There's just so much one can cover.... But thanks for pointing it out.

I agree, especially these two aircraft. The Honduran Corsair was the main reason my father became a fighter pilots and served in the Honduran air force from 1974-2004. If you ever tackle anything from latin america I'd love to help!

Thanx. It may be worth an article. What do you know other than that the Corsair and Mustang served in Central American and a few Caribbean air forces until the late 60s or early 70s?

Alex, see my reply and contact me through my website. Thanx.

With certainty within Central America, to the best of my knowledge only Honduras and El Salvador had Corsair. El Salvador had the Good year versions, ours were Korean war veterans. Prior to operating the F4U-4 /-5, Honduras also operated 5 P-38 Js and 5 P-63E. Unfortuantely my father did not have an oportunity to fly the Corsairs since he was still a cadet. He eventually flew almost every jet in the Honduran airforce and Turbo props (T-33A, A-37B, C-101, F-86E, Super Mystere B.2, F-5E/F, C-47D, T-28A...and many more.)@@marcliebman3847

The P-47 was specifically built for high altitude fighting and broke the back of the Luftwaffe. The P-47 could go to Berlin and back.

@@OPFlyFisher304 Sorry, but I don't think so, not even with droptanks. P-38 G and H model could, but they had serious multiple issues at the ETO in 1943 (J and L didn't, but when they were ready the P-51B/C was already available at half price). P-47D had a great high altitude performance and tough built for low level fight, but the range was about 'one and a half Spitfire'.

@@Cuccos19 Your wrong. The P-47 could and did fly to Berlin and back. The P-47 broke the back of the Luftwaffe. I have Primary sources I will hit you with shortly about the range of the P-47, hang tight.

@@Cuccos19 Sorry, but here: The distance from London to Berlin 568 miles. Capt William H Strand 40th FS/35 FG in the Pacific Theater: “Through experimentation, it has been found that the P-47D-28 with three drop tanks is perfectly capable of escort or fighter sweeps of 800 miles (radius), but in this the fighter tactics as a group must be changed to some extent.” Capt Leroy V Grosshuesch 39th FS/35th FG “A pilot has to know his aeroplane. He must know what it can do against the enemy. He must also know how to operate it efficiently. We have stretched our range in the P-47D-16, P-47D-21, and P-47D-23 to a 750 mile radius of action. Take 1500 miles, add to that a good 15 minute fight, and you have to watch your step to stretch that gasoline supply.” “Twelve to One” V Fighter Command Aces of the Pacific. Of course both of these fine gents would have rather had p-38s back. But there was a shortage, everyone was asking for them.

They had drop tanks available for the P 47 in fall of 1943 but general Hap Arnold was part of the bomber mafia and didn’t allow it to happen🥲

Nobody who knows anything about these two great fighters would doubt that, because that "play" would have been at low altitude. Both Mustangs P-51Ds and Corsairs (F4U-5s and AU-1s) were flying at relatively low altitudes in Korea. Below 20,000 feet the Corsair was the better fighter. Higher up, the Mustang was better, and the higher up it went, the Mustang's advantage would have steadily increased. But air combat in the Pacific did not take place at high altitude until B-29s entered the war, so in the Pacific the Corsair was not at a disadvantage with its single-stage supercharger.

@@randallbriggs256 well said. A retired Marine pilot explained that “[i]t didn’t fight well at altitude. But at medium heights and down low, the F4U Corsair was a world-beater.”

@@bobsakamanos4469 Tempest in the ETO.

@@jacktattis correct. Nor could it outfight or outrun a Seafire III at low level. The quote I used was merely to illustrate the Corsair's lack of high alt ability.

BTW, I think that one of the RAF airplanes that gets very little ink is the Typhoon and Tempest. They look similar, but they are very different. Te engine was a beast to maintain and in the early days, tough to maintain.

It was Not that good

Yes, Sea Furies from 802 squadron FAA claimed one Mig-15 destroyed and three damaged on 9th August 1952.

From my observation, the -4 was far superior to any of the -1 versions. The climb, roll, and top speed increases were marked. Mustang would be competitive with the -1s, but the -4? No way.

@@khaccanhle1930 ...The D Mustang still had better High Altitude Performace, much higher Mach number. May want to talk to Chris Fahey at Planes of Fame. Interesting he said the test between the Corsair and Mustang. The Corsair flew on minimal fuel and Mustang was fueled up.

Thanx. And you are right.

Amen!!!

You are correct. thanx.

@@marcliebman3847 You are most welcome!

Most WWII aircraft had aluminum framed and fabric covered wing and tail control surfaces and flaps. If I am remembering correctly British pilot Johnson claimed that when the Spitfire was fitted with aluminum skinned ailerons, it could outturn the older Spits with fabric covered ailerons.

​@@danzervos7606This was definitely the case. The Spitfire Mk V with metal ailerons rolled almost a third faster and at higher speeds than the Mk I and II, of which the vast majority had fabric covered ailerons.

Sorry F4U roll rate 84 d/s tests at Naval Air Station Jul to Sep 44 and Oct 3 44 That is the same as the P47. The P51B -94 d/s, P40F- 95 d/s , Tempest 98d/s, Spit 105 N/W 150 d/s C/W . Fw 190-- 160 d/s The Corsair was better than the Hellcat and Bf109

The answer to your first question is no. I also have a comparison test by the USAAF that came to the same conclusion. Test pilots are taught to evaluate the "data" and the results and keep their personal bias out of the equation. As far as the Reno Air Races, Corsairs were prevalent early on but are much harder to streamline and have a power to weight disadvantage due to the heavier internal structure needed for carrier operations.

Yup....

Hmmm... vertical fin mounted in front of horizontal stabilizer? Reminds me of our present day fighters. 🤔

@@raymonortiz3084, I guess you can't see into what I am saying.

Tacky, tacky, tacky!!! FYI, test pilots are taught to collect the data and the develop analyses. I have a USAAF report from the a few months earlier in which the USAAF tested the Corsair against a P-51C, a P-47 and a stripped P-38. And, I quote the report which used the same words to describe the summary for each comparison, "For close-in dogfighting, the F-4U, is the better airplane." Those words were written by USAAF pilots, not Navy ones.

Then why didn’t they standardizes on the Corsair?

@@marcliebman3847 I doubt that very much

@@mangravy2000 Actually, the Navy did and the process began in 1944. Shortly after the war, the Hellcats were out of the fleet squadrons and the Corsairs were the predominant fighter/fighter/bomber. Look at the air groups in Korea. there's not a Hellcat or Bearcat in sight!

@@jacktattis Guys, One way to look at the P-51 is that until it began flying escort missions in late 1943, the 8th Air Force and the USAAF daylight strategic bombing campaign was in deep trouble. It faced unsustainable losses, morale issues and wasn't very effective. When GEN Doolittle turned the fighters loose to do what they do best, i.e., shoot down other airplanes, suddenly, the Luftwaffe found itself the hunted rather than the hunters. On the other side, the Luftwaffe was overcommitted because it was fighting in Italy, Soviet Union and defending the Reich. It was outnumbered, faced manpower issues, i.e., not enough pilots, fuel shortages - not enough gas for training and/or combat - and its airplanes were now a generation or half a generation behind what the Allies flew. What is rarely covered was that by 1943, the average P-47/P-38/P-51/Spitfire pilot flew his first combat mission with ~350 or more hours in the cockpit. The average Luftwaffe pilot was lucky to have 150. Add in the also undercovered problem the Luftwaffe faced was that safe airspace in which to train new pilots was rapidly disappearing once the P-51 entered combat. Was the P-51 better than what the Luftwaffe could put in the air? Probably. Numbers count and by June 1944, the USAAF could put up more fighters to cover the bombers than the Luftwaffe. However, how a dogfight begins, what's the fuel state of the airplanes, who's in the cockpit, and what tactics he (or she) employs plays a much more important role than which airplane each pilot is flying.

NIT: Roll rate is completely dependent on altitude, and velocity, based by wing rigidity by and ~large. A good rolling aircraft like the Spitfire, Zero at ~250mph are dog shit when rolling at 400mph let alone near their mach limit. P47, Corsair, Sea Fury and all the other MUCH heavier built fighters are in actuality much more maneuverable to the lighter built fighters in a dogfight at speed. Just NEVER get into a low speed dogfight unless you are in a Corsair.

I'm a fan of the P-47 because my dad flew them on his second tour in WWII and it brought him home several times after being shot up on ground attack missions. Yes, the P-47 had a huge advantage in how fast it accelerated in a dive and had a very good roll rate which its pilots used to great advantage. It was the ideal airplane for the dive, shoot, dive away and climb to live another day fight.

@@marcliebman3847 The P-47 could outdive any fighter plane at medium to low altitudes, especially below 10,000 feet. But above 20,000 feet, it had compressibility issues, just like the P-38, due to its huge bulk, and so its dive speed at high altitude was limited, otherwise it would lose control, and German fighters could outdive both the P-47 and P-38 at high altitudes. The KZfaq channel Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles has this huge 8-part series extolling the virtues of the P-47, but here's Eric Brown, famous British test pilot, who actually flew and tested every single fighter plane stating that both the P-38 and P-47 had compressibility problems at high altitude and that was the reason Doolittle switched the 8th Air Force almost entirely to P-51s: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hrmCdMeL37jdk5c.html So, no, it wasn't the P-47's range that limited it. And it wasn't some conspiracy by the "bomber mafia" like Greg's series would have you believe. The big fat fuselage of the P-47 had the same compressibility issues that limited its dive speed at high altitude just like the square boxy twin boom fuselage of the P-38. On the other hand, the sleek and slick airframe of the P-51 had better compressibility numbers than the German fighters. Anyway, I had long wondered what the reason was for the P-47 being rejected in the European Theater, and that video testimony by Eric Brown is pretty much The Smoking Gun Proof of the Real Reason. The P-38's compressibility issues are well known, but the P-47, which logically should have had similar problems slamming into that sonic wall of air because of its bulky size, had never been outed for its compressibility issues. Greg's series even includes this chart which he sort of ignores in his comments, showing the speed limits of the P-47 above 20,000 feet in a dive: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rd2AadSnndCzmH0.html

​@Gandalf Greyhame although I do enjoy Greg's videos, I do agree on your opinion. As far as Greg goes, if it's anything to do with the P47, it's simply the best. Having said that, all these in question were and still are fantastic machines. 😊

@@gandalfgreyhame3425 Wow! Thank you for taking the time to share this information. I watched the recommended videos with a keen interest because I had read the book "Thunderbolt!" by ace pilot Lt Robert S Johnson, and wanted to reconcile the Jug's limitations with the aerial victories of Lt Johnson. Because he did score several kills while chasing his prey in a full power dive from high altitude. In his book, he described how he came out of the plane's compressibility issue a couple of times. I think once in training and once in battle. My best guess is that he learned to catch his targets in a dive before he hit that critical point of losing control of his plane. Now that's flying skills already. As far as compressibility being the main reason for the 8th AF switch to the P-51, I still tend to think it was the range issue of the Jug that motivated that. Lt Johnson described how his fellow fighter pilots would cuss in frustration at seeing those axis fighters move in on the bombers as soon as they had to turn back because of low fuel. Keep in mind those bombers still had a ways to go before reaching their target. I appreciate the extra knowledge learned from your posting. I'm still a fan of the P-47 though. Maybe because I don't see them as often as I do the Mustangs. Lol! 👋😊

I'll let you fly the cheaper aircraft that one bullet can take down...

Exactly that was the first requirement for making the Corsair location of the oil coolers. Gregg explains that into detail at the 14:11 mark kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qLSTiZRk2sfdqKs.html

You will note that the wing fuselage junction on the F6F was also 90 degrees and for the same reason.

@@bobharrison7693 nope

Hyrum, you have to divide the IJN's performance in two parts, i.e. before January 1943 and after that date. Reason is that by then, the experienced aviators in the IJN were decimated either by death or disease. Only a few were brought back to Japan to share their experience with new pilots. Add in the fuel and material shortages faced by Japan thanx to the submarine campaign and by a pilot training program that was as barbaric as it was inflexible and archaic prevented the Japanese from generating high quality pilots. I say this over and over again, by mid-1943, the average Luftwaffe pilot and IJN aviator taking off on his first combat sortie had, if he was lucky, 150 hours of flight time. His counterpart win the USAAF/USN/USMC/RAF had around 350 AND he just spent the last 50 - 75 hours flying the type he'd fly in combat and being taught by combat experienced instructors. Earlier in the war, both the Luftwaffe and the IJN had pilots who had flown in Spain or against the Chinese. And while the quality of the opposition was often low, the experience gave them confidence. However, after the Battle of the Coral Sea, the exchange ratio began to favor the USN thanx to tactics, the airplanes themselves and training. And, by 1943, many of the experienced German pilots were being killed or disabled and the Luftwaffe couldn't replace them fast enough. While the Battle of Britain was a tactical draw and a strategic victory for the RAF, the losses they caused were the beginning of the end for the Luftwaffe which, from June 1941 through the end of the war was stretched well past the breaking point as it tried to defend Germany, fight in North Africa and Italy, over France and Norway and of course in Russia.

@@marcliebman3847 Thank you, Marc!

While you are directionally correct in stating that the U.S. and other countries were involved in the development of more efficient airfoils, NAA did not settle pick a specific airfoil section until they had a contract to design the Army Cooperation Fighter for the RAF in April, 1940. that's when the RAF Purchasing Commission contacted NAA to design a replacement for the P-40. So, while there may have been conceptual drawings of what became the Mustang I before that, I've not seen any. At the time (April 1940) NAA's chief designer "Dutch" Kindelberger was already familiar with some of the "issues" facing the RAF when he led the design time to create what is known as NA-73. He also borrowed liberally from work done by Curtiss Wright in their attempt to design a successor to the P-40. Most historians use the April date as the official start date of the design of the Mustang !. The other aspects followed since other firms were also working on improving systems, armament and engines. One last point. Kindelberger was designing an airplane to the RAF's specifications for an "Army Cooperation Fighter," not what became the P-51. The U.S.A.A.F. bought a limited number of Mustang Is and called it the A-36. It was the RAF and a few clever folks in the RAF and Rolls-Royce who bolted a turbocharged Merlin engine onto a Mustang I and voila, you had the prototype for what became the P-51B/C that the U.S.A.A.F. needed to be kicked in the butt to buy.

@@marcliebman3847 "directionally correct". That's a new one, but I'll take it. Regarding the wing design, Ed Horkey was beavering away at that very quietly (I forget which wind tunnel, but it was away from the one shared with other corps) with his mentor from GALCIT IIRC. NACA's Jacobs was only instrumental in providing the airfoil. The actual wing had to be developed and that was Horkey's job. It also had to be designed for efficient production engineering requirements (something Kindelberger learned from Willie), and it was certainly started prior to Apr '40. They also had a backup wing planned of a more conventional airfoil, since no aircraft had yet flown with the "laminar" wing. As far as the overall fuselage design, it evolved with the Meredith effect in mind, starting with the P-500 (late 1939), but concurrent with the P-509 designed around the Allison engine, so obviously it was a low level Army Coop Fighter, but with good range. I did not say or infer that the original design was the P-51B. BTW the Mustang I is not the same as the A-36. As for the Curtiss P-46 plans purchased by NAA, it told them what not to do. As for what "historians" claim, most of them parrot the "102 day" sales pitch. We now know that was stretching the truth and probably good hyperbole on the part of the media. Yes, the prototype rolled out 102 days after the contract was signed, but the aircraft wasn't "designed" in that time period.

P-51 was some faster above 25,000'. The F4U-4 was faster than the P-51D at all altitudes.

Yup. One of the mods included in Program Dog was to lengthen the seat rails so the pilot could raise the seat as high (with the limits of adjustment) as he wanted. When I sat in an F-4U-4, I could raise it so my nose was even with the top of the canopy rail and I'm 5'10" on a good day.

@@marcliebman3847 The B model P-51 was tight on 6 footers like you. The C with its "Malcom" hood helped but still didnt completely fix the problem. The D's bubble was supposed to fix it all but they found out increasing headroom an inch had drastic effects on speed, so they couldn't go but so far. D model pilots still have to momentarily duck their head when opening and closing the canopy. The 440 bookspeed was in B models the D was never as fast. But it didnt matter to slow down a 51 a bit, America had Air Superiority over Germany by then. Of course any bitching U.S. Pilot could always sit down in an Me-109 for a brand new outlook and attitude. haha lol

@@Imnotyourdoormat I wish I was six foot tall... On a good day, I might get to 5'9"... Anyway, you're point about the Malcom hood is right on target. The P-51B/Cs were the best performing P-51s. The point that most analysts ignore is that the P-51B/Cs didn't start flying combat missions until December 1943 and the D models didn't show up until around D-Day. By November 1943, the Luftwaffe was way overstretched and newly trained pilots had 150 hours a flight time versus those coming from the states had, after their operational training unit experience, 350+. Combine better trained pilots with better airplanes and a Luftwaffe that was over stressed and short on fuel and you wind up with air superiority.

@@marcliebman3847 Yep, all good points. Those drop tank mounts you spoke of slowed the Mustang down 30mph. One time in an interview I saw Don Blakeslee say, "It really got bad over there, I dont know how much training those poor young pilots had but it wasnt much." A 109s cockpit was so small and restrictive a pilot had to step outside to change his mind. Horrific visibilty too. I never could understand how the "Battle of Britain" was ruled a draw or a tie. Germany slowed down its bombing of England to almost a stop. And England kept bombing them till the end of the war so IMO they won the BOB even if the V-1 and V2s did take their toll later.

@@Imnotyourdoormat Blakeslee was right. By 1944, new Luftwaffe pilots had less than 150 hours of flight time when they flew their first combat mission. It was not just fuel or time, but a lack of "safe" airspace to train. I'm a docent at the Cavanaugh Flight Museum and we have a CASA 109 and the cockpit is downright claustrophobic. The feeling gets worse when the heavy canopy is closed. I think most historians will say the Battle of Britain was a strategic victory and also a tactical one. The Germans stopped because their loss rate was unacceptable and without air superiority, the invasion of England could never succeed. This gave England some breathing room to recoup their losses, re-equip and retrain their shattered army while the Royal Navy focused on the Battle of the Atlantic which, until about 1941 could have gone either way. The bombing of Germany kept going until the end of the war because it was part of the Allied strategy of total war. It was designed never to give the Germans any respite. Its effectiveness has been debated ever since the war.

I don't know and it wasn't explained in the test report nor is it anywhere in the archives Patuxent River and Naval Flight testing of that period.

@@marcliebman3847 thanks

No..

Not sure I can go there. to make a realistic comparison, one has to compare sortie loss rates. Here's why. the Corsair flew CAS missions from day one to day end of the Korean War. USAF P-51s were withdrawn by the end of 1951. Therefore, one could assume that the Corsairs flew more sorties than the USAF P-51s. I haven't done the analysis, but my guess is that the loss rate/sortie would favor the Corsair.

@@marcliebman3847 KORWAR Statistics developed with others including Cookie Sewell. I was a small part of the development of KW stats. P51's were in Pusan and were active from day 1 flying as many as 7 sorties a day. Shooting down the first NK air attacks.

I'd love to see the analysis.

@@marcliebman3847 I gave you the place to view it all. May want to look up Mustang and Corsair Korean war. One other issue we claimed shooting down 850 Mig 15's. THey shot down close to 1500 UN aircraft. For ever one Mig was shot doen at least one ALied Jet was shot doen. Love busting myths how exceptional we were in Korea. It was a bloody war that fought to a draw.

@@FeiHuWarhawk You left out mismanaged by a succession of authors and an overly cautious Truman administration.

Theoretical speed almost never happens for a multitude of factors. Everyone publishes war emergency power when in reality 99% of fighting and cruising is not done there and the fight already has finished before one even gets up to highest level speed anyways and here dive Mach limit is more a factor than anything else. They finally figured this out late in WWII and the P51 started cruising at ~400mph, but by then the war was over.

Based on performance numbers, no. Too many comparison tests say the Corsair is superior to the Hellcat which is why the Hellcats were gone from the fleet and in the reserves by 1947 and Corsairs were on the decks in front line air groups until the end of the Korean War. However, the airplanes are close enough in performance that the pilot in the Hellcat can beat a pilot in the Corsair. (1) how the fight starts; (2) skill levels of the pilot; (3) what tactics do they use; (4) how much fuel and ammo is on board each plane; (5) material condition of the plane, i.e. is the engine in either tired and nearing overhaul or brand new? (6) fatigue level, i.e. have either been droning through the sky for hours or just took off or is this the pilot's third sortie of the day.

let's leave it at the fact the Mustang outperformed the German fighters its pilots faced and it could fly a long way. What most don't take into consideration was the precipitous decline in the skill level of the average German pilot by the end of 1943. By then, the Luftwaffe had a core of very experienced pilots (lets call them aces) and far more pilots with little or no experience. The aces were slowly being whittled down since the odds of surviving 6 years of war were not in their favor. Plus, by the end of the war, the Luftwaffe was sending pilots into combat with less than 100 hours of flight time.

@@marcliebman3847 Well said.....it was a great vid. I enjoyed your 190 video aswell👍

The answer to high altitude performance was the F4U-4.

My point about the piece is that after formal tests by their own pilots, both the AF and the Navy judged to the Corsair to be a better fighter in a dogfight. Both airplanes were outstanding fighters of the day and lived to fight another war (Korea). Now we can get into how the fight starts, quals, and skills of the pilot, but its not germane. Kill ratios have to be taken into context of the war in which the airplane spent most of its time in combat. E.G., in the Pacific, in the largest naval air battle of the war, the U.S. launched about 600 planes at the Japanese carriers during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. The Japanese sent 450. That's just over a thousand. But in the Pacific, large strikes either from land bases or carriers didn't happen until the end of the war. And, they didn't occur every day. Go to the ETO and in 1943 - 1944, thousand plane raids occurred almost every day. My point is that pilots flying P-38s, P-47s and P-51 were met by large numbers of German fighters. The numbers diminished as the war progressed as it did in the Pacific. Second point, for reason known only to USAAF leaders, they began giving credit for kills for airplanes shot up on the ground. the Navy/Marine Corps didn't. The result is the USAAF kills are skewed somewhat. Most sources say these kills represent about 20% of the scores.

@@marcliebman3847 I concur with you.

interesting thoughts. There were several Japanese fighters that appeared in limited numbers at the end of the war that approached, maybe equalled the Corsair. However, to get on my list, the planes have to have been built in sufficient quantities to be a factor, e.g. the Me-262. While not a piston engined fighter, it was a game changer even though 1430 were built, but probably less than 100 actually saw combat. Another was the Do-335. It had eye-watering performance but only 37 were built. So, but this rule, the Ki-84, TA-152, and others don't make the list. The YAK-9 was probably the best of the Soviet Designed fighters but were shot down by P-51 and F4Us in Korea. One last point. Training, tactics and the pilots skill often can count for more than aircraft performance. Another vital factor is how the fight starts. So, while this is an interesting discussion, when it is "fight's on," I will take the person at the controls who has the best training and who can fly his/her airplane to its limits as he/she employs better tactics.

The F4F, F6F and F4U all had two speed, two stage superchargers . The F4U-1's top speed was right around 400 MPH, not 445 MPH.

​@@duanespyer217 He is probably quoting the speed for the -4.

All F4U models had 2 stage/2 speed R-2800s. The first operational fighter with a 2 speed/2 stage engine was the F4F with the R-1830. The F4U-1 was at least as good at altitude as was the FW-190.

The P51 B and C were identical, it was just a designation based in which of the 2 factories the were made. NONE of the B, C and D had Allison engines. ONLY the A version had the Allison. So, to compare the B, C, D mustangs is reasonable. They were quite close in performance.

Tom, you might want to read more about Col Hitchcock and his efforts to get the USAAF to buy the Merlin Engined Mustang 1s. The RAF/RR converted two, flew them and wanted to buy more and asked the U.S. to allow North American to build the airplane with a Merlin or a RR licensed engine.. At first, the USAAF, after flying the airplane decided against buying a Merlin engined Mustang I which was similar to the USAAF A-36. Hitchcock persisted and the rest is history. The RAF and RR had a huge impact on turning the Mustang I into what became the P-51B/C. Even then, the first P-51B/Cs didn't fly their first combat sorties until December 1943!

Yes it did.

No, the RAF liked and used the P-51A until the end of the war. It was very good at low level intrusion and fighter sweeps. As for the P-40, it was only mediocre against the LW 109s and 190s, but were helped by having top cover from late 1942 onwards in the MTO.

Todd, Thanx for your note. FYI, Ranger made two delivery trips to Africa. The first in May 1942 brought 68 P40Es that were flown to Accra, Ghana and then to the 23rd Fighter Group (the AVG) in China. The second trip in June 1942 brought 72 P-40Es of the 57th Fighter Group to Accra and these airplanes were flown to Egypt where they participated in the Battle of El Alamein. These airplanes gave a good account of themselves against the Me-109s in North Africa. There are many wive's tales about the origins of the P-51. However, the RAF bolted a Merlin 61 onto two of their Mustang Is with the permission of North American. they didn't need permission of the US since the airplanes were originally designed and built by NA for the RAF. The reason behind the RAF move was that the Mustang I was a dog above 10,000 feet when compared to its Spitfires and Hurricanes and easy meat for Luftwaffe Me-109s and FW-190s. The USAAF in England didn't think they needed the modified Mustang I because at that time, the 8th AF was king and the USAAF still thought the bombers could get through. Also, by that time, the P-47s and P-38s were beginning to arrive in quantity. It took "aggressive" efforts by the USAAF's air attache in London to get the USAAF to take a look at the modified fighter. He was supported by the two USAAF pilots who the RAF let fly it. None other than Hap Arnold admitted that it was the USAAF's own fault that it it didn't adopt the fighter earlier. The first P-51B/Cs didn't enter combat until December 1943.

@@marcliebman3847 The book "Citizens of London" by Lynne Olson has a good account of US Air Liason Maj. Tommy Hitchcock's efforts to convince General Arnold of the value of a Merlin powered Mustang. Arnold repeatedly turned a deaf ear to Hitchcock's entreaties. In fact, Arnold also refused to authorize the development of drop tanks for the P-47. Finally the very real possibility of the 8th Air Force's daylight bombing campaign being suspended due to losses forced Arnold's hand. As for admitting blame...in Arnold's autobiography he mentions the P-51 once.

An oil tanker converted to a light carrier, the USS Chenango CVE-28, delivered a mixed bunch of long and short-tailed p-40Fs during Operation Torch.

@@IncogNito-gg6uh You are correct. Until they landed in North Africa, the Ranger and four other CVEs provided all the air cover and close air support.

Well the fact is that the Brits took two Mustang Is and bolted two different versions of the Merlin in the nose and then modified the cowling. The Merlins transformed the airplane and the RAF was getting ready to buy some while at the same time they tried to convince the USAAF to buy the airplane. The initial USAAF reaction was we have the P-47 and P-38 and we don't need it and this was after they flew the airplane. and this was after several USAAF pilots flew the modified Mustang !. It took the intervention of the USAAF's liaison officer to the RAF with Hap Arnold and others to convince the USAAF to buy what became the P-51B/C. So call it what you want, but if it wasn't for the RAF, the P-51 may never have been built.

Amazing Aircraft...❤

Politics had nothing to do with Corsairs not being used in Europe. Its best altitude was way below the altitude that the USAAF's heavy bombers flew to their targets and back.

And your point is? That's a theoretical number.... The P-40 is a straight wing airplane with an airfoil whose induced drag may limit its top speed, even if pointed straight down.. Do you have any test reports that document a P-40 reaching that speed, pulling out and the pilot/airplane surviving? Tactically, the P-40 was able to fight the A6M by diving away. O.K. its a tactic in the pilot's tool box. FYI, you might want to look at this chart - www.engineersedge.com/physics/speed_of_sound_13241.htm which gives you the speed of sound on a "standard" day. The chart shows that at 10,000 feet, the speed of sound 733 mph (638 knots). So, if a pilot in a P-40 was dumb enough to dive straight down from 25,000 feet at full throttle, he may get there. Assuming the plane hasn't come apart from the buffeting and he managed to maintain control, then what?

@@marcliebman3847 The numbers don’t lie. Point is Tex Hill would fly head to head with a zero and beat them every time. You could do that with a Corsair but not a p-51, if they didn’t get you from the front, they could get you leaving, the radiators were vulnerable. They all found their niche in the war, and those in charge knew that and used them based on their strength and abilities.

@@marcliebman3847 My grandfather was George Paxton, he once told me he brought the p-40 to over 600 mph when he was hit over China, in his hip and shoulder, he prayed for help to pull it out of the dive which he was able to do and land the plane.

No need to fanboy over P-51. We all enjoy both, as well as Fw190s, 109s, Airacobras and the lot

The Corsairs, especially the -4 and -5 were very good at high altitude. Only the P-47 was significantly better up high.

Sorry, but the Mustang wing was not initially "designed" as a high altitude fighter. It was designed to take the Allison engine which had low/medium level performance. The airfoil was intended to have low drag at high cruise speeds.

Your take is an interesting one and is based on historical facts. At their meeting in Newfoundland, Roosevelt agreed with Churchill that Germany needed to be defeated first and the ETO received new stuff first. However, the Pacific was primarily a naval campaign and the Army and USAAF played a secondary, but important role. Combat was different and I do agree that most Western historians don't talk about the Chinese civilian or military casualties nor the civil war that was sort of put on hold until the Japanese were defeated. Nor do they talk about the hours perpetrated on the locals by the Japanese in the areas they conquered. We still "feel" aftereffects of Japanese conduct in 2023.

@@marcliebman3847 Yes. And imagine if you would be an Australian and would send to North Africa to fight the Germans instead of your Allies would send you top notch weapons to defend your country against the Japanese. Your are fighting in the Sahara and thinking about home what maybe not exsist anymore... crazy...

True, but the P-51s kills are distorted since the AF gave credit for kills for airplanes destroyed on the ground. The USN/USMC did not. Second, the numbers of planes involved in the ETO vs.PTO were significantly different, i.e. there were more aircraft in Europe than the Pacific, hence more chances for kills.

Wrong! And the F6F had a better kill ratio than the P-51.

By the time that the P-51Ds showed up in numbers, most of the experienced LW pilots were gone and their fuel, training and support capabilities were in decline.

Beautiful, maybe not, graceful in the air, yes. Deadly if you are trying to beat in a dogfight, absolutely!!!

@@marcliebman3847 oh sure point taken.

I guess it's true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder because I have flown a lot of aircraft starting with the T-28 and ending with the B777 and I still think the Corsair is the best looking airplane ever made.

@@jeepman1467 I agree. It has a menacing beauty... And, its easy to recognize in the sky.

@@jeepman1467 You know 400mph in level flight in the ability to turn inside the Butcher Bird or P51 that amazing Pratt and Whitney without all the fat of a P47 I mean what's not to like? I guess form follows function = Beauty normally. 🦧🤷She's deadly