pastafarian Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Hey folks, With all the stuff about the success rates of P-61's, why didn't any other countries buy any after the war? Were they just in short supply or was everyone going for small, nimble fighters? Just curious. John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
utley Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Jet engines were the rage after the war in the form of the P-59 Airacomet, then the P-80. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pastafarian Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 That makes sense if you have money. But most of the South American countries and others were buying up mustangs and corsairs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ST0RM Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Jet engines were the rage after the war in the form of the P-59 Airacomet, then the P-80. Very true! Most P-61s never came back from the war. In the Pacific, IIRC, they were scrapped in the Phillipines. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pastafarian Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 Very true! Most P-61s never came back from the war. In the Pacific, IIRC, they were scrapped in the Phillipines. The logistics of shipping such a big plane back would have likely played into it also. You could probably cram maybe 3 mustangs into the same cargo area of a ship that a p-61 would take. Well, in my plastic AF, the Israeli's are going to get a P-61. John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 The logistics of shipping such a big plane back would have likely played into it also. You could probably cram maybe 3 mustangs into the same cargo area of a ship that a p-61 would take. Well, in my plastic AF, the Israeli's are going to get a P-61. John Post pics! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B-17 guy Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 "plastic air force", I like that and I'm stealing that term. I hereby dub my model collection the "Plastic Air Force"! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Hey folks, With all the stuff about the success rates of P-61's, why didn't any other countries buy any after the war? Were they just in short supply or was everyone going for small, nimble fighters? Just curious. John USAF decided to use the F-82 Twin Mustang for the night fighter role. The P-61's were scrapped in place after VJ day. The real question to me is why didn't the USAF use the P-47 in the ground support role in Korea instead of the relatively fragile, liquid-cooled P-51's. A lot more pilots would have made it home if they were flying Thunderbolts instead of Mustangs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jay Chladek Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) An aircraft the size of a medium bomber, even though it makes a good fighter is also a bit complicated to maintain compared to single engine fighters. It was about as specialized an aircraft as one could find that the US deployed, where multi-role was the key to designs like the Mustang soldiering on in the post war years. Plus, there were A LOT more Mustang parts in the pipeline and all its foibles were well understood by that point. The one WW2 twin engine design that seemed to soldier on the longest of course was the Douglas A-26 Invader, mainly because while it was a pretty radical design, it was a multi-role machine and just what the Air Force needed while waiting for good jet bomber designs. By comparison, the B-26 Marauders got retired pretty quick. The B-25 on the otherhand only really continued on as a good trainer and transport since it was so docile on the controls (and there were A LOT of them already). Edited March 2, 2012 by Jay Chladek Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 USAF decided to use the F-82 Twin Mustang for the night fighter role. The P-61's were scrapped in place after VJ day. The real question to me is why didn't the USAF use the P-47 in the ground support role in Korea instead of the relatively fragile, liquid-cooled P-51's. A lot more pilots would have made it home if they were flying Thunderbolts instead of Mustangs. I read an article a few years ago that said the P-47s were on its last legs in operational service and would take much longer and at a higher cost to get into the field. P-51s were far more common in AF service, so they went with them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spejic Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 It was also an aircraft designed around an early radar unit, and with advances in radar there wasn't a need for a big, complicated aircraft carrying a big complicated radar to do night interceptions. In the post-war era through Korea the role was taken over by the far better performing F-82 Twin Mustang, and then jets after. As for Latin America, if you don't have a big problem with night bombers, then you don't need a night interceptor. Especially one that would be outclassed in the day. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nightiemission Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 USAF decided to use the F-82 Twin Mustang for the night fighter role. The P-61's were scrapped in place after VJ day. The real question to me is why didn't the USAF use the P-47 in the ground support role in Korea instead of the relatively fragile, liquid-cooled P-51's. A lot more pilots would have made it home if they were flying Thunderbolts instead of Mustangs. I've talked to a number of former P-61 pilots. Their opinion of the F-82 was well, not flattering to put it mildly. Some threatened to turn in their wings if forced to fly the F-82. I surmised from the conversations the the '82 had some nasty handling qualities. Also, most Pacific based P-61s went to Clark AFB and by '48-'49 were bulldozed into huge pits and buried. "Lady-In-The-Dark" was one of them. Cheers, Terry Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I've talked to a number of former P-61 pilots. Their opinion of the F-82 was well, not flattering to put it mildly. Some threatened to turn in their wings if forced to fly the F-82. I surmised from the conversations the the '82 had some nasty handling qualities. Even the F-82 was an interim solution, pending the deployment of the F-94 Starfire (which btw, really should be released in a mainstream 1/48th scale kit). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) USAF decided to use the F-82 Twin Mustang for the night fighter role. The P-61's were scrapped in place after VJ day. The real question to me is why didn't the USAF use the P-47 in the ground support role in Korea instead of the relatively fragile, liquid-cooled P-51's. A lot more pilots would have made it home if they were flying Thunderbolts instead of Mustangs. I did some thinking about that awhile back, and came to a couple conclusions: * you already had the Corsair, F51, and the Skyraider playing the part of fighterbomber anyway. The Skyraider was the new kid on the block, and could carry a lot more stuff than the other two plus the P47. Then whatever the Skyraider couldn't do, the B26 Invader could easilly take up the slack. The Corsair was probably a better platform than the Mustang was, and the P47 and the Corsair would have been near equales. But the Skyraider was built for that job from the getgo. Otherwise we'd have been using Mustangs in Vietnam. Plus to be honest about it, the old P39 / P63 would have been better at the ground attack role than the Mustang as well. Plus another often overlooked airframe that could have got the job done in Korea was the Misquito. Ever think about the Dolittle raid with Misquitos instead of B25's? gary Edited March 2, 2012 by ChesshireCat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I did some thinking about that awhile back, and came to a couple conclusions: * you already had the Corsair, F51, and the Skyraider playing the part of fighterbomber anyway. The Skyraider was the new kid on the block, and could carry a lot more stuff than the other two plus the P47. Then whatever the Skyraider couldn't do, the B26 Invader could easilly take up the slack. The Corsair was probably a better platform than the Mustang was, and the P47 and the Corsair would have been near equales. But the Skyraider was built for that job from the getgo. Otherwise we'd have been using Mustangs in Vietnam. Plus to be honest about it, the old P39 / P63 would have been better at the ground attack role than the Mustang as well. Plus another often overlooked airframe that could have got the job done in Korea was the Misquito. Ever think about the Dolittle raid with Misquitos instead of B25's? gary Corsair and Skyraiders are Navy birds and were not available for Air Force service over Korea. The choice was between the P-51 and P-47, though really the only option they had was the P-51. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Archangel Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I read somewhere that the P-61 was a bear when it came to range. It lacked long legs and had to carry drop tanks to do it's mission. Probably not ture but I don't know. It seemed to do the job well enough to make it worth flying otherwise the USAAF woudn't have used it in the Pacific Theater. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Corsair and Skyraiders are Navy birds and were not available for Air Force service over Korea. The choice was between the P-51 and P-47, though really the only option they had was the P-51. the Air Force used P80's and F84's as well as F51's and B26's for close air support. The B26 was the best of the group. The Skyraider was fairly new and would be adopted by the Air Force at a later date when they couldn't get anything better gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mlicari Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Even the F-82 was an interim solution, pending the deployment of the F-94 Starfire (which btw, really should be released in a mainstream 1/48th scale kit). I have the Hobby Craft F-94A (night fighter) in the stash. It looks pretty good in the box... Mike Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steve N Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I've read that the Mustang ended up fighting in Korea the war started rather suddenly, and there were a bunch of P-51s in Japan wating to be scrapped, so they were pressed into service. Most of the operational P-47s were with Stateside ANG units, and it by the time the Thunderbolts could have been put into the fight there was newer stuff available (F-80s and F-83s.) It's a case of the old saying "you go to war with the army you have." SN Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I have the Hobby Craft F-94A (night fighter) in the stash. It looks pretty good in the box... Mike I should have been more specific, I really would love to see the F-94C model in plastic. Love the look of that plane..... Regards, John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mlicari Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I should have been more specific, I really would love to see the F-94C model in plastic. Love the look of that plane..... Regards, John You and me both! Mike Quote Link to post Share on other sites
richter111 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Also thinking the fact that it had two thirsty engines, and new technology that would be a maintenance nightmare would have scared potential customers away Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 USAF had one primary reason for not using the P-47: they wanted to standardize on one aircraft and the P-51 was cheaper to operate so it got the nod. No one thought there'd be another shooting war before recips were all retired so this was planned before the Korean conflict was on any radar screen, so to speak. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.