 suffered in comparison with the P-51 in that it got into the war in numbers sooner than the Mustang, and did a lot of the dirty work during those years - only to get elbowed aside by the longer-ranged P-51 as raids penetrated deeper into occupied Europe and Germany, where the better range of the 'Stang became decisive. The same also applies to the P-38 Lightning, to a certain extent. It, too, was an excellent airframe whose glory is diminished in the brightness of the fame of the P-51. Pilots, especially fighter pilots, tend to have very strong feelings and opinions regarding their preferred aircraft. Quite naturally, anyone who flew in combat and lived to tell the tale, will have a strong attachment to the plane that allowed that to happen, whether a P-47 or something else. On-paper performance does not always tell the tale, either. On paper, the Focke-Wulf FW-190 had better performance than the Messerschmidt Bf-109, at least in some ways... yet the vast bulk of the Luftwaffe's top aces or "Experten," remained with the Me-109 throughout the war (perhaps transitioning into jets, perhaps not). They had their reasons, let's just say. And I am sure the same is true of pilots who wanted to be in a P-51 rather than something else. I will say one thing, though: If I was doing primarily tactical missions, ground support and interdiction of targets on the ground - I'd seriously consider an air-cooled engine aircraft. The P-47 made an ideal ground attack platform due to its strength and ruggedness, ability to absorb battle damage, heavy armament and payload, and the fact that it was tougher to knock out with a stray shot into the cooling system/radiator than the P-51. If you read the memoirs of guys like Chuck Yeager, who flew a P-51 in the ETO and became an ace in it, the crews of Mustangs did worry about that exposed radiator on the belly, especially when strafing ground targets and the like. They were fully aware that once that was hit and the coolant wasn't flowing any longer, they were in deep trouble with an overheating engine. If I was dog-fighting, though, I'd want the P-51 over the P-47 or the P-38. Or for that matter, flying escort duty to Berlin and back.

[@topivaltanen4432]

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 But it saved the split bringing expensive trained pilots back.

[@RoscoesRiffs]

In 1992, as an Army major, I submitted four academic theses for inclusion in The President's 50th Anniversary of World War II Commemoration. One concerned the P-47 Thunderbolt, which impressed me as the most destructive precision attack and fighter aircraft in the European Theatre. As a Senior Army Aviator, it is the machine I would have preferred to do battle in during its era. I only wish I'd interviewed this gentleman and been able to include his comments in that paper. Thank you for this KZbin video. 😎

[@chaspfrank]

Notorious, I would love to read your thesis!!

[@Joe-uo9wv]

I had the pleasure talking with a P47 pilot and he love it. He talked about the armor and the huge engine that protected him. When he spoke it was like I was sitting behind him. RIP

[@McRocket]

Also, the P-47 had an air-cooled engine, The P-51's engine was liquid cooled. That meant one, tiny hole in a coolant line in the Mustang - and within 20-30 minutes, the engine would seize. The P-47 had no such weakness. That is a big part - I would assume - of why it could take LOTS more punishment than the P-51.

[@ArtietheArchon]

the engine itself was tough as hell, P-47s came home with entire cylinders shot away. And the plane was built very rugged and tough

[@daleburrell6273]

...EVERYTHING COMES AT A PRICE: THE P-47 MAY HAVE BEEN RUGGED AS HELL- IT COULDN'T HOPE TO MATCH THE RANGE OF THE P-51!!!

[@daleburrell6273]

...AND THAT WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE P-51 HAD SUCH A LONG RANGE?! YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING-!!!

[@Chilly_Billy]

@@daleburrell6273, compare the P-47N and P-51 in range. 😉

[@raywhitehead730]

With drop tanks they could match the range. Drop tank production was channeled to the P51...0nly latter in the war did the manufacturing of drop tanks allow a good quantity go to the p47. Go check out that 8 part series on the p47...its first rate!

[@TomBostian8255]

I remember once I asked my dad why he loved the 47's so much when the 51 was so beautiful. He replied "Son, the 47 didn't save your life as many times as it saved mine". Enough said. I got it.

[@blusnuby2]

My Father was a FAC, ETO, & frequently directed P-47 pilots towards enemy positions.......

[@jimbo6413]

At low altitude the P-47 could be pretty clumsy (notwithstanding its well-earned reputation as a devastating ground-attack aircraft), but at 25,000 feet and above the turbocharger for that beastly Pratt & Whitney R-2800 really kicked in and the Thunderbolt transformed into an exceptionally nimble fighter (which many Luftwaffe pilots discovered to their absolute horror).

[@sethvanast8323]

With those big elliptical wings, worked quite well at altitude. I remember reading or hearing somewhere that the 109 pilots didn't mind fighting P-51's because the 109 could out-turn them. Idk about the 47 at that altitude but that was my first big eye opener to me about the 51. And I grew up a die hard mustang fan.

[@ussindianapolis487]

even better - P47M was the only allied aircraft that was able to outrun Me-262, atleast at high altitude.

[@CH-pv2rz]

@@sethvanast8323 No the Me-109 could not out turn a P-51. Quit reading propaganda.

[@raywhitehead730]

Source? While the M model is referred to as the fastest P47 I could find no authoritative reference to actual speeds at various altitudes!

[@ussindianapolis487]

@@raywhitehead730 hmm, i cant remember where i read about this

[@ProjectFlashlight612]

If the Mustang was an athlete, the Thunderbolt was a workhorse. And that is compliment. Tough, reliable, effective.

[@robertspeicher5047]

Wow....My dad was a radio repair mechanic. He worked on P-47 and P -51 and B-17s. I grew up loving the P-47. My favorite was the P-47. I read Robert Johnson's book about flying the P-47. Thank you for your video

[@rogermetzger7335]

I was in the same room where my wife was discussing medical stuff with other nurses online when I was surfing KZbin so it was helpful for me to be able to read the monologue without needing to turn on the audio. Thanks.

[@krzysztofherczynski8483]

Greg from Greg Airplanes &Automobiles, mentioned that someone in hierarchy of usaaf did quite nasty mistake with not supporting european theatre p-47 with droptanks even if they were tested and in production way earlier. Please check it in his superb video's on p-47 topics.(edit: P-47 pt.6) Bad decision making was then disguised using blackmailing, propaganda and hyping on p-51, which of corse was also great AC that carried war against Luftwaffe already won by p-47 and brits, till the end. Greetings from Poland! Cheers!

[@SMichaelDeHart]

My father (lost him in 06' at 88yo) was a combat veteran who served in the South Pacific campaign on Tinian, Saipan and Iwo Jima. He was a P-47 Thunderbolt flightline mechanic/engineer in the US Army Air Corp. Serving in the 20th AAF, 7th AAC, 414th Fighter/Bomber Grp, 413th F/B Sqdn. The three Squadrons of the 414th (consisting of 2 P-47 sqdns and 1 P-51 sqdn.) were the first on Iwo in mid March 45', after the USMC secured the airfields. They provided close air support to the Marines while finishing off the Japanese on the island and ran B-29 Bomber fighter support as they bombed the main Japanese Islands. His unit, the 413th F/B Sqdn, received 2 unit Bronze Stars. Dad said they always called then Jugs or Jugheads.

[@alienxyt]

P-47 Razorback is my favorite WWII Single-pilot aircraft. I think it is beautiful to look at as well.

[@yamatojoe7327]

Thank you a much for posting this! I absolutely agree with this hero, the P-51 gets WAAAAY too much credit. It was a great fighter, but all too often people forget the other great aircraft we fielded during the war. The Mustang saved a lot of lives, but so did the F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, P-47 Thundebolt, P-38 Lightning, and my personal favorite, the F4U Corsair.

[@Auggies1956]

I read his story while in JR High, around 1964, it was in one of the Balentine Pocket Books. As I read it I gained great respect for the man. Read it again two more times over the years from the same book. I'm in my mid-seventies and still have the book, but my eyes aren't the same and I couldn't read the small print on the yellowed pages. I found re-prints on eBay, and I'm presently reading it again. I kept the cover off that old Pocket Book which was an artistic rendition of a pilot mounting a running P47. Mister Johnson had passed last year if I remember correctly.

[@patrickshaw8595]

The P-47 had a (now infamous on cars) "Horsepower Screw" and - if you were willing to risk Courts Martial for tampering with it - a crew crief could tighten down the wastegate setting for more turbocharging and possibly up to 3,000 horsepower - not 2,200 !

[@kevinkennedy7237]

Yep, I was a M1/M1A2 tank commander, platoon leader and CO XO in the mid to late 80's, The M1 was speed limited to 60MPH, but I have been on many Autobahns doing 80-85MPH in many different tanks.

[@CH-pv2rz]

@@kevinkennedy7237 60kph, not mph... In mph that limited speed was 45mph. And it was limited by a speed governor. You could remove the governor but you would fry the transmission if you had to take it cross country.

[@Sonofdonald2024]

A minor gripe but it irked me at the end of Saving Private Ryan when the Tiger is taken out by a P51 described as a tank buster when the P47 was doing the lions share of the ground attack work

[@andrewbranch4918]

I like to see a pilot stand up for the qualities of his mount. It's the kind of love affair that we can only wonder at 👍😎

[@jameshathaway5117]

In my mind the jug was the king of the skies. Damn sky tank. I love the beastly shape. It's like a 60s dodge with that big hood hiding a nasty gas chugger.

[@Bumper776]

I bought a leather A-2 jacket at a little shop once that had the name Gerald Edwards stenciled in it and marked out and under that it had Eugene H. Emmons. They had consecutive service numbers. There was a nice painting of a P-47 on the back. Doing some research, I found they had been stationed together, flying P-47 Thunderbolts and Edwards transferred to P-51 Mustangs. Both had the DFC and Emmons later became an ace with 9 kills. Their unit was something like the 317th or 325th.

[@oatley5239]

My father flew his missions on both B-24 and B-17’s and was more than happy with the 47 cover.

[@williamplump3404]

My grandfather flew the P-47 with the 8th Air Force, 413th Fighter Squadron in the Pacific. He was based in Ie Shima toward the end of the war. He died when I was 6 so I never got to ask him much. It's great to learn more from other veterans who flew the same plane.

[@dukecraig2402]

Wow that really was the end of the war, the "Mighty 8th" moved to the Pacific after victory in Europe and the 413th didn't go operational until the 31st of July 1945, that's only about a week and a half before the bombs were dropped on Japan effectively ending the war. The 413th flew the extreme long range P47N, with it's "wet wings" and drop tanks it had a range even longer than the P51 at something like 2,200 miles, the N variant also had an auto pilot so the pilot could concentrate on doing the necessary navigation math since flying over the open water lacked landmarks to navigate by like in Europe and a rear facing alert radar that would go off when an aircraft approaching from behind got to 800 yards, the N was the longest range and most advanced variant of the P47. There's an interview here on KZbin with a P47N pilot who flew in the Pacific that might interest you, his name is Martin Jackson, just enter "Martin Jackson P47 pilot" and you'll find it, it's a great interview.

[@williamplump3404]

​@@dukecraig2402 Wow I didn't know that about the N's autopilot - very interesting. I do have a letter from my grandfather where he mentions the range of his P47N at 2,350 miles. I'll check out the interview with Martin Jackson. Thank you.

[@dukecraig2402]

@@williamplump3404 One of the sub-variant's of the N didn't have the autopilot, why that is I don't know but what's curious about it is that it isn't the first sub-variant, that you could understand because maybe the system wasn't fully developed by the time they stared producing the N, who knows what the reasoning was, perhaps some shared components were in short supply at one point and other aircraft were deemed more important as far as having them, hard to say on that one, as Greg of Greg's Airplane's and Automobiles says in one of the episodes of his series on the P47 when Fairchild bought out Republic they destroyed a lot of Republic's old records so some information and explanations about why some of the things about the P47 were done the way they were have spun off into the universe forever and we'll never know for sure, and it's a real shame they did it because in hindsight they were within a few years of being able to digitize all that information and then they could have gotten rid of the mountains of information they had on it on hardcopy and freed up the space, which is why they destroyed all those physical records. Something else of interest about the N variant that I read a few years ago in an article about some of the myths about the P47 is that the N variant wasn't designed specifically for the Pacific as most people and aviation writer's believe, early on in the war in Europe Republic saw the need to increase the range of the P47 without using drop tanks since the Bomber Mafia Generals that ran the USAAF were hell bent on prohibiting escort fighter's from using drop tanks to purposely limit their range because they were intent on proving their concept that the bombers could fight their way to the targets and back unescorted, the people who ran Republic figured that if the Bomber Mafia Generals wouldn't allow the use of drop tanks they'd just go ahead themselves and start designing wet wings for it to increase it's range without drop tanks, but after the disastrous early unescorted raids the Bomber Mafia Generals relented on their no drop tanks policy which actually then gave the P47 variant's in Europe the range to escort the bombers anywhere they went anyways, since they could do that and the P51's were coming online at the same time Republic slowed development of what turned out to be the N because the USAAF saddled them up with developing some of those wild variant's that never got used anyways like the one with the Chrysler built V16 liquid cooled engine and other's, had the wet wing development not been slowed down for the sake of those the N would very likely have had a much lower Alpha Numeric designation than N, it could have been given the designation of D or E or any of the unused ones between D and M from the projects that never went through, it also originally wouldn't have had some of the goodies that weren't available till later like the rear facing alert radar which I believe was actually fit on the later D variant's. The P47 is a fascinating fighter when you look at it's combat record, first it destroyed the Luftwaffe so that when the P51 came along it was a shell of what it had once been, then it destroyed the Wehrmacht on the ground, no other fighter can lay claim to that.

[@dalemihocik4732]

I'm just glad men like Harrison proudly served this country with honor regardless of what they piloted.

[@VigilanteAgumon]

It's just like the Hawker Hurricane in the UK. It scored the most kills during the Battle of Britain, but it's the Spitfire that became more popular.

[@Chief-Solarize]

I love both planes. If I were to pick one to own it would obviously be the P47. Like he said those wings had huge capabilities plus the 2 speed supercharger and the Doublewasp with that giant fan. Such a nasty machine.

[@dukecraig2402]

P47's didn't have 2 speed superchargers, they had a single stage single speed supercharger with a turbo to feed it above 10,000 ft or so, below that altitude the exhaust routed out of the wastegate dumps bypassing the turbo, when a P47 starts up you can see the exhaust blow out of the dumps near the bottom of the cowling on each side, the actual "exhaust" is on the bottom of the fuselage behind the cockpit directly under the turbo. After the plane climbs above 10,000 feet or so the wastegate dumps start closing routing exhaust to the turbo, the higher it climbs the more they close spinning the turbo faster and faster. P47's, B17's, B24's, B29's, P38's and almost all other US Army aircraft of WW2 has that system, about the only exception was the P39 and P40, both of them were originally supposed to have the same system but the turbo was dropped on both of them to speed up development time to rush them into production because everyone from the US Army to the French were screaming for aircraft. The P51 has it's own story about why it was designed without a turbo, because it was originally designed for the British and they didn't want turbos on their aircraft, that was simply because they didn't have a domestic manufacturer for them and didn't want supply problems sourcing replacement turbos from the US.

[@Chief-Solarize]

@@dukecraig2402 Very interesting, I've never know exactly what the mechanics were with 47s and how they flew compressed at different altitudes. I always assumed it was either 2 superchargers or a two stage. I'm not into aviation really just an admirer. I wish I could show you my models. I have some 1:18th scale beauties. I was in the Army and the Airforce. Spent alot of time in the air. At the time I didn't realize how much if a monster the C17 was but I love them more now that I'm out. Also the Hawker Hurricane and Seafury and the Grumman F7F Tiger cat really blow my hair back. The Tiger cat is like a canoe with wings. I even like Catalinas and FW180s and ME410s and Stukas. Just a golden age of flight.

[@dukecraig2402]

@@Chief-Solarize The Army used the supercharger/turbo configuration, the Navy used straight superchargers, so the R2800 engine in the F4U and F6F had a 2 stage supercharger like what you thought a P47 had. In the mid 1930's NACA did a study at the behest of the government to determine which was the best supercharger system to give the highest performance at all altitudes, they determined that the supercharger/turbo configuration gave the best performance at all altitudes, the reason that why is because a supercharger drags power off the engine driving it, so by adding a 2nd stage they can move enough air for high altitude performance but at the same time you double the parasitic loss from driving the 2nd stage, but with a single stage supercharger with a turbo to feed it at higher altitudes you don't have the additional parasitic loss from driving the 2nd stage because a turbo is waste energy recovery system, the energy of the exhaust gasses is driving the turbo which is essentially the 2nd stage in that system, that's the system that the Army selected and told all the aircraft manufacturers had to be incorporated into any aircraft designed for them. There's downsides though, one being the cost of a turbo that big, they're so massive that there's no room anywhere around the engine on a plane like a P47 so it's in the fuselage behind the pilot, a turbo that big isn't cheap, that also means you need the ductwork that runs all the way from the engine to the turbo for both the exhaust and intake air, that ductwork on a P47 runs underneath the cockpit and is why the P47 has the shape it does, there's also the issue of the heat from the ductwork for the exhaust running all the way back there, any type of fuel leak from the engine or a fuel line whether it's accidental or from battle damage is going to run back from the engine or a ruptured fuel line and most likely be ignited when it comes into contact with the hot exhaust ductwork. The Navy for reasons of space for spare parts on a carrier among others chose the 2 stage 2 speed supercharger for all aircraft designed for them, the upsides of that system are it's more compact, existing aircraft with single stage supercharger engines can easily be redesigned to accept an engine with a 2 stage supercharger, it's cheaper than the supercharger/turbo system. The downsides are lost performance from driving the 2nd stage, also you have some power losses at medium altitude where you would shift the supercharger into it's high range but have to reduce the throttle to keep from overboosting the engine until you gain enough altitude to where the air is thin enough and you can open the throttle all the way, another downside is that just like how a single stage supercharger starts to run out of breath when you get to medium altitude 2 stage superchargers also start running out of breath when they get to higher altitudes, well below where a turbo spinning at 22,000 RPM's will, a good example of how well the supercharger/turbo system works is the B17 vs a Lancaster bomber, the Lancaster has 4 Merlin engine's with 2 stage superchargers, the B17 with it's supercharger/turbo system can carry a 4,000 lb internal bomb load 5,000 ft higher than an empty Lancaster can fly. So each system has it's advantages and disadvantages, and a good bit of the vintage WW2 Army aircraft that are left flying in this day and age don't have working turbos on them anymore, there's really no need for them to go through the expense of fixing the system if they don't already have a working turbo since the aircraft will never fly above 10,000 ft again anyways because they don't have working oxygen systems in them for the pilots or anyone that would be on a bomber taking a ride. About 20 years ago I was at an airshow talking to the pilot of a B17, when I ask about the turbos he told me they weren't hooked up anyways, because they couldn't afford to repair the systems by buying functioning turbos since they couldn't go above 10,000 ft for the sake of the passengers they take for rides or the crews anyways, even if they had working oxygen systems for the passengers and crews everyone would freeze at the high altitude it's capable of flying with working turbos, of the 5 airworthy P47's I know of only 1 for sure that has a working turbo in it and 1 for sure that doesn't, the other 3 I don't know about because I've never read anything about their particular systems and whether or not they're intact. I was a Vulcan gunner in the Army back in the 80's by the way, so if you were around jets in the Air Force you'd be familiar with the gun I used to shoot, when is it that you were in?

[@Chief-Solarize]

@@dukecraig2402 Airforce 1999-2007 and Army 2010-2014. My time on C17s and C130s was Airforce, once I transfer to the army my jet riding came to an end. Yeah the Vulcan I know of are in 2 calibers 20mm and 30mm. Those were in A10s and some C130 spooky and spectre birds. Were you on a spooky?

[@dukecraig2402]

@@Chief-Solarize No, I was a crewman on an M163A1/A2 self propelled Vulcan air defense gun. It was an M113 chassis with a turret on the top that the gun was mounted in. If you Google "M163 self propelled Vulcan gun" Wikipedia has a page on it with a decent picture of one at the top. Likewise if you enter the same thing here on KZbin you can run across some videos on them with some even showing them firing, a few even have decent sound and you can hear them puppies roar, what an experience it was shooting them, of the different types of jobs in the military where someone gets to fire one we were the only one's that were looking right down the barrel cluster when we'd cut loose with them, no one else like jet pilots had the experience we did cutting one loose.

[@b6056tc]

Supposedly, the 4th did not like the big P-47. But when the Germans surrendered they were transferred to the Pacific theater to fight the Japanese. They were given P-47D-25RE's to practice on using Spitfire Mk.IX to act as enemy figjters. While they awaited on their new P-47N's to arrive.

[@ditzydoo4378]

Agreed, the P-47 Thunderbolt, P-38 Lighting and F4F Wildcat did all the heavy lifting well before the P-51 Mustang, F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair came alone. As to fuel economy, the same was true of the P-38 in the Pacific. Once Col. Charles Linburg proved that the Alison engines could be leaned out without any damage as was thought by the Engine makers. The P-38 suddenly had range well in excess of 1400 miles. This is the same as was found by you in your P-47. As I've read in other accounts, some Fighter groups refused to change over to the P-51 because they trusted their very lives to the Thunderbolt over the Mustang. That in itself says volumes about the toughness of the Jug.

[@williamcrane8236]

From documentaries I've watched they always complained that the jug didn't have the range BUT in several they also pointed out that when they escorted with jugs the army air corps didn't let them use drop tanks. Along came the Merlin p-51 and they were fine with letting it have drop tanks from the get go. Then they started letting the P47 use them as well. You could get more distance with the P51 but they also used overlapping coverage so the excess range of the mustang was moot at that point. Any fighter intercepting air attacks would drop they're range extending tanks and then would be forced to leave for home after the assault. The bombers would be met by another flight of escorts for the trip home. (Refernce Greg's airplane and automobile channels P-47 series that also agrees with this man's accessment. Gabby Gabrowski top American ace in Europe (flying the Jug) would probably agree as well. Favorite quote "If you wanted a picture for your girlfriend or family, you stood by a Mustsng. If you wanted to come home from a mission you got into a Thunderbolt! "

[@noneyun9943]

When was this interview? How old is he? My dad joined when he was 16, and died in the late early 1990’s. So, I’m shocked at this man’s youthful appearance for a WW2 vet and his cognitive abilities!

[@notcrazy6288]

Yeah he's sharp as a tack after all these years. I really hope that I'm doing as well when I get to his age.

[@borismedovar9968]

I'm surprized no less by your cognitive ability to miss a preamble saying it was recorded in 2010.

[@notcrazy6288]

@@borismedovar9968 Knowing when this video was recorded doesn't tell us how old this man is. It just gives us a rough estimate.

[@BarnardsATL]

Regarding his age, let's assume he was 20 years old in 1945. That means he was born in 1925, so he would be 85 years old in 2010. My parents are that age now and have similar mental sharpness.

[@siegeteamcweir6859]

His obituary from a Florida newspaper says he was born in 1924. So 86 in this interview. Pretty great!

[@rifekimler3309]

I had the honor of discussing the relative merits of these two aircraft with a pilot who was the recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross. He much preferred the P-47 because it had an air cooled engine and was a much more resilient aircraft.

[@warp65]

I've got an old VHS interview where an American pilot states that aircrew got their pictures taken in front of a Mustang to send home and went to war in the P47,(Italy) true or not, who knows, but ads the tone of this vid.

[@someguy999]

The P-51 got you the girl, the P-47 got you home.

[@timclaus8313]

Chuck Hawks has an article on his west including a discussion with Rip Collins, a retired fighter pilot that flew both the 47 and 51 in combat over Europe. He preferred the 47. I tend to believe those that actually flew both in combat over those that didn't.

[@someguy999]

@@timclaus8313 It would be good to know if this was representative of most pilots. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them preferred the P-51, while others the P-47. Hard to know without a survey.

[@timclaus8313]

@@someguy999 Very true. It is a fact that some of the highest scoring aces and fighter groups in Europe used the -47, so any advantage of the -51 would not seem to be as great as some folks like to state. Somewhat similar to the legend of the Spitfire single handedly winning the BoB, even though Hurricanes shot down more planes.

[@Strike_Raid]

My dad loved the P-47, he said they always felt safe when P-47's were overhead. They had a very distinctive look and sound and the strafing they did was utterly devastating.

[@dvorok499]

You think maybe the Warthog was designed with the P-47 in mind? Take a lickin and keep on tickin Baby! Enough CAS fire power to blow 'em all to Mars!

[@Strike_Raid]

@@dvorok499 A-10 has 7 barrels, P-47 had 8, it's probably the closest analogy for the time (except P-47 was as fast as anything in the sky too).

[@MrCSRT8]

to Mars!

[@MrT67]

@@dvorok499 The A-10 took the "Thunderbolt" name from the P47 for the very reason of it's ground attack capabilities. So yes, there's certainly a connection!!👍 I'm a New Zealander, but had an uncle who flew P47's in the war. Never really talked about it, but I do remember him saying that it was an incredibly strong and powerful aircraft.

[@MrT67]

@@Strike_Raid P47 also carried a lot more rounds.

[@cheesenoodles8316]

They both played thier rolls very well. Me, I like the P47 for the advantages in ground support.

[@kennydee8296]

On Greg’s Airplanes it was mentioned that the Air Force could buy and operate three P51’s for the same cost as two P47’s so the bloody accountants had their say. One wonders if they ever corrected that cost ratio for the greater survivability of the P47. The P51 was a prettier aircraft but I’d go for the P47 with the greater chance of surviving the conflict and to me function is beauty. Same argument with the Supermarine Spitfire and the Hawker Typhoon/Tempest.

[@nickmitsialis]

I think in one of his eps, Greg even pointed out that the P47 could have it's range augmented but it wasn't done due to 'self defending bomber formations would prevail without an escort'==so the P47 was 'undercut' by the brass.

[@JK-rv9tp]

This was the same attraction the Mustang had over the P-38. The Mustang achieved its 430+ mph speed on about 3/4 the horsepower of the Jug, and half the horespower of the P-38, so the fuel burn and general operating cost was way lower, especially compared to the Lightning. The Jug also had better handling qualities than the Mustang, with lighter, snappier ailerons.

[@CH-pv2rz]

Your post is ridiculous... Accountants had nothing to do with WW2... The US Govt spent freely on all combat aircraft. And if you were not at high altitude in a Jug then you were in trouble if the FW-190 was engaging you. Especially a razorback version...

[@CH-pv2rz]

@@JK-rv9tp Its not operating costs... The P-51 was the only aircraft that could make it to Berlin and back and suffered no limitations against German fighters at any altitude ... The Jug could never do that. Especially at the uneconomical (gas burn rate) speeds they had to fly as escort.

[@AlanRoehrich9651]

​@@CH-pv2rz 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 You could not be more wrong. Cost had a great deal to do with every purchase the military made.

[@jamesbottger5894]

There is an old saying, and I have no idea where it came from, but it was "if you had the enemy on your tail, you wanted to be in the 47...if you were on the enemy's tail, you wanted to be in a 51"...

[@pz3j]

According to Trevor Howard in his interviews with Luftwaffe fighter pilots the P47 was considered almost impossible to shoot down. Several veteran Pilots stated that they pumped their entire ammo supply into P47s at point blank range without bringing them down. The P47 and the Corsairs were the finest fighters of the war.

[@91Redmist]

You're right about the Corsair. It was so good, it was ridiculous.

[@stephenpowstinger733]

If it had been a German plane with a 20 mm cannon every hit would cause serious damage.

[@NHDude]

@@stephenpowstinger733 German planes had 20mm and 30mm cannons in addition to machine guns, the original post is accurate. It was common for German pilots to joke the "Jug" was so big and tough the pilot could go hide in the air frame until their attacks were over.

[@steveperreira5850]

Much do be said about what the adversaries say.

[@bigblue6917]

The same happened between the Hurricane and the Spitfire during the Battle of Britain. The Spitfire got all the attention but the Hurricane got twice as many kills. Apparently the Hurricane could turn tighter than the German Me 109 while flying at the same speed as the 109 and if it was in the same turning circle it could fly faster than the 109.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

The Hurricane was a good fighter plane. Famous British ace Douglas Bader, the "legless wonder," flew one and did very well with it.

[@davidrutherford6311]

I heard both the Me-109 and Hurricane had similar turning radius, it was just that the Me-109 risked separating the wings from the fuselage every time it tried to match the Hurricane's turn. Also one reason Spit's got credited for more kills was that Me-109 pilots often claimed to have shot down by Spitfires rather than Hurricanes because they saw the Hurricane as the inferior fighter with it's wood and fabric construction.

[@animaltvi9515]

Really it's the same with loads of types . Lancaster/Halifax. B17/B24. All had their merits and all did the job well. . .

[@MBCGRS]

@@davidrutherford6311 True Story. But German pilots would say this to their colleagues and RAF combat reports weren't written by Luftwaffe pilots... Twice as many Hurricanes, Twice as many kills....

[@robertharrison2260]

According to a family friend and WW2 Ace who flew Hurricanes in the Battle of France and Battle of Britain (Teddy Donaldson) the Hurricane did turn slightly better than the Spitfire and 109 but you had to fly the Aircraft and muscle it with both hands on the stick and you had to have sufficient experience to know the aircraft at its handling limits to get the best from it. The 109 had automatic slats that popped out at lower speeds ruining the aim of the pilot and its departure from slow controlled flight was brisk. The 109 also had very high stick forces at higher speeds too that could be exploited by Allied pilots. Plus the German pilot always had to concern himself about his fuel state at combat power settings unless he wanted to go for a swim. The Hurricane was an extremely stable gun platform and could take a lot of punishment plus with the new SAPIE ammunition (Standard Armour Piercing Incendiary Explosive) in the 8 .303 Machine guns if you got close and the guns were "spot harmonised" and not set for a "spread harmonisation" these were highly effective against anything flying. The Hurricanes biggest weakness was canopy visibility due to the birdcage but that said it was better than a 109 in that respect. Teddy told me that the 109 was a flawed but excellent machine and the majority of German pilots were top notch, he said that their tactic was to hit and run pushing their noses down and diving away using their superior dive speed so that the Hurricane couldn't match them if the 109s turned then a good Hurricane pilot could manage to get inside and start ranging on them. Most German pilots were not enthusiastic amateurs but knew their aircraft and refused to dogfight Hurricanes. Another tactic was to slip behind The RAF in rigid formation and use their cannons to exploit the Hurricanes poor rear visibility. In Teddy's view the Hurricane and Spitfire did the correct jobs for their specific attributes and were the right aircraft for the RAF at the right time, it was a team effort after all. I can't comment on the P47 but can only say that like all fighters they have advantages and disadvantages and every Pilot learns to exploit the best characteristics to achieve their mission and stay alive. There is no single best Fighter at everything and I admire them all and the pilots that fought in them. My Father flew F4U Corsairs in the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm during the war and rated it as probably the best Naval fighter of WW2 he said that overall despite several flaws it had everything, performance, firepower, reliability and contrary to some commonly held beliefs it turned better than reported once the pilots learned to crank on a bit of flap in the turn. He qualified his opinion when asked if he could have only 1 piston Naval aircraft to go to war with he would still choose the Corsair based upon his experiences flying the Wildcat (Martlett), Hellcat, Seafire and Spitfire among others but that is not to say the others were not great aircraft in their own respects.

[@lazycalm41]

Personally I have always thought the 47 looked fantastic! Beautiful lines and those wings similar shape to that of the Spitfire. However that big horsepower Wasp engine was the real deal!

[@MrCSRT8]

The bubble canopy models looked great!

[@lazycalm41]

@@MrCSRT8 100% agree!

[@MrT67]

Yep, I always liked the look of the P47 and thought the P51 looked a bit odd. With that cowling under the fuselage, it always reminded me of a tadpole....

[@althesmith]

"If you wanted to go home with the girls, you flew a Mustang. If you wanted to go home to YOUR girl, you flew a Jug."

[@stillbill6408]

@@MrCSRT8 Yep. The P47N was the master.

[@jimfralia3858]

True also underrated aircraft p 38

[@BBCTD496]

I'm told that pilots who wanted to impress the girls had their picture taken with the P-51, but if they wanted to be certain to make it home after the mission, they flew a P-47.

[@jacobmccandles1767]

Given they didn't decide what they would fly, I'd have to call BS on that story.

[@jacobmccandles1767]

@Jim Beam there was reportedly some of that in the Luftwaffe's elite units. Pilots who flew either Bf-109 or FW-190 depending on what type of opposition was reported, with I believe the 109 preferred in fighter to fighter combat, and the 190 against bombers.

[@kentleytaggart5816]

Yes I saw that in a old vidio,I think it said ,when land to see your girl friend you what to be in a P51.But if you what to make it there you what to be in a P47.😅😅😅😅😅

[@jacobmccandles1767]

@@kentleytaggart5816 ^ said that way it makes more sense.

[@patriotrising6214]

Thank you sir for your service and sacrifice, as well as all those who served OUR GREATEST GENERATION SALUTE 🇺🇸

[@silarpac]

If the P-51 had a weakness it was that it was that it was vulnerable to cannon fire. The P-47 was famous for absorbing punishment. Another point was that the 56th fighter group (P-47s) had the record for most air-to-air victories in the USAAF European theatre, more than any P-51 group.

[@CH-pv2rz]

Yes the Jug took punishment well, as did all radial engine aircraft. That was why it was chosen for ground attack. The cooling system on the inline engine fighters was a big weak point, but paid dividends in the P-51 with longer range and much more maneuverability and climb rate at all altitudes. The P-47 could out dive any fighter and while the P-47 could last longer on the receiving end of enemy fire it could not perform like the P-51 could.

[@kenthigginbotham2754]

Pretty sure the 4th Fight Group outscored them with a combo of P47’s then P51’s.

[@silarpac]

@@kenthigginbotham2754 USAAF counted enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground and in the air equally. That's why it's confusing. 56th has the record for air-to-air victories. The 4th also flew Spitfires.

[@scottgorman7166]

Just like it's grandkid the A-10

[@carmium]

I had an end-of-movie gripe with Saving Private Ryan about this! After the tank explodes as Tom Hanks is plinking away at it with his .45, we hear "P-51s sir! Tankbusters!" Not only were there no rocket tubes on the 51s, it would have been so much more likely to have P-47s in the role! I wondered why they didn't simply fly a couple of scale model 47s for the few seconds they were on screen.

[@louisavondart9178]

a 2 second Google shows plenty of WW2 pics of P51D's fitted with rocket pods.... but yeah.

[@carmium]

@@louisavondart9178 there were no rocket tubes in the MOVIE. On real 51s, sure.

[@ivanthemadvandal8435]

@@louisavondart9178 rockets weren't effective at killing tanks

[@bt7112]

My father flew the P-47, when he got home from the war, he ran into a friend who had been in P-51s, when my father mentioned how much he wish he had some time in the Mustang, his friend laughed and said "I would've traded you, you could shoot down a P-51 with a .22 rifle!" haha

[@scottgorman7166]

What a monster of an aircraft. Wish that the interview was longer.

[@philipfreeman2863]

I can understand your frustration about the p51 being considered a better aircraft. But both fighters did well as did their pilots. And from the P51 to the P47 to the P38 all contributed equally to the final victory. As did their pilots and service crews. And the P51 was a sexy looking aircraft. But the bottom line is all aircraft and pilots and ground crew's wkrked together and achieved the final victory, with equal credit to all.

[@bernielomaxsmustache7204]

Corsair was better

[@dspates51]

Well said Mr. Freeman. I totally agree with your statement wholeheartedly.

[@daleburrell6273]

@@bernielomaxsmustache7204 ...THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY TO SETTLE THIS: EVERYBODY START SLUGGING IT OUT- AND THE LAST PERSON STANDING IS RIGHT-!!!

[@neilpemberton5523]

@@bernielomaxsmustache7204 Corsairs flew against the Japanese, not the Germans. Your opinion has the advantage of being impossible to prove or disprove.

[@relluplewis7112]

@@neilpemberton5523 Fleet Air Arm (of Britain) flew Lend Lease U.S made Corsairs in a brief few missions against the Germans in Norway (Bf-109's & Fw-190's). Their navy was attacking the the battleship Tirpitz.

[@travispierce2767]

Thank you for sharing sir and thank you for your service to our country

[@supatotenkopf88]

I’ve read numerous German pilot and soldier biographies and the US aircraft they consistently hated most were the B-17’s because they’re very heavy armament and 4 x engines and the Thunderbolts because of they’re heavy armoured radial engines that could withstand significant damage, heavy armour and 8 x .50 cal guns. I think the endorsement of your enemy is a worthy appraisal. Also one thing they also consistently state pd was that they went to war to fight the Bolshevik’s.

[@Enid2Sacramento]

One of the first books I ever read on WWII was "Thunderbolt," by Bob Johnson and Martin Caidin. Been a big Jug fan ever since.

[@tonya4157]

I wasn't there but I've always thought the P47 was beautiful. That's the plane I would have wanted to be in.

[@michaelangelo7511]

I have always liked the Jug more. Absolute badass.

[@philo426]

Yes plus once the coolant lines or the radiator was hit you had to hit the silk in a P-51,whereas the P-47 could get you home even with several cylinders shot off!

[@bluskytoo]

my dad felt the same way with the B-17 vs B-24. He said all the PR and media stayed in England where the 17s were, with pubs and nice hotels instead of going down to Italy with mud , tents and no dance clubs. Makes sense.

[@blusnuby2]

I LOVE the looks of the P-47---especially in the "Razorback"" configuration ! Take The Jug anyday over the P-51...The DEFINITIVE book on this subject is Marvin Bledsoe`s P-47 Thunderbolt. He, too, was a combat pilot, ETO, in this AMAZING aircraft. His stories will PUT YOU IN THE COCKPIT of a Thunderbolt !!

[@peterruiz6117]

Im not crazy about the razor back. Robertsons account, like others, where the canopy could not be opened if the fuselage was damaged would be horrific. I love the D,M, and N models. The Brits laughed when they saw the Jugernaut, next to a Spitfire...But not for long !

[@rudydedogg6505]

The same comparison was made between the Hawker Hurricane and the Spitfire during the Battle of Britain. I've never heard or read a pilot talk bad about the P-47. I met John Oliphant who flew both the Jug and the Mustang in combat. He loved the firepower and the strength of the Jug and the speed and maneuverability of the Mustang. He was shot down in his Mustang by one round of ground fire to his radiator during a low-level attack. More than once a pilot was brought home to England by his Thunderbolt with cylinders shot away. The P-47 was a brute!

[@missingthe80s58]

This pilot is spot on as he should be. When I learned of what the P-47 was designed to be it bothered me it was pushed into something that was better suited for heavy twins. The more I look back the more I realize editors are bias as fuck and the ones with Time (you know the book set I'm talking about) were as bias as it gets. Given the choice, I'd take the P-47D. I will pass on the chance of getting into a dogfight. I'll take the high speed swoop in style of attacks over tangling with someone who might just know something I don't in dogfight tactics and I'd rather not learn the hard way and either burn to death on the way down or spend years in The Hitler Hotel or worse, as an starving "employee" of the Tojo Rail Road Construction and Repair Co.

[@colingenge9999]

Biased not “bias” which it’s a noun.

[@MrCSRT8]

"is" not "it's", which is incorrect in your comment.

[@MrCSRT8]

Your lack of faith in the greater Asian co-prosperity sphere is disturbing to Tojo.

[@chriskelly929]

A close family friend flew both, including piloting the 51 as part of the escort for Operation Aphrodite, an unsuccessful proto-drone mission, in 1944. He said that although the '47 was more squirrely on startup and takeoff than the 51, he far preferred The Jug because it was designed with far more protection for the pilot as as well as being one of the most advanced fighter/bombers of his time; he loved state-of-the-art tech and followed that passion as a tech sales executive after the war. In February of '45, he was on a low-level run busting a train with a wingman in the 51, dubbed for his fiance, "L'il Ev". The train had a covered gun car, and shrapnel from what was probably a 20mm round from a Flak 38 hit his coolant line. He had barely enough time to climb to about a thousand feet to bail out before the engine seized. Injured his back coming down into a tree; captured by the local German home guard, sent to a prison camp, was forced to march to different camps as the Allies were closing in. He was strafed by Allied planes at least once on one of these marches. He was reported MIA for at least two months, which gave great distress to his fiance. Eventually, he made it to camp Lucky Strike. For as long as I knew him, he asserted he would have come home from his last mission if he was piloting the 47. Thanks for posting this video!

[@Sechott12]

When I was child getting into WWII fighter planes. I was much more interested in the 47 over the 51, but my very favorite was the 61 Black Widow.

[@DreAmeoba1]

I agree, I was a bit saddened the Black Widow had limited service at the end of the war, & heard that the 4x50caliber machine gun turret, was somewhat problematic in performance..(though I think it could’ve been ‘ironed out’), & it would’ve made a good interceptor, & ground attack monster, in daytime, as well as night fighting…,

[@MrCSRT8]

Black Widows also destroyed a lot of IJN shipping if I'm not mistaken.

[@robertbennett2854]

Thank you for your service as you are from the greatest generation, of courage and sacrifice and giving yourselves in mass to enlist during WW II. Quick question on the P-51 statistics I also wondered were they incorporating the drop tanks in fuel endurance stats and did the P-47 have drop tanks as well or just internal wing tanks?

[@animalyze7120]

My Favorites were the Hellcats and the Thunderbolts, the 51's were sweet and bit more advanced depending on the Model. Hellcat was #1 favorite plane of the War.

[@darrenwhiteside1619]

The Hellcat is my favorite aircraft too. I love watching wartime footage of multiple F6Fs launching from carriers. IMHO they resemble a bunch of angry hornets leaving their nest after being agitated.

[@publiusking8004]

A close family friend flew both, including piloting the 51 as part of the escort for Operation Aphrodite, an unsuccessful proto-drone mission, in 1944. He said that though the '47 was more squirrely on startup and takeoff than the 51, he far preferred The Jug because it was designed with far more protection for the pilot as as well as being one of the most advanced fighter/bombers of his time; he loved state-of-the-art tech and followed thta passion as a tech sales executive after the war. In February of '45, he was on a low-level run busting a train with a wingman in early '45 in the 51, dubbed for his fiance, "L'il Ev". The train had a covered gun car, and shrapnel from what was probably a 20mm round from a Flak 38 hit his coolant line. He had barely enough time to climb to about a thousand feet to bail out before the engine seized. Injured his back coming down into a tree; captured by the local German home guard, sent to a prison camp, was forced to march to different camps as the Allies were closing in. He was strafed by Allied planes at least once on one of these marches. He was reported MIA for at least two months, which gave great distress to his fiance. Eventually, he made it to camp Lucky Strike. For as long as I knew him, he asserted he would have come home from his last mission if he was piloting the 47. Thanks for posting this video!

[@clevlandblock]

Can't deny the Mustang's war winning range.

[@ivanthemadvandal8435]

Thr P47 had enough range to escort to Berlin and back by late 43' the USAAF top brass created the myth that it couldn't to cover their asses after getting many airmen needlessly killed by believing that the US bombers could effectively defend themselves.

[@stillbill6408]

@@ivanthemadvandal8435 It is also my understanding that the brass boo-hooed P47's using fuel drop tanks. It seems to me that the brass/politicians my have invested in North American stock.

[@ivanthemadvandal8435]

@@stillbill6408 wouldnt go that far, "the bomber will always get through" was a common belief leading up to WW2. Add to that the fact that the US was the only nation using turbo-superchargers for great high altitude performance, good armor coverage, highly durable radial engines and the best defensive armament of any WW2 bomber and you can understand where their overconfidence came from.

[@Pokesalad222]

Dad flew the mustang,and loved it... I liked the tbolt

[@ssn711]

The United States exists today due largely to the integrity & courage of men such as Mr.Covington. We owe them a sincere debt & live with gratitude. Thank you Sir.

[@shauny2285]

B24 crews felt the same when the B17 got the glory. The B24 carried the heavier bomb load vs the B17.

[@marshallsmountain]

Yep...plus the B24 would walk away from a B17 with one engine feathered. Plus if had a longer range. My dad was a ball turret gunner stationed in Foggia Italy with the 15th Air Force. They would commonly fly up to the coast of France, Germany, Eastern Europe and the ever popular Ploesti.

[@jamesricker3997]

The B-24 was more vulnerable to enemy fire. But the B-24 was faster so it spent less time over enemy territory and had a lower loss rate

[@neilpemberton5523]

The B17's higher ceiling really helped with the destruction of the Luftwaffe fighter arm. At higher altitude the Fw109A's performance dropped off, and the single cannon Bf109 had less effectiveness against the rugged B17. The 3-cannon Bf109 was simply an easier target for a P47 or P51 if intercepted before it engaged a bomber. Thanks to the incompetence of the Luftwaffe hierarchy, every single one of the best German fighters including the Me262 and FW109D were not ready until after D-Day, and the Luftwaffe was not an effective fighting force by then

[@hairydogstail]

@@neilpemberton5523 What destroyed the Luftwaffe was the same weakness that loss the war for the German army, the lack of oil....

[@neilpemberton5523]

@@hairydogstail that is obvious, and not my point

[@titodalessandro1909]

Thank you Very much for your service.. I understand and you’re correct.

[@windfall35]

In reading Robert S Johnson's book on his service in the European Theatre with the P-47, what strikes me was the ability of P-47 pilots to elect to engage or break off contact with their Luftwaffe opponents at will...They possessed higher airspeed, could climb faster and nothing could beat them in a dive. Possessing great firepower and unmatched ability to absorb damage, protect their pilot and continue flying they were exemplars. They were equally effective at high altitudes and their firepower and ruggedness, combined with their unparalleled ability to carry rockets or bombs gave Allied headquarters the ability to task them on low altitude and army support. I too think the 'range' argument about the P-47 vs P-51 was largely a false narrative promoted by the Air Force - For a definitive analysis of the 'range' issue, I was impressed by the work done by Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles in his Pt.6 'Range, Deceit and Treachery' KZbin presentation. kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3SvkmNtbdtpb80

[@Caseytify]

The range of the P-51 is not a myth, and relying on KZbin videos for real research is a bad idea.

[@cfzippo]

Ya, and Greg has made some fatal errors in his P-47 range. Combat radius is limited by internal fuel. You have to get home after you drop your external. I still fly the P-51 and P-38 today, and our Museum operated a 305 gallon tank P-47G razorback. No, the P-51 range is NOT a myth. A P-51 in 1944 over Europe, with 2 110 gallon drop tanks could go out 900 miles, fight at full power, and return home. The bubble top P-47D-25 could go out 650 miles in mid 1944 and fight for 15 minutes, and the earlier Razorbacks could go out 450 miles, just where the 56th FG was on the March 6th 44 Berlin mission, 50 miles shy of Berlin. Oh, I’ve actually been a fighter pilot, flown P-38s and P-51s, and respectfully, Greg has not, and in that video he gets some things wrong.

[@windfall35]

@@Caseytify - who said that the range of the P 51 was a myth?

[@windfall35]

@@cfzippo -Your experience can't really be argued with by a bystander...If my understanding of Greg's comments on P 47 range are in error I stand corrected. I still assert that the P 47 was an excellent instrument whose capabilities and contributions appear to have been overshadowed by her sexy sister...

[@cfzippo]

@@windfall35 No, I don’t think you misunderstood Greg. But he made some errors in his flight planning in m y opinion. And yes I have all the same planning material he does. The 47 IS and excellent aircraft, but the Mustang is better in just about every respect in air to air combat, just as the Mustang is poorer in every respects in air to ground. The Mustang climbs better, cruises faster more endurance and range, and maulers better. The P-47 has more firepower, the late war P-47M and N have more speed up high, and initially P-47s dive better but encounter compressibility sinner than the P-51.

[@jibeco]

The Brazilian Air Force flew the P-47 in WW2 in the European theater, in Italy. An excellent plane, where even the chance of survival was much higher than in the P-51..

[@spreadeagled5654]

So did the Mexican Air Force in the Pacific Theater.

[@daniel_f4050]

The Razorback Jug has always been my favorite USAAF fighter. Sure the bubble canopy D-25 and later had better visibility and a larger oil tank, but they lost all the distinctive sexiness of the Razorback. The ultimate version for me is the P-47D-23 RE with a Malcolm Hood (the sliding canopy section from a Spitfire) and Invasion Stripes over natural aluminum and an olive drab anti-glare strip in front of the cockpit. 🤤 Absolutely gorgeous. IMO the best looking plane of WWII. Damn. Now I need to find a good 1/48-1/32 scale kit and build one for the first time in 25 years. My wife is gonna kill me. 😋

[@christisgod3354]

I just started on my 1/32 Trumpeter Razorback. They have always been one of my favorites, the Razorback is so brutal looking.

[@patrickskelton3610]

The sliding canopy was from later the Typhoon models.

[@daniel_f4050]

@@patrickskelton3610 Huh? Late model Typhoons had a teardrop canopy just like the D-25 and later Jugs. Did they cut them down to fit the Razorbacks? Interesting because I had always read that the canopy section was from Spitfires.

[@douglasstrother6584]

I've read that the A-10 was given the moniker "Thunderbolt" in honor of the P-47.

[@richardwaugh2049]

You're right, and the last two versions of the P-38 had quicker roll rates left and right than the P-51, had a longer range with the engine protocols General Lindbergh mandated, out climbed the P-51 and could dive as well as the P-47. The P-51 got all the glory (political) that the P-47 and P-38 deserved and earned.

[@johnmarlin4661]

Lindbergh a General ??

[@richardwaugh2049]

@@johnmarlin4661 yes

[@CH-pv2rz]

No brainiac the Lindbergh changes were ineffective for escorting bombers because the P-38 could not fly at its most economical speed like it could on a fighter sweep. It had to fly slower and weave over the bombers which vastly reduced its range. As a result its fuel burn rate was much higher.

[@jasondiaz8431]

The last production P47 is located in the Cradle of Aviation museum in Mitchel Field NY.

[@robertshaver4432]

Kind of the same thing with the Hellcat and Corsair. the "pretty" Corsair (a great plane) took the glory of the accomplishments of the Hellcat that ended the war with much better "war winning" statistics. The Hellcat by the way was also a flying tank and could absorb huge amounts of damage and just like the P-47 was used very effectively in ground attacks. The Hellcat, the Corsair and the P-47 all shared the same engine BTW. The Hellcat and the P-47 both weighed about the same and at times traded one being heavier than the other as upgraded models came to be. Yes the Hellcat was indeed "also" a flying tank! My Uncle flew a P-47 in WWII and credited the bird in saving his life many times for the punishment it could withstand. He loved that bird!!!!!

[@CH-pv2rz]

The Corsair flew the vast majority of air strikes for the Marines in WW2 and Korea. The main reason it achieved less total kills was due to its entrance into carrier use late in the war... Thus your comparison is weak at best. The Corsair was a hell of a fighter and strike aircraft and stayed in production longer than any other US WW2 Fighter.

[@robertshaver4432]

@@CH-pv2rz Yes but the Hellcat had a much better "readiness" factor of better than 98% and a much better kill ratio too: 18 to 1. Like I said the Hellcat had better "war winning" statistics than the Corsair. I never suggested that the Corsair wasn't a great aircraft as it "also" proved itself quite capable in every theater of operations that it was used in. I believe that the Corsair also killed a few Mig fighters in Korea.

[@glenirwin1110]

The Hellcat shot down a lot of inexperienced Kamikaze pilots. The Corsair had to fly a lot of ground support missions. You can run all the numbers you want, but after the war, the Navy ditched the Hellcat and kept the Corsair. The Corsair was a far superior plane than the Hellcat.

[@robertshaver4432]

@@glenirwin1110 You are very and incorrectly bias and prejudice regarding the Corsair. Fact is that the Hellcat and Corsair have almost identical in-flight capabilities. There are only minute differences between the two in MPH and turning radiuses and many and all etcetera's. So I could say that the Corsair saw far fewer Zero fighters so its adversaries were far less capable. Fact is that post Midway the Japanese still had many adept pilots that weren't Navy pilots and the Hellcats were used extensively against these pilots in clearing the skies of Japanese held islands prior to US land invasions. FACT: The Hellcat and the Corsair had nearly identical flight characteristics. Get over it!

[@glenirwin1110]

@@robertshaver4432 The Navy replaced the Hellcat with the Bearcat, but kept using the Corsair through Korea. Are you saying thar the Navy kept the Corsair because it was worse than the Hellcat??

[@raywhitehead730]

The range of a P47 N with 4 drop tanks was 2,350 miles. The air distance from London to Berlin is about 577 miles..From Iwo Jima to Tokyo is about 791 miles. P47Ns escorted bombers on longer distances then did P51s. About 1600 47s were built, all served in the Pacific.

[@raywhitehead730]

That's the N version.

[@jamesbottger5894]

Depends. The P-51 had more air-to-air kills, but the 47 had more overall kills (air-to-air plus ground attacks). The 51 was in service for less time, so this tells me the 51 was better for air-to-air fighting...the 47 was definitely a better ground attack plane...

[@HeyZeus096]

It also tells you the role they flew. P-51 was used for air cover, where they'd have a lot more opportunity to fight enemy fighters in the air.

[@jamesbottger5894]

@@HeyZeus096 Yes, after the Merlin powered Mustangs became available. Before that it was all P-47s and P-38s. Even after the P-51 came onto the scene, P-47s were still being used in the air-to-air role, just not as much as before...

[@CH-pv2rz]

@@jamesbottger5894 P-47s were used more and more in the ground attack role after the introduction of the Mustang with many P-47 units converting to the type. The only P-47s kept for escort were those variants of the Ds and Ns with the much improved scooped propeller that gave increased climb performance...

[@jamesbottger5894]

@@CH-pv2rz The fact that the HP kept increasing on the R2800 helped climb performance also...

[@dukecraig2402]

The reason the P51 had the number's it did is because the P47 had already blasted most of the 100+ victory hot shot German aces out of the sky by the time the P51 came along, the P47 is the fighter responsible for breaking the Luftwaffe's back in the critical first 3 months of 1944 by shooting down 570 out of 873 of the German fighter's destroyed in aerial combat during that time. Also just as the P51 came along and P47's were assigned ground attack because the P51 with it's liquid cooled engine had a dismal survival rate for ground attack is the same time Gen Doolittle took over the 8th Air Force and OK'd escorting fighter's to break away from the bombers and chase after fighter's, previous to that escorting fighter's had to stay with the bombers. So you can't just compare the kill number's between the two, the P51 wasn't there when the German pilots who were trained almost to the level of an astronaut and had experience starting in the Spanish Civil War through the Battle of Britain and the Eastern Front were the one's fighting, it was the P47 being flown by US pilots new to the war that took the fight to the Germans, the first thing they did was drive all the Luftwaffe air bases inland that had been on the French coast since the Battle of Britain, then they tore a path through the Luftwaffe that they never recovered from so that by the time the P51 came along the Luftwaffe was a shell of what it once was, by that point the P51 was flying against mostly poorly trained German pilots with as little as 10 hours training time in the aircraft they were fighting in. You can't simply compare the number's like most people suggest, you have to factor in all the other math that people don't think about, and that includes the fact that despite what hack aviation writer's and documentary makers have claimed over the years the P51 was not the first fighter capable of escorting bombers deep into Germany, the fact is both the P47 and the P38 were both escorting bombers over Berlin before P51's were, if those hack aviation writer's over the years had bothered to check the actual records instead of just using each other's books as source material the myth that the P51 was the first fighter capable of escorting bombers into Germany wouldn't exist.

[@lisaburnett3368]

Thank you for your service sir. Very interesting x

[@TheSlovenlyTactician]

P-51 took over bomber escort as a scapegoat because if the USAAF command admitted the P-47 could have been escorting bombers the whole time then they'd have to own their mistake of sending unescorted bombers over Germany when a suitable escort fighter was available. Instead they claimed they didn't have a fighter with the range to do so until the P-51 came along.

[@jimjim2953]

gregs planes and automobiles does a detailed breakdown of that and the p-47 in general and i have to agree.

[@TheSlovenlyTactician]

@@jimjim2953 Yup that's where I got it from lol. He made a very convincing case.

[@dukecraig2402]

That's exactly right, so the USAAF had the Press Corps push the P51 as being the hero that saved the day, that started a decades long fascination by the public with the P51. Comparing a P51 to a P47 is like comparing a Bic lighter to a Zippo, one's meant to burn up and throw away and the other is built to last a lifetime.

[@calessassracer]

My Cars plate say “JUG” 😀

[@BWolf00]

@@dukecraig2402 As a USAF brat in the sixty's I built a P-47 model rather than the P-51. I do remember I made the decision but I can't remember why but I have always been fascinated by the Jug...this huge aircraft that seemingly could do everything. BTW, I love multi-tools too...lol.

[@colinmiller5502]

It's the same here in the UK, the spitfire gets all the recognition in WW2,and the hurricane is almost forgotten about.

[@bobingram6912]

Very true Sir, there are only three planes in WW2 - Spitfire, Mustang and Bf109, the so called "also rans" - Hurricane, Thunderbolt and Fw190 very rarely get the distinction they deserve. Also applies to to the B-17 Flying Fortress, it gets all the glory but what about the B-24 - Liberator, more built and a much bigger bomb load (not that that is difficult!) Don't believe all you read in history books!!

[@alienone6854]

Lancasters had a huge load as well

[@kirkmooneyham]

The USAF made a huge mistake, IMHO, when they kept the P-51 (later F-51) after WWII instead of the P-47N model. The P-47N would have been a MUCH better ground attack aircraft for the Korean War. That big radial would have gotten a lot more pilots home and the aircraft could carry a rather large ordnance loadout, too. Look at the success of Marine Corsairs during Korea.

[@ArtietheArchon]

the 47n carried a colossal fuel load as well

[@CH-pv2rz]

Yes because there were so few P-51Ds already built (8,200) and so many P-47Ns already built (1,816)... You do realize that there was almost no budget for new prop fighter aircraft purchases after the end of WW2...? And as you can see there were few P-47Ns...

[@kirkmooneyham]

@@CH-pv2rz, yep, more important to count those beans than to properly equip the military. No more nazis, the world would be perfect in every way. Same sort of thinking that always happens, and often bites the troops in the backside.

[@stephengamble9388]

Some RAF pilots who flew in the early war years, said the same of the Hurricane and Spitfire. Basically, "If you wanted to look good and have fun, strap on a Spitfire. If you knew it was going to be a bad day take a Hurricane". The P-47 and the Hurricane were considered the ugly ducklings, when compared to their counterparts, the P-51 and the Spitfire. Compare the two sets of aircraft and their war records followed the same paths, just a few years apart. Thanks to the likes of Lt. Col. Covington the historical facts are being recorded correctly for future generations. Thus ensuring that this fabulous generation of people and machines is never forgotten.

[@philliplopez8745]

I thought that everyone knew that the " little brown jug " was the pilots favorite. It could get half of the cylinders blown off and still get you home .

[@jays9196]

An advantage of air cooling, for sure!

[@neilpemberton5523]

You mean the BIG brown jug. 😆

[@philliplopez8745]

@@neilpemberton5523 " little brown jug " was a popular song at the time .

[@midway27272727]

You talk about the air/fuel mixture control. I think it was Charles Lindbergh who went out to the Pacific and helped with the P-38s getting more flight time by showing pilots how to run the engines leaner (air/fuel) without burning them out. I think once they engaged or knew they were going to they would richen up.

[@MrCSRT8]

His work really made the Yamamoto hit possible.

[@AlanRoehrich9651]

Lindbergh merely pointed out what Lockheed put in the pilot's manual. The Army Air Corps had a nasty habit of ignoring it. They did the same thing in Europe, and caused a myriad of problems, with range, cockpit heat, and reliability. Lockheed test pilot Tony LeVier had to show them what they were doing wrong.

[@dogsplayingpoker2395]

I agree with this man. I think the Mustang as great as it was gets too much of the glory. One of the most eye rolling cringe inducing lines in an otherwise great movie, "Their tank busters sir, P-51's", Saving private Ryan.

[@CH-pv2rz]

Only if they were P-51As...

[@dogsplayingpoker2395]

@@CH-pv2rz Was that one with the 20MM cannons?

[@richardmontana5864]

Saving private Ryan was a great movie until the end when they used P-51's. Those should have been P-47 D razorback. And the P-47 out dived all aircraft, axis or allied. P-47 did have the range for the deep German raids like Schienfurt but Eaker did not order them. The Generals fault,not Republics.P-47 won the war in Europe. If the Pacific theater would have went a little longer you would have seen the P-47N totally take out the P-51D.

[@bigtroglodyte]

P-47 has always been my favorite ww2 fighter, was really happy when dcs added it, now i spend hours flying the jug.

[@jameskoskinen6763]

His opening statement is false. The F6F Hellcat had the most air victories of all our aircraft in the war. Second- the P51 Mustang changed the air campaign because it was the first to escort bombers all the way to the target and back, because the P47 simply didnt have the range. Even Hermann Goring stated that the P51 was his envy because it could do for 6 hours what his 109s could only do for 45 minutes. None of this means any less honor for our beloved P47 pilots.

[@raywhitehead730]

Actually by the end of the war p47 had the longest range. Earlier on, it was a mainly drop tank issue! Simply the supply of drop tanks was channel ed to the P 51. The M version of the p47 could carry 4 drop tanks and still carry its full load of bullets, for combat these were stationed mainly out of Iwo Jima.

[@BadlandNP]

Have always loved "The Jug" and thought it would be an excellent aircraft to fly!

[@mikem6176]

The old saying was, “A P51 will get the girl, but a P47 will get you home.” The gentleman says the P47 could be tweaked such that it would stay airborne for 6 hours. The Mustang stayed up for 12. That, and the almost unbelievable resilience of the Thunderbolt is why it excelled at CAS better than the P51.

[@randalldunkley1042]

There is an excellent war movie using the P47D. Titled "Fighter Squadron" with Bob Stack and Ed O'Brien. Filmed with the Air National Guard Thunderbolts gathered in Michigan.

[@Nl-nn3ds]

In rough numbers a P-38 cost $100,000, a P-47 $80,000 and a P-51 $60,000. The P-51 was used because it was cheaper not because it was better.

[@lovelessissimo]

It was used because it had longer range.

[@SoloRenegade]

P-51 was also better overall. At altitude the P-47 was in her element. But down low, pretty much every single other US fighter (F4U, F6F, P-40, P-51, etc) could out fight the P-47. And the P-40N was superior to the P-47 below 15,000ft, and could be as good or better ground attacker. F4U developed into one of the best ground attack and dive bomber airplanes of WW2, and even would be equipped with 4x 20mm cannons and radar. The P-47 was useful and effective, but not good enough to justify its cost.

[@glennfalzo3718]

Funny you say that. The P51 cost $50k, not $60k, and if you look at groups that transitioned from p47 to P51, their kills went up. So the Mustangs were BETTER as their victories in the air were over 1,200 MORE then the P47.

[@SoloRenegade]

Don't forget the P-51 had one of the best, and most pilot friendly, cockpit layouts of WW2. Also, the similarities of the P-51 to the T-6 Texan, helped pilots transition to it during training, speeding up pilot training and proficiency going from the T-6 to a P-51, compared to other fighters. Yet another logistical victory to the P-51 over the P-47 (cost, maintenance, size & weight for storage and transport, pilot training...).

[@Nl-nn3ds]

@@SoloRenegade both the P-47 and the P-38 were much better at getting the pilot home.

[@kylebernard7755]

for the most part I agree, the problem, and it never really was solved was range and fuel consumption... 60gph vs 100gph even with drop tanks the Jug was a thirsty beast. However that said, the majorly contributed to the destruction of the infrastructure . IE rail cars and engines, bridges and roads, that really made the ground war winnable.

[@garyhewitt489]

The Alison engined p-51 was used down low. The Merlin engined one was suitable for altitude. The USAAF was very slow to develop drop tanks, hence the range difficulties. The Jug was the better choice for ground attack, plus if it's carrying drop tanks it's not carrying rockets or bombs. Some planes just don't get the credit, Liberator, Hellcat, P-47. I'd put the Halifax and perhaps Hurricane into the same boat.

[@dukecraig2402]

The USAAF wasn't slow to develop drop tanks, they were using them plenty in the Pacific, they just didn't allow escorting fighter's to use them early on in Europe because they thought that's where they were going to prove their concept that the bombers could fight their way to the targets and back unescorted. They had to use them in the Pacific because of the range over water between everything, the long range mission to kill Admiral Yamamoto which was longer than any escort mission in Europe used drop tanks on the P38's and that mission was 4 months before "Black Thursday" in Europe, and they were the same variant of P38 that was being flown in Europe at the same time, that's proof that the bombers in Europe early on could very well have had escorts to the targets and back had the Bomber Mafia Generals not been trying to prove their concept in Europe.

[@anntrautwein1430]

My mom worked on the P-47 at Republic one of her favorite planes

[@dukecraig2402]

He's wrong about one little detail here, the P51 was not originally designed as a low level aircraft, the reason the early P51 only had low level performance is because without a turbo the Allison engine only had it's single stage supercharger, at the time the P51 was developed the only engine available for it's development was the Allison and there wasn't a 2 stage 2 speed high altitude supercharger available for it simply because nobody ever paid Allison to develop one, the P40 and P39 were both originally supposed to have the same supercharger/turbo configuration that the P38 had but the turbo was dropped from both of them to speed up their development time because everyone from the USAAC to France was screaming for aircraft. Another thing that causes a bit of confusion with people that leads them to believe that the P51 was origionally designed as a low level attack aircraft is the fact that the first production variant was the A36 Apache, the only reason things worked out that way is because there were no orders for the P51 but Lt Benjamin Kelsey who was in charge of aircraft development and procurement for the US Army knew that the P51 was eventually going to be fitted with an engine that had a high altitude supercharger on it whether Allison was going to develop one for their's or the upcoming high altitude version of the Merlin would be used (contrary to what most people believe before mid 1942 the Merlin engine didn't have a 2 stage high altitude supercharger yet, even the early Packard built Merlin's only had a single stage supercharger on them which means putting a Merlin engine in them at that point wouldn't have made any difference when it comes to high altitude performance), Lt Kelsey wanted to make sure a production line would be set up and running as soon as possible for the P51 but due to budgetary reasons he wasn't allowed to order any more fighter's for the Army, so he devised a "back door" plan to get the P51 into production by changing the wing guns from .50 cals to 20mm cannons and redesigning the P51 as the A36, since the aircraft had an "A" designation which stands for attack it was not classified as a fighter so the Army could order them, this was basically just a slight of hand trick to get the airframe into production.

[@billlee5031]

Now thats a smart dude thx

[@dieselyeti]

My old boss flew both in WW2 with the 356th FG out of Martlesham Heath in England. His first mission was on D-Day flying the Jug covering the landings. He was 20 at the time. His unit later transitioned to the Mustang, but he loved the 47 for its ability to take a beating and get the pilot home. Each had its strengths & weaknesses but the Jug was a much better acft for ground attack between the 8 guns and ordnance load (and no belly radiator). Its weight meant it could out-dive anything and escape if necessary. He felt the 51 was the better dogfighter and had the range advantage.

[@RO8s]

An RAF pilot who flew the 47 said, "Good job it could dive, 'cos it couldn't bloody climb!"

[@cabanford]

Check out Greg's Automobiles and Airplanes - he's got a great episode about the P-47s range and how it was basically just dumb politics that stopped it from escorting the bombers the whole way.

[@SoloRenegade]

But the P-51 was much cheaper for the same or better performance. And Many fighters could beat the P-47 down low (including most USAF/USN fighters of the day). Had the P-51 been introduced at the same time as the P-47 it would have far exceeded the P-47. The P-40N had greater performance down low than a P-47, as Greg also points out. P-39 shot down more airplanes in Europe than the P-47.

[@randallturner9094]

@@SoloRenegade zero chance the p-39 shot down more planes than the p-47. Wherever you got that’s undoubtedly using Soviet kill claims to pad p-39 stats, and the Soviets were infamous for just making shit up re:air war.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@randallturner9094 Yes, but historians have gone through reports from all sides over the past 80yrs and done a great job of correlating records and losses to get far more accurate numbers and estimates. The only side that doesn't share info is Russia, so they can spin propaganda as you point out. But historians can still look at the records of actual German losses on the eastern front as well. And keep in mind the Russians loved the P-39 so much that they continued using it in their military into the Korean war. The P-39Q by the end of the war was 50mph faster than a A6M Zero, had a higher service ceiling than the Zero, and had a 700fpm better climb rate than teh Zero. This is a Complete performance reversal from early in the war. And these numbers are based upon claims of only 1,200hp being made by the Allison V12, when we know for a fact those engines were putting out 1,700hp at that point, and were capable of over 2,200hp, as Greg also detailed in his P-40 video. Also note, the Allison V12 are stated to have 2,250hp in the F-82. Imagine how much better the P-39 was with an additional 500-1000hp against a Zero? The P-39Q became capable of dominating Zeros. And mind you, US aircraft that struggled with the Zero early in the war, were still capable of dogfighting German planes like the Me109 at low altitude and winning, such as the P-40. The Russians also removed wing-mounted guns to improve roll rate and maneuvering performance. Russians fought a low altitude war, where planes like the P-40 and P-39Q absolutely excelled.

[@randallturner9094]

@@SoloRenegade first of all, later numbers aren’t “better” w/respect to Soviet kill claims - they’re worse. I can’t be a$$ed to move off my iPad onto my PC to get the East German historian’s name who cooked the books on WWII Soviet kills in the late 80’s, but that’s who you’re referencing. The VVS was famous for its inability to shoot down Luftwaffe aircraft regardless of what they were flying. And when you’re comparing p-39 and p-47 kills in Europe, the Zero doesn’t factor in, I’m not even sure why you’re going there.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@randallturner9094 Yes, I understand why you'd be confused why I'd bring up the Zero. Logic must not be your strong point, otherwise you would understand.

[@captainaxle438]

Well said, the P47 truly was a thunderbolt. P51 shared same cockpit control layout as the AT6 trainer. This was a factor in P51's success also.

[@oscargrouch7962]

AT-6 and P-51 both North American

[@BMcD79959]

The “Jug” would have been my plane of choice hands down if I were in the ETO. Tough, rugged and would get you home!

[@CH-pv2rz]

Sure it would... You are such an expert on WW2 aircraft and have flown them all, right?