P-51 H

Shay · **Posted:** Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:56 pm

Here's my question.

If the "H" model was supposed to be the elite rendition of the North American Mustang, then why did the USAF recall the "D" models to fight in the Korean conflict and not the "H" models?

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

Saabmeister · **Joined:** Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:56 pm **Posts:** 170

Not quite as rugged? Too few built and too few spares?

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:26 pm

Quote:

If the "H" model was supposed to be the elite rendition of the North American Mustang, then why did the USAF recall the "D" models to fight in the Korean conflict and not the "H" models?

Quite a number of P-51 squadrons in Japan. Some had converted to F-80s but reconverted after the war started. 35th FIW, 8th FIW and the 18th FIW.

Mark Nankivil · **Posted:** Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:41 pm

Greetings -

As I recall, the H model Mustang was geared more towards interception/escort duties. As noted by Sabmeister, the D was far more plentiful and likely more suited to ground attack than the H (see http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_13.html ).

Having said that, I've always thought it was big mistake to go with P-51Ds and not P-47s in the postwar, fighter/ground attack type roles. The T-Bolt is far more suited to that role and the types of losses seen iin Korea would attest to that.

HTH! Mark

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:14 pm

I think the H may have not been as reliable as the D. Why didn't we use Skyraiders for the low altitude attacks? I know we had some because a friend, Lt John Reynolds flew them off the Bon Homme Richard. He had a photo of standing back on the carrier deck with a big flak hole in the lower cowling of his AD engine. He was 21 and his wingman was shot down, but did survive the war.

Tigercat · **Joined:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:54 am **Posts:** 288

Mark,

I really agree with you regarding the use of P-47's (F-47's) in the ground attack role during the Korean conflict. I think the T-Bolts would have kicked a**!!

TimAPNY · **Posted:** Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:25 pm

Bill Greenwood wrote:

I think the H may have not been as reliable as the D. Why didn't we use Skyraiders for the low altitude attacks? I know we had some because a friend, Lt John Reynolds flew them off the Bon Homme Richard. He had a photo of standing back on the carrier deck with a big flak hole in the lower cowling of his AD engine. He was 21 and his wingman was shot down, but did survive the war.

I think the Navy had the corner on the Skyraider market at that time. I could be wrong but I don't think the Air Force started to take some until several years later. I think it was in the early 60's before they took some off the hands of the Navy to use.

I never thought about the P-47 over the P-51 in Korea, that is a great What if...

Tim

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:49 pm

Having a round engine and toting a bunch of bombs was no guarantee of success. B-26s, ADs and F4Us took plenty of losses. I don't think F-51s loss ratio was any greater. 2 1000 Lb bombs, 6 rockets and 6 .50s is a pretty good payload plus it had a excellent TOT.

marine air · **Posted:** Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:09 pm

"The F-51D had the worst combat loss record of all U.S.combat aircraft in the Korean War." That is mainly because of it's ground attack role, and it's water cooled engine. The P-47's in WW II and the F4U's in both wars also suffered heavily because below 3,000 feet every guy on the ground is firing his rifle at you and occasionally they got a lucky hit.
In Korea they fixed the tailwheel in the down position, and had bulky rocket rails, making the P-51 even slower down low.
"You go to war with the Army you have not the army you want." recently quoted by Don Rumsfeld last year. In Korea MacArthur went on the offensive so rapidly(against Truman's will) that they had to grab WWII jeeps, trucks and equipment from Japan and even from some of the Pacific Islands left over from 6 years earlier. The P-51D was still a standard frontline fighter as the jets still had major teething problems.
My vote would have been for the F4U Corsair for all services in the ground attack role!

Stratofortressflyer · **Posted:** Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:15 pm

One of the main reason the USAF went with the F-51 was the fact that they were still in use with National Guard units back in the states. All of the P-47s had been sold to third world countries or were being scrapped. Like the B-24 the P-47 did not have much of a future after the war, unlike the Mustang and the B-17 which managed to find other venues like air-sea rescue and fire fighting.

The Mustangs bottom mounted radiator made it extremly vulnerable to ground fire, one hole in the water line and your toast.

Shay · **Posted:** Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:27 pm

marine air wrote:

In Korea they fixed the tailwheel in the down position

I had never heard of this. What was the reasoning behind this?

It is curious that the Thunderbolt wasn't considered for the ground attack role for in Korea. It would seem that the P-47 would have been a rugged able "Bull Dawg" do low in the dirt. Not to mention that they were still on hand up til 1955

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

Shay · **Posted:** Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:30 pm

Stratofortressflyer wrote:

All of the P-47s had been sold to third world countries or were being scrapped.

From Joe Baugher website regarding the P-47 post-war in the ANG

Quote:

The Air National Guard operated P-47s between 1946 and 1955. Originally, the post-war ANG units east of the Mississippi were to operate P-47s and those to the west were to fly P-51s. This plan was generally adhered to, although there were exceptions:

The following ANG units operated Thunderbolts:

101st Fighter Squadron, Massachusetts ANG
104th Fighter Squadron, Maryland ANG
105th Fighter Squadron, Tennessee ANG
118th Fighter Squadron, Connecticut ANG
121st Fighter Squadron, District of Columbia ANG
128th Fighter Squadron, Georgia ANG
131st Fighter Squadron, Massachusetts ANG
132nd Fighter Squadron, Maine ANG, Dow AFB.
133rd Fighter Squadron, New Hampshire ANG
134th Fighter Squadron, Vermont ANG
136th Fighter Squadron, New York ANG
141st Fighter Squadron, New Jersey ANG
142nd Fighter Squadron, Delaware ANG
143rd Fighter Squadron, Rhode Island ANG
146th Fighter Squadron, Pennsylvania ANG
149th Fighter Squadron, Virginia ANG
153rd Fighter Squadron, Mississippi ANG
156th Fighter Squadron, North Carolina ANG
157th Fighter Squadron, South Carolina ANG
158th Fighter Squadron, Georgia ANG
166th Fighter Squadron, Ohio ANG
167th Fighter Squadron, West Virginia ANG
198th Fighter Squadron, Puerto Rico ANG
199th Fighter Squadron, Hawaii ANG

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:40 pm

approx loses in Korea were

P-51 375
AD 310
F4U 560
B-26 160

ANG P-51 did have the tail wheels locked down but were fully operational in Korea.
At the start of the Korean War in 1950 most 51 units had already converted to F-80s
and flew their first missions from Johnson AB before reconverting back to 51s and going to Korea.

Stratofortressflyer · **Posted:** Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:07 am

I also remember something about there not being enough P-47 parts available to keep up with the wartime demand. Ill have to check my book on F-51 Units in Korea to be sure.

I agree that the P-47 would have been a better choice for Korea

AvroAvian · **Posted:** Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:38 am

I read somewhere that it had more to do with North American Aviation telling the Airforce that if they wanted the F86 developed in a timely manner, the Airforce had to use the P51's.

Warbird Information Exchange

P-51 H

Who is online