Warbird Information Exchange

In short, yes. But that is often the case with many airplane types. For example, if you read much of what was written about the F4F Wildcat you would be led to believe that the airplane was next to useless in the Pacific campaign. Nothing could be further from the truth and looking at the early Pacific battles that stubby little fighter more than held its own. The Brits did not like the P-39 and the Russians cared very little for the Spitfire, yet both performed well when handled competently. We all know that an Allison powered P-51 had insufficient performance to tangle with Bf 109s. Well, unless you tangled with one below 15,000 in which case it would eat your lunch.

There seems to be an insatiable need by some to constantly promote one aircraft over another. Don't we all "know" that the Spitfire won the Battle of Britain? Too bad it's not true, the Hurricane achieved 55% percent of the victories with only 42% for the Spit.

Most WWII fighters were smaller than the P-47 and because of that there is an assumption that it could not successfully tangle with them in A2A. The facts speak differently. The F6F and F4U were both larger than their Japanese opponents and yet both were flown with great success by Allied pilots. Incidently, both are dimensionally very close to the P-47, though both weigh less.

There will always be competition between P-47 and P-51 proponents. Both were good airplanes and both were solid performers. Both also served the US of A for many years. The P-47 (F-47 by then) served with the Air National Guard until 1954. The Mustang until 1957. The Taiwainese were still flying combat with the P-47 into the late 50's and on two occasions claimed downing Communist Chinese MiG-15s. P-47s were operated by Latin American air forces into the early 60's.

“If it can be said that the P-38 struck the Luftwaffe in it’s vitals and the P-51s are giving it the Coup de Grace, it was the Thunderbolt that broke it’s back.” General Kepner

_________________
Had God intended for man to fly behind inline engines, Pratt & Whitney would have made them.

CB

http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/Desrt_Wings.html

from what i can gather it seems that you don't really find that many ww2 pilots who didn't like their machine. Off the top of my head i can think of the buffalo, devestator,helldiver, b-29 that some crews or pilots didn't care for. And it seems that the b-24 wasn't very pilot friendly either. Other than that i think many pilots loved their mounts no matter what it was during the war. I never ran into anybody who said," god i hated flying the hellcat or mustang." Interesting

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."

It is very true that pilots generally liked the airplane they flew. Usually the first one. Kind of like the first girlfriend. Yeager liked the P-39 and Boyington liked the early model F2A.

One of the old guys at War Eagles flew as a gunner in both the SBD and the SB2C and he liked the Beast, though he liked the Dauntless better.

The B-24 was not as much of a pilot's airplane as the B-17, but it was still loved by many aircrews.

I once had a conversation with a former USAF pilot who did not like the F-100. Always wondered about that, as most everybody else I have talked to thought is a lot of fun to fly.

_________________
Had God intended for man to fly behind inline engines, Pratt & Whitney would have made them.

CB

http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/Desrt_Wings.html

I once had a conversation with a former USAF pilot who did not like the F-100. Always wondered about that, as most everybody else I have talked to thought is a lot of fun to fly.[/quote]

From what I have read,the info I have gotten is that the F-100 A model was a real handful to fly and killed more than one pilot.In later models the surface area of the vertical stabilizer/rudder was increased and solved the handling issues.Maybe this was his problem with the plane

_________________
"WHAT ME WORRY?"

From what I have read,the info I have gotten is that the F-100 A model was a real handful to fly and killed more than one pilot.In later models the surface area of the vertical stabilizer/rudder was increased and solved the handling issues.Maybe this was his problem with the plane[/quote]

We were discussing F-100Ds and Fs. The thing that he found the most troubling was that if landed gear up the engine "might" shift forward crushing the pilot. Not performance, or handling, but the scenario of being crushed by the engine. I thought that to be somewhat bizzare considering all of the things that would most likely go wrong before ever getting to that situation.

Yesterday I spent a few minutes just enjoying gawking at the F4U-4 and TF-51 in the museum. Really wish we had a P-47 to go with them.

_________________
Had God intended for man to fly behind inline engines, Pratt & Whitney would have made them.

CB

http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/Desrt_Wings.html

yes sir,when all else fails,climb into a P-47

_________________
"WHAT ME WORRY?"

A P-47 is the crate that the F4U-corsair was boxed in while being shipped. BOTH great planes. One plane i don't think i would want to be on is a B-29 with those engines.

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."

Whats the matter Mr whistlingdeathcorsairs?the thought of being in a bomber full of thousands of gallons of avgas,loaded with bombs and sitting on the runway as the engines caught on fire sound like not much fun,you might have a point there bro

_________________
"WHAT ME WORRY?"

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."