Re: I'm thinking a P47 woulda been the plane to fly in WWII
Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:49 am
WOW! great story.thats the plane I want to plant my but in great story but not the only one..awsome plane as were others.just the one I would want to fly
Re: I'm thinking a P47 woulda been the plane to fly in WWII
Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:39 am
I think it was Gabby Gabreski that once said "The Mustang is what you want to get your picture taken with, but the P-47 is what you want to go to war in."
Chappie
Chappie
Re: I'm thinking a P47 woulda been the plane to fly in WWII
Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:10 pm
My late Father's neighbor was a fighter pilot in WW2. When he fianally got overseas, he was assigned to the first P-51 group assigned to the 9th Air Force. Before going overseas, he had been checked out in P-51's, P-40's, P-38's and P-47's and knew all there was to know to fly and fight these aircraft. After a while in the Group, there was a request for pilot's to volunteer to transfer to P-47's. He was the only pilot to volunteer. He figured if he was doing groung attack, He wanted to be in P-47's. He had 3 pictures in his den of P-47's that had got shot up and he had to belly land each one. He said that if he had still been flying P-51's, he would have been a POW.
He also said, that for sheer joy and fun, the P-38 was his first choice for flying.
He also said, that for sheer joy and fun, the P-38 was his first choice for flying.
Re: I'm thinking a P47 woulda been the plane to fly in WWII
Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:23 am
My friend Burt Newmark flew P-47's and then P-51's until a train shot him down and he became a POW.
“The P-47 was the first big fighter I flew. A lot of people will tell you that the P-51 was the best fighter. In my estimation and a lot of other fighter pilots, it wasn’t. The reason they switched from P-47’s to P-51’s they say is because the P-51 had long range, which is true, it did have a little longer range, but they should have used them for that purpose. But the P-51 cost half of what a P-47 cost. It weighed half, it had half the horsepower, it had 2/3rds the firepower, and it would not protect a pilot against any damage. We didn’t like the idea of changing to the Mustang because we knew we weren’t protected as well. The P-47 had 1 inch of solid steel armor plate behind the pilot. The Mustang had a mechanical supercharger instead of the exhaust gasses driving the turbo charger in the P-47, so at very high altitude, where we were used to, it lost some power. The Mustang was a beautiful airplane to fly but if you’re going on a fighter pilot mission, you chose a P-47. If you’re going to have a picture taken to send home, you get in front of a P-51.”
Here's the rest of my interview with Burt http://evanflys.com/burt_newmark
Evan
“The P-47 was the first big fighter I flew. A lot of people will tell you that the P-51 was the best fighter. In my estimation and a lot of other fighter pilots, it wasn’t. The reason they switched from P-47’s to P-51’s they say is because the P-51 had long range, which is true, it did have a little longer range, but they should have used them for that purpose. But the P-51 cost half of what a P-47 cost. It weighed half, it had half the horsepower, it had 2/3rds the firepower, and it would not protect a pilot against any damage. We didn’t like the idea of changing to the Mustang because we knew we weren’t protected as well. The P-47 had 1 inch of solid steel armor plate behind the pilot. The Mustang had a mechanical supercharger instead of the exhaust gasses driving the turbo charger in the P-47, so at very high altitude, where we were used to, it lost some power. The Mustang was a beautiful airplane to fly but if you’re going on a fighter pilot mission, you chose a P-47. If you’re going to have a picture taken to send home, you get in front of a P-51.”
Here's the rest of my interview with Burt http://evanflys.com/burt_newmark
Evan
Re: I'm thinking a P47 woulda been the plane to fly in WWII
Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:58 pm
And still one more perspective by one who was there!
Charlie Dills flew with the 27th FBG, 522nd Sq (MTO), starting out in the A-36A, moving on to P-40F/L, and finally into the P-47:
"I always hated the P-47. I would rather have a P-40 for the work we were doing. When you pulled out of a dive it mushed terribly. That is, it kept going down before it would start coming up. The first week we had them, as I remember, at least eight planes came back with telephone wires, fence wires and grapevines due to the unexpected sinking when one pulled back the stick. It had a terribly variable fuel consumption rate. At cruise it used about 120 gallons per hour. But in a combat situaton the rate could go up to 370 gallons per hour (from the tech orders!). Your reserve could disappear in a few minutes. We had a mission where none of the eight planes made it back to our field. They had to land at other fields and gas up. And as I remember three of them bellied in, fortunately on our side of the lines. Our entire mode of attack had to be changed. We couldn't cruise at 200' and then strafe, We would probably hit the ground when we tried to pull up. We no longer did vertical dive bombing so our accuracy suffered. We were constantly easily visible so we had to fly over ten thousand feet and then dive on a target, very visible, all the way down! While it had an engine that was excellent in most respects, it had a Hamilton Standard oil operated propellor. If one got a rock through the spinner, you would lose the oil, the propellor would go flat and you would go down. One of our people had it happen and he finally bailed out at about 4500 feet rather than go into the clouds with mountains below.
I've heard P-47 pilots bragging about how much punishment it could take. So what! You had to fly it in a way that it took a lot of punishment. The last thing it was, was invisible. The A-36 and even the P-40 could sneak around at low level and strafe and they wouldn't even see you till you were gone. The P-47 always had altitude and was brazenly visible to anyone holding even a peashooter. Sure it absorbed punishment. It was always an obvious and flagrant target!
Ugh! It was designed to fly at high altitudes and we had to use it at low altitudes! And so on!!"
http://www.charlies-web.com/WWII_med/
Charlie Dills flew with the 27th FBG, 522nd Sq (MTO), starting out in the A-36A, moving on to P-40F/L, and finally into the P-47:
"I always hated the P-47. I would rather have a P-40 for the work we were doing. When you pulled out of a dive it mushed terribly. That is, it kept going down before it would start coming up. The first week we had them, as I remember, at least eight planes came back with telephone wires, fence wires and grapevines due to the unexpected sinking when one pulled back the stick. It had a terribly variable fuel consumption rate. At cruise it used about 120 gallons per hour. But in a combat situaton the rate could go up to 370 gallons per hour (from the tech orders!). Your reserve could disappear in a few minutes. We had a mission where none of the eight planes made it back to our field. They had to land at other fields and gas up. And as I remember three of them bellied in, fortunately on our side of the lines. Our entire mode of attack had to be changed. We couldn't cruise at 200' and then strafe, We would probably hit the ground when we tried to pull up. We no longer did vertical dive bombing so our accuracy suffered. We were constantly easily visible so we had to fly over ten thousand feet and then dive on a target, very visible, all the way down! While it had an engine that was excellent in most respects, it had a Hamilton Standard oil operated propellor. If one got a rock through the spinner, you would lose the oil, the propellor would go flat and you would go down. One of our people had it happen and he finally bailed out at about 4500 feet rather than go into the clouds with mountains below.
I've heard P-47 pilots bragging about how much punishment it could take. So what! You had to fly it in a way that it took a lot of punishment. The last thing it was, was invisible. The A-36 and even the P-40 could sneak around at low level and strafe and they wouldn't even see you till you were gone. The P-47 always had altitude and was brazenly visible to anyone holding even a peashooter. Sure it absorbed punishment. It was always an obvious and flagrant target!
Ugh! It was designed to fly at high altitudes and we had to use it at low altitudes! And so on!!"
http://www.charlies-web.com/WWII_med/
Re: I'm thinking a P47 woulda been the plane to fly in WWII
Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:01 pm
Interesting. That's the first negative "review" I've encountered.
Re: I'm thinking a P47 woulda been the plane to fly in WWII
Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:37 pm
Sounds like Mr. Dills should have had a 9th AF boy show him how it's done! 
Seriously though, if all of your combat time were in something else, transition into the Jug in a combat situation would be rather difficult.
Seriously though, if all of your combat time were in something else, transition into the Jug in a combat situation would be rather difficult.
Last edited by Zachary on Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: I'm thinking a P47 woulda been the plane to fly in WWII
Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:41 pm
Sounds like he had trouble transitioning to a new fighter. Not the first, won't be the last.
Re: I'm thinking a P47 woulda been the plane to fly in WWII
Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:21 pm
I am a bit surprised by how positive comments are about the P47.
I had always had the impression that in terms of the european theatre it was expensive, great at high altitude (turbo power) tough in ground attack at low altitude (strong ,radial and lots of guns) and not that great in between (too big, average climb and acceleration, average ultimate dive speed but great in initial dive and roll).
This impression hasn't come from any one source but from general reading and side comments in books by people who generally flew other types (including opposition ones).
Have I been reading the wrong things?
I had always had the impression that in terms of the european theatre it was expensive, great at high altitude (turbo power) tough in ground attack at low altitude (strong ,radial and lots of guns) and not that great in between (too big, average climb and acceleration, average ultimate dive speed but great in initial dive and roll).
This impression hasn't come from any one source but from general reading and side comments in books by people who generally flew other types (including opposition ones).
Have I been reading the wrong things?
Re: I'm thinking a P47 woulda been the plane to fly in WWII
Fri Jun 24, 2011 4:53 am
Just ask for the best car and You will know pretty well from the answers who is driving what. It is typical for a man to feel he uses the best thing around. When Germans have tested Spitfire in 1940 and British tried Bf 109 at the same time both sides found out their own fighter was superior. Luftwaffe pilots even stated Spitfire can not be claimed as combat aircrafts due to negative G carburator problems.
The other example are suggestions of Pacific USAAF pilots about their ETO collegues not beeing able to fly P-38 right, as it should be superior to anything in the air.
P-47 had it's soft spots and strong sides as any aircraft and it was tactics what made it worthy. The entering of 'down to earth' tactics was by the way a milestone in European campain, just as a year long loss of time in extending P-47 range blocked the possible success of the 8th AF at the beginnig of it's operations.
The other example are suggestions of Pacific USAAF pilots about their ETO collegues not beeing able to fly P-38 right, as it should be superior to anything in the air.
P-47 had it's soft spots and strong sides as any aircraft and it was tactics what made it worthy. The entering of 'down to earth' tactics was by the way a milestone in European campain, just as a year long loss of time in extending P-47 range blocked the possible success of the 8th AF at the beginnig of it's operations.
Re: I'm thinking a P47 woulda been the plane to fly in WWII
Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:30 am
muddyboots wrote:Sounds like he had trouble transitioning to a new fighter. Not the first, won't be the last.
Exactly what I was thinking. I do love the way the A-36 looks though. I always thought they were a beautiful airplane.
aeroeng
Re: I'm thinking a P47 woulda been the plane to fly in WWII
Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:13 am
Zachary wrote:Sounds like Mr. Dills should have had a 9th AF boy show him how it's done!
How ironic you would mention that, Mr. B!
Again, from Charlie Dills:
Before the D-day invasion, it was recognized that a tactical air force was going to have to be trained in the methods that had been developed in Italy. To accomplish this, they sent a number of pilots from the Ninth AF down to fly with us. And we got one of them. I have always felt he was pretty useless, he wouldn't listen and learn...
You'll just have to read his memoirs for yourself!
http://www.charlies-web.com/WWII_med/contentsced4.html
Re: I'm thinking a P47 woulda been the plane to fly in WWII
Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:01 am
Ok Scotty and Mr.Ztex.I realize this should be on the video link page.but it is very appropriate on this link.See the brute in action.sorry if I am making some angry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shsxuauQ ... detailpage
I really enjoy watching the stream of bullets weaving back and forth and sometimes in a circle as the pilot is standing on the rudder pedals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shsxuauQ ... detailpage
I really enjoy watching the stream of bullets weaving back and forth and sometimes in a circle as the pilot is standing on the rudder pedals
Re: I'm thinking a P47 woulda been the plane to fly in WWII
Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:04 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0WQV-f-dV8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owwUq7yirfE&feature=related
My friend Burt is kneeling and holding the prop. Bob Johnson is standing next to him giving a lesson.
Evan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owwUq7yirfE&feature=related
My friend Burt is kneeling and holding the prop. Bob Johnson is standing next to him giving a lesson.
Evan
Re: I'm thinking a P47 woulda been the plane to fly in WWII
Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:52 pm
This thing about P-47 formations is you always know which way they're going...
-Tim
-Tim