Aircraft Pic & Vid Thread

[Eric]

2 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

 We have Thunderbolt II

and Lightning II

but the Mustang II was a POS

Yeah, maybe they didn't want to sully their aircraft by associating it with that OPEC-inspired abortion.

[gwalchmai]

1 hour ago, Eric said:

Ask Admiral Yamamoto what he thinks of the P-38. The P-38s reached him and swatted him out of the sky, when nothing else we had available could do it. They didn't just shoot him down. They put two fifty-cal rounds in him.

The P-38 was kicking ass long before the Mustang got into the fight.

Well, yeah, but, then again, no. The first RAF Mustangs flew over France in May, 1942, and the first Lightnings flew operationally in the Aleutians in, well, May, 1942. As far as "kicking ass" you gotta define it. Lightnings produced Bong, McGuire, and MacDonald, but more Mustang aces shot down more bad guys. So it winds up being a wash. I've said it before - I love the P-38, but in hindsight the US would have been better off just producing Mustangs (and Hs from the start, since we have that hindsight thing). For that matter, we'd have done fine without T-Bolts, Liberators, and Corsairs, too. (GD&R)

 

[gwalchmai]

1 hour ago, Dric902 said:

Why the F-16 or F-15 we’re not named the Mustang is beyond me

Because Consolidated and McDonald don't name stuff after their competitors.

[gwalchmai]

1 hour ago, Dric902 said:

 We have Thunderbolt II

and Lightning II

but the Mustang II was a POS

T-Bolt II was made by Republic-Fairchild

Lightning II was made by Lockheed

They're kinda protective of those names.

[tous]

3 minutes ago, gwalchmai said:

Because Consolidated and McDonald don't name stuff after their competitors.

We didn't make hamburgers!

[gwalchmai]

How about a Thunderbolt McSally:

10 minutes ago, tous said:

We didn't make hamburgers!

McDonnell, MacDonald - Goldberg, Iceberg.

Edited August 17, 2019 by gwalchmai

[Eric]

18 hours ago, gwalchmai said:

Well, yeah, but, then again, no. The first RAF Mustangs flew over France in May, 1942, and the first Lightnings flew operationally in the Aleutians in, well, May, 1942. As far as "kicking ass" you gotta define it. Lightnings produced Bong, McGuire, and MacDonald, but more Mustang aces shot down more bad guys. So it winds up being a wash. I've said it before - I love the P-38, but in hindsight the US would have been better off just producing Mustangs (and Hs from the start, since we have that hindsight thing). For that matter, we'd have done fine without T-Bolts, Liberators, and Corsairs, too. (GD&R)

 

Come on now. The Brits started combat operations with the P-51 in Mid 1942, but in a recon and ground attack roll, not as a fighter. I’m sure you know why. The US did not start receiving P-51s powered with the Rolls Royce Merlin engine, built under license by Packard, until late 1943. Those Mustangs did not start escorting bombers until early 1944. 

The P-38 design process started in 1937 and the first prototype flew in January of 1939, about a year before the Brit purchase order got the ball rolling on the Mustang. The P-38 attack on Yamamoto occurred about a year before the first Americans flew Mustangs into aerial combat.

By the end of 1944, the Mustang was a better fighter, but it wasn’t a better fighter for a good part of the war. By the time the jury was in on the Mustang, the P-38 had already been in production and combat for a long time. It would have been foolish to stop its production in favor of the Mustang. The R&D was done and factories were tooled to crank them out. The P-38 has the distinction of being the only American fighter aircraft in full-scale production from before Pearl Harbor, to after Victory Over Japan Day. Shortly after the end of the war, orders for more than 1,800 additional Lightnings were cancelled.

There are a lot of reasons that stopping production of other aircraft in favor of P-51 would have been a non-starter. I think those reasons are mostly self-evident and I won’t go into them. I really do love both the Mustang and the Lightning and I believe that both were vital to the war effort. 

[Dric902]

17 hours ago, Eric said:

Come on now. The Brits started combat operations with the P-51 in Mid 1942, but in a recon and ground attack roll, not as a fighter. I’m sure you know why. The US did not start receiving P-51s powered with the Rolls Royce Merlin engine, built under license by Packard, until late 1943. Those Mustangs did not start escorting bombers until early 1944. 

The P-38 design process started in 1937 and the first prototype flew in January of 1939, about a year before the Brit purchase order got the ball rolling on the Mustang. The P-38 attack on Yamamoto occurred about a year before the first Americans flew Mustangs into aerial combat.

By the end of 1944, the Mustang was a better fighter, but it wasn’t a better fighter for a good part of the war. By the time the jury was in on the Mustang, the P-38 had already been in production and combat for a long time. It would have been foolish to stop its production in favor of the Mustang. The R&D was done and factories were tooled to crank them out. The P-38 has the distinction of being the only American fighter aircraft in full-scale production from before Pearl Harbor, to after Victory Over Japan Day. Shortly after the end of the war, orders for more than 1,800 additional Lightnings were cancelled.

There are a lot of reasons that stopping production of other aircraft in favor of P-51 would have been a non-starter. I think those reasons are mostly self-evident and I won’t go into them. I really do love both the Mustang and the Lightning and I believe that both were vital to the war effort. 

All of them did one thing

...beat the **** out of the competition

 

.

[janice6]

1 minute ago, Dric902 said:

All of them did one thing

...beat the **** out of the competition

 

.

My money will always be on American pilots and their training!

[Dric902]

4 minutes ago, janice6 said:

My money will always be on American pilots and their training!

Very much 

but R&D did have a lot to do with it too

.

[janice6]

On 8/18/2018 at 9:47 PM, crockett said:

There's appreciation and then there is simply loveable!

[janice6]

6 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

Very much 

but R&D did have a lot to do with it too

.

American pilot training has had them providing a good accounting of themselves against better performing aircraft.  Training money is the best cost in military aircraft.

[gwalchmai]

17 hours ago, Eric said:

Come on now. The Brits started combat operations with the P-51 in Mid 1942, but in a recon and ground attack roll, not as a fighter. I’m sure you know why. The US did not start receiving P-51s powered with the Rolls Royce Merlin engine, built under license by Packard, until late 1943. Those Mustangs did not start escorting bombers until early 1944. 

The P-38 design process started in 1937 and the first prototype flew in January of 1939, about a year before the Brit purchase order got the ball rolling on the Mustang. The P-38 attack on Yamamoto occurred about a year before the first Americans flew Mustangs into aerial combat.

By the end of 1944, the Mustang was a better fighter, but it wasn’t a better fighter for a good part of the war. By the time the jury was in on the Mustang, the P-38 had already been in production and combat for a long time. It would have been foolish to stop its production in favor of the Mustang. The R&D was done and factories were tooled to crank them out. The P-38 has the distinction of being the only American fighter aircraft in full-scale production from before Pearl Harbor, to after Victory Over Japan Day. Shortly after the end of the war, orders for more than 1,800 additional Lightnings were cancelled.

There are a lot of reasons that stopping production of other aircraft in favor of P-51 would have been a non-starter. I think those reasons are mostly self-evident and I won’t go into them. I really do love both the Mustang and the Lightning and I believe that both were vital to the war effort. 

No, not "stop Lightning production in favor of the developing Mustang", but rather "never produce the Lightning at all, in favor a Merlin Mustangs (again hindsight)". Don't forget that the P-38 didn't become the good plane it was until the late J model, and really the L. We're talking 1944, when the D Mustangs were ramped up. Lightnings were never really a factor in the ETO due to their engine problems, despite the valiant efforts of their pilots. 

But they're mighty purty.

[gwalchmai]

11 hours ago, Dric902 said:

All of them did one thing

...beat the **** out of the competition

 

.

You hit the nail there. The Lightning didn't win the war. Nor the Mustang, nor the T-Bolt, Corsair, Hellcat, or Fortress. What won the war was the industrial capacity and manufacturing flexibility of the US military-industrial complex. ALL of the weapons. If one weapon system didn't work out another could be ramped up in a matter of months that would work out. We could have won with enough P-40s and Wildcats, and Soviet blood.

Razor blades and motorcars, Meyer. Razor blades and motorcars.

Edited August 18, 2019 by gwalchmai

[Eric]

1 hour ago, gwalchmai said:

No, not "stop Lightning production in favor of the developing Mustang", but rather "never produce the Lightning at all, in favor a Merlin Mustangs (again hindsight)". Don't forget that the P-38 didn't become the good plane it was until the late J model, and really the L. We're talking 1944, when the D Mustangs were ramped up. Lightnings were never really a factor in the ETO due to their engine problems, despite the valiant efforts of their pilots. 

But they're mighty purty.

That doesn’t make any sense. The Lightning came first. The Lightning was in full production before the start of the war. They fixed the problems it had along the way. How could they have not produced it at all, in favor of a plane that hadn’t been built yet?

[gwalchmai]

1 hour ago, Eric said:

That doesn’t make any sense. The Lightning came first. The Lightning was in full production before the start of the war. They fixed the problems it had along the way. How could they have not produced it at all, in favor of a plane that hadn’t been built yet?

Because we're playing a what-if game. I don't really care for what-if games but I say if you're going to play you should play full-bore.

Your original point, if I may be so bold, was that the P-38 was a great plane. I agreed, but noted that it wasn't better than the P-51 and added many more points of failure. All fighter planes are compromises, the Lightning and Mustang included.

The P-38 of 1941 was not a viable option for the European war. Too big, unable to dogfight head-to-head with 109s and 190s, and unable to deal with the Brit AVGAS (not to even mention the compressibility issue and frostbitten feet). Sure, it developed into a great plane, but if we're talking about the L model we must compare it to P-51Ds (which cost half as much to produce).

Edited August 18, 2019 by gwalchmai

[Eric]

1 hour ago, gwalchmai said:

Because we're playing a what-if game. I don't really care for what-if games but I say if you're going to play you should play full-bore.

Your original point, if I may be so bold, was that the P-38 was a great plane. I agreed, but noted that it wasn't better than the P-51 and added many more points of failure. All fighter planes are compromises, the Lightning and Mustang included.

The P-38 of 1941 was not a viable option for the European war. Too big, unable to dogfight head-to-head with 109s and 190s, and unable to deal with the Brit AVGAS (not to even mention the compressibility issue and frostbitten feet). Sure, it developed into a great plane, but if we're talking about the L model we must compare it to P-51Ds (which cost half as much to produce).

What if we had just built ICBMs and MIRVed the ******* into the Stone Age? 

The comparison you are trying to make is fallacious. These are two completely different types of aircraft and they each had a purpose. They were not interchangeable, or at least completely interchangeable. The P-51 was a better air superiority fighter. Eventually. The P-38 had two engines, which was an advantage for long flights over water. In some models, it carried cannon as big as 37mm in its nose. It routinely carried four .50s and a 20mm cannon. It had four times the bomb payload of the Mustang.

The Lightning was a versatile aircraft. Keep in mind that the P-38 was not designed to be a fighter though. It was designed to be a bomber interceptor. The fact that is was as good a fighter as it was is a testament to the aircraft. The Lightning didn’t do well for several reasons in Europe, early on, but it shot down more Japanese fighters than any other aircraft.

The Mustang ended up being a superior fighter. I said that yesterday. It was an inherently inferior ground attack aircraft though. Armaments aside, the oil and coolant systems under its belly were vulnerable to ground fire. 

My point is not to set one aircraft above the other, but to point out that they both had a roll to fill and that they really were not interchangeable.

[gwalchmai]

34 minutes ago, Eric said:

What if we had just built ICBMs and MIRVed the ****ers into the Stone Age? 

The comparison you are trying to make is fallacious. These are two completely different types of aircraft and they each had a purpose. They were not interchangeable, or at least completely interchangeable. The P-51 was a better air superiority fighter. Eventually. The P-38 had two engines, which was an advantage for long flights over water. In some models, it carried cannon as big as 37mm in its nose. It routinely carried four .50s and a 20mm cannon. It had four times the bomb payload of the Mustang.

The Lightning was a versatile aircraft. Keep in mind that the P-38 was not designed to be a fighter though. It was designed to be a bomber interceptor. The fact that is was as good a fighter as it was is a testament to the aircraft. The Lightning didn’t do well for several reasons in Europe, early on, but it shot down more Japanese fighters than any other aircraft.

The Mustang ended up being a superior fighter. I said that yesterday. It was an inherently inferior ground attack aircraft though. Armaments aside, the oil and coolant systems under its belly were vulnerable to ground fire. 

My point is not to set one aircraft above the other, but to point out that they both had a roll to fill and that they really were not interchangeable.

Couple of points. No operational P-38s carried 37mm cannon. The larger bomb load is iffy. P-51s could carry 2000lbs of bombs, I've seen figures of P-38s rated for 3200lbs. Both these are extreme loads and if you need to use those planes for that the big thinkers need to re-bigthink.

Both types were equally vulnerable to getting their cooling systems shot out. Maybe the P-38 could limp home on one engine, but it's out of action as far as the mission is concerned. Why not have two P-51s for the same money? That way you get to the target, which is the whole point of building the planes.

You sure about the "shot down more Jap fighters" stat? I seem to recall the Hellcat holding that distinction, but I could be wrong.

[Eric]

45 minutes ago, gwalchmai said:

Couple of points. No operational P-38s carried 37mm cannon. The larger bomb load is iffy. P-51s could carry 2000lbs of bombs, I've seen figures of P-38s rated for 3200lbs. Both these are extreme loads and if you need to use those planes for that the big thinkers need to re-bigthink.

Both types were equally vulnerable to getting their cooling systems shot out. Maybe the P-38 could limp home on one engine, but it's out of action as far as the mission is concerned. Why not have two P-51s for the same money? That way you get to the target, which is the whole point of building the planes.

You sure about the "shot down more Jap fighters" stat? I seem to recall the Hellcat holding that distinction, but I could be wrong.

The P-51 could carry 1,000 pounds total, on two hard points and the P-38 could carry as much as 4,000 pounds, two 2,000-pound bombs. And maybe it was the Hellcat. I don’t know. I should know better than to get sucked in to an online debate like this though. You win. Mustangs for everyone. 

[Dric902]

They were like a boxer fighting a wrestler

the P-51 could run circles around the P-38, but if the P-38 got a hit on the 51 it would be over.

heavy puncher vs agile dancer

Foreman vs Ali

Hagler vs Sugar Ray

 

both are awesome in their niche

 

.

[gwalchmai]

21 minutes ago, Eric said:

The P-51 could carry 1,000 pounds total, on two hard points and the P-38 could carry as much as 4,000 pounds, two 2,000-pound bombs. And maybe it was the Hellcat. I don’t know. I should know better than to get sucked in to an online debate like this though. You win. Mustangs for everyone. 

Later P-51Ds were able to carry a single 1,000lb bomb under each wing. It was an extreme load and couldn't go far. Same for the P-38's extreme load.

Now, my friend (and I call you that because I've "known" you a long time and have learned a lot from you), you need to not let this online jousting get you upset. As a fellow member of the "damn glad it's still ticking club", I realized some time ago that there's always somebody out there who knows something that I don't (it's rare, but it happens) and not sweat it. So just say "That dang Gwalchmai's an idiot", enjoy a cool one, and thank Ben Kelsey for making it possible for us to argue the relative merits of two very nice hunks of aluminium. ?

 

[gwalchmai]

[gwalchmai]

He got around...

 

[Eric]

3 hours ago, gwalchmai said:

He got around...

 

I‘ve heard that mixed-breed offspring are often beautiful. That is one gorgeous aircraft. 

[railfancwb]

You hit the nail there. The Lightning didn't win the war. Nor the Mustang, nor the T-Bolt, Corsair, Hellcat, or Fortress. What won the war was the industrial capacity and manufacturing flexibility of the US military-industrial complex. ALL of the weapons. If one weapon system didn't work out another could be ramped up in a matter of months that would work out. We could have won with enough P-40s and Wildcats, and Soviet blood.
Razor blades and motorcars, Meyer. Razor blades and motorcars.

Since 1945 there has been an ever increasing crescendo of manufacturing capacity leaving the States. Where once we manufactured tens of thousands of fighter planes we do well today to make tens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk