p47 question to the masters of SOH

[rocketred]

have question on p47...verison in maw, eto, cfs3


like the p51- the firepower version is excellent and imho works like a charm in flight characticies


now the p47 is there one from some era the masters would agree is far superior as air file for dog fighting and bobmber protection over any other ...


tks


joshua

[greycap.raf]

No. Simple as that. The only real strength of the P-47 is its high speed, both in level flight and in a dive, but in a turning fight it's inferior to any other late war Allied aircraft. Even a P-40 easily out-turns it and while the P-40 admittedly is a better aircraft than its reputation says it still gives a good picture of the dogfighting capabilities of the Jug. As long as you can fight on your own terms - which means strictly hit and run - a P-47M will keep you alive but unfortunately it keeps most of the enemies alive too. You can get one from AvHistory.

The mentioned FP Mustang then, I have no doubts about it handling well but I also have no doubts about the AvH version being a lot more realistic and as long as AvH models are available they should (in my opinion at least) be used as the yardstick.

[ndicki]

No. Simple as that. The only real strength of the P-47 is its high speed, both in level flight and in a dive, but in a turning fight it's inferior to any other late war Allied aircraft. Even a P-40 easily out-turns it and while the P-40 admittedly is a better aircraft than its reputation says it still gives a good picture of the dogfighting capabilities of the Jug. As long as you can fight on your own terms - which means strictly hit and run - a P-47M will keep you alive but unfortunately it keeps most of the enemies alive too. You can get one from AvHistory.

The mentioned FP Mustang then, I have no doubts about it handling well but I also have no doubts about the AvH version being a lot more realistic and as long as AvH models are available they should (in my opinion at least) be used as the yardstick.

Rene has just explained most of the reasons behind the RAF's refusal to deploy Thunderbolts in Europe, especially since there was little it could do that we wanted it to do that the Typhoon and Tempest couldn't do as well or better... In the Far East, it made a useful bomb-carrier since the Jap Army Air Corps had more-or-less gone home by then, but that was about all.

In CFS, if you've got a Bf109G-10 or K-4 and a P-47 pilot opposite who tries to dogfight you, you've got another kill to paint on your rudder despite the fact that late 109s are not all that nimble either. In real life, as Rene says, the P-47s tried not to stop to play.

[BeauBrummie]

They must have had fun escorting B-17's over Europe then! Question, how did it compare to the P-38 Lightning in combat? I haven't done much flying of US fighters as this post shows.

[hairyspin]

Boom & zoom. The Jug dived like a piano from a tall building; it also zoom climbed like a Kiwi on a bungee. Add to this its excellent high-altitude performance - that is, its speed at altitude and maximum ceiling - and you can see the strengths its pilots would fight from when escorting daylight raids over occupied Europe and Germany. Get high up and dive on the Bf and Fws then get back up there fast to do it all again. Just don't exceed the velocity never to be exceeded (Vne) in a dive or the only thing you'll hit is the ground - just like the USAF discovered and another reason the P-51 was a better escort fighter: it had a higher Vne. The P-38 had similar strengths - and a similar Vne.

But dogfighting? Forget it!


Vne: don't exceed this speed or you lose elevator authority and can't pull out of your high-speed dive. It's the effects of near-supersonic airflow over parts of the control surfaces and is known as compression.

[gecko]

Well, I've spent som time in the 'bolt, mainly the C model, and with very careful flying and energy management I can do OK with the 109s and 190s, even in a turn fight. But once the fight has reached the deck and no more altitude for speed trading can be done it's best to get out, build up speed and altitude and then return.

Seems borne out by early ETO combat experiences with the jug. Reading up on 4th FG (formerly the Eagle squadrons) actions, these were pilots who had just been flying Spitfires (must have been a rude shock to have to fly something as big and ugly as a P-47 after cutting their teeth on Spits!) and only knew turn fighting. It seems they held their own still mainly using turning tactics, although undoubtably modified to better use the P-47's speed and diving abilities. Still, they were never happy with it, and wouldn't be till the got Mustangs.

P-38 I have spent less time with, but a similar story, although it climbs much better than the P-47. The thing I have a hard time with is the lack of visibility to the sides very frustrating to lose a bandit in those huge blind spots. Real pilots in the ETO found them horribly cold without a nice warm engine in front of the cockpit to keep them warm.

[BeauBrummie]

Thanks guys very illuminating!

[rocketred]

for me ive noticed , using a p47 on escort missions .... i get great accuracy and hits when they - the huns" climb upward and i shot above there cockpit on slant ..... nails em great the problem is i must change in missions using a p47 , the skill levels , so im the ace and there the trainees...


the p38- versions i like if the model using has good turn rate and speed ,


joshau

[ndicki]

The best thing you can say for Lightnings is that the pilot's coffin is likely to weigh even less than it usually does. Once in a decent dive, compressibility problems meant that you'd stay in a dive all the way to the deck and beyond, hence the lightness of the pilot's coffin. This problem was never really solved, although a redesign and bodge-job aftermarket dive-flap kit were introduced which made the thing significantly less lethal.

Another example of the armed forces being expected to do the job despite the fact of their equipment being dangerously sub-par. The Typhoon also comes to mind, but the difference is that there, the problems were solved.

I can't remember which one it was, but one of the Fighter Chaps described an episode where an American pilot, complete with attendant Lightning, began to brag in the mess about the superiority of his aircraft over the Spitfire. A match was hastily arranged, and the result was exactly as you would expect. The American then returned duly chastened to his kith and kin.



Don't give me a P-38 with props that counter-rotate
They'll loop, roll and spin but they'll soon auger in
Don't give me a P-38!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S0tZZnNDjM&feature=plcp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S0tZZnNDjM&feature=plcp)

[gecko]

On the Thunderbolt, it is also interesting to note that both the top scoring unit in air-to-air victories in the USAAF (56th FG), and the top scoring USAAF ace in the ETO (Gabreski) scored all their kills in P-47s. So it had to be doing something right. Don't get me wrong though, I'd still pick a Spit or Mustang over a P-47 any day.

I'd say it's a stretch to call the P-38 dangerously sub-par...equal to a Spit, not a chance (what was he thinking?!) but still capable, albeit less well suited to the ETO than other areas. And don't forget, it could still out-dive most aircraft and remain within safe speeds, it was just easy to exceed them and run into trouble.

As I think about it, there seems to be a theme running with US aircraft in terms of their acceptance or rejection in various air forces. Some has a bad name with American forces (e.g. P-39, Buffalo, and initially the P-51) but were used with a fair amount of success by other countries (Finland, Britain, Russia), while the Brits rejected a lot of American equipment that was later to see a good deal of success in American hands.

[ndicki]

On the Thunderbolt, it is also interesting to note that both the top scoring unit in air-to-air victories in the USAAF (56th FG), and the top scoring USAAF ace in the ETO (Gabreski) scored all their kills in P-47s. So it had to be doing something right.

Perhaps it's just that they were there longer? They started in April 1943 and retained their Thunderbolts through till the end. The Merlin Mustang didn't enter operational service with the USAAF until late 1943. The earlier Allison-engined types were generally used for reconnaissance and ground attack. And let's just say that it might have been politically sensitive if the highest-scoring USAAF squadron had been flying Spitfires...


As I think about it, there seems to be a theme running with US aircraft in terms of their acceptance or rejection in various air forces. Some has a bad name with American forces (e.g. P-39, Buffalo, and initially the P-51) but were used with a fair amount of success by other countries (Finland, Britain, Russia), while the Brits rejected a lot of American equipment that was later to see a good deal of success in American hands.

Different air forces, different visions of how to do the job, different situations and different needs. That's one reason why it's essential to train against other people's armed forces; the 'mirror effect' can invalidate many of the lessons learnt in training against your own forces.

Obviously, American aircraft were 'on offer' to other air forces as a result of the volume of production capacity. That was not necessarily the case for aircraft produced by other nations, so this isn't a tirade against things American in particular! Simply a counterpoint to what I feel is often excessive veneration of certain US-built types.

On the other hand, you'll rarely hear me saying anything seriously detrimental about the Mustang III/IV or Boston, for example!

[gecko]

Perhaps it's just that they were there longer? They started in April 1943 and retained their Thunderbolts through till the end. The Merlin Mustang didn't enter operational service with the USAAF until late 1943. The earlier Allison-engined types were generally used for reconnaissance and ground attack. And let's just say that it might have been politically sensitive if the highest-scoring USAAF squadron had been flying Spitfires...

Time certainly played into the high score, but there were other units with similar service history and score. They were neck and neck at the end with the 4th FG which flew Spitfires, P-47s and P-51s over its history, with most of their kills in the Mustang. The 4th actually scored the most overall, but this included ground kills. This says to me that in experienced hands, both aircraft fared similarly in a dogfight - granted that by the end German pilot skill was increasingly becoming a factor in high scores. (BTW, I have no idea why this is, as from my understanding the Mustang should have had it by a mile in terms of dogfighting, but there the numbers stand...)

Spitfires were of course used in the USAAF early on (and for quite some time in the PR role), but there does seem to have been some pressure to get all the American pilots flying American-built aircraft, and against the wishes of the pilots themselves too. Later on though I think it came down to the fact that the 8th AF wanted something with more range than a Spitfire, and could get such aircraft in massive quantities.



Different air forces, different visions of how to do the job, different situations and different needs. That's one reason why it's essential to train against other people's armed forces; the 'mirror effect' can invalidate many of the lessons learnt in training against your own forces.

Obviously, American aircraft were 'on offer' to other air forces as a result of the volume of production capacity. That was not necessarily the case for aircraft produced by other nations, so this isn't a tirade against things American in particular! Simply a counterpoint to what I feel is often excessive veneration of certain US-built types.

On the other hand, you'll rarely hear me saying anything seriously detrimental about the Mustang III/IV or Boston, for example!

Not worried about a tirade, just enjoying the discussion. I totally concur on your point on excessive (and I would add uninformed) veneration. I can't tell you how many times I've been to airshows and heard some bystander make the most ridiculous statements, like "...the Mustang was good, but you know that Navy Corsair had that big powerful Merlin engine and could beat anything the Germans had!" Right...:mixedsmi:

[greycap.raf]

This says to me that in experienced hands, both aircraft fared similarly in a dogfight - granted that by the end German pilot skill was increasingly becoming a factor in high scores. (BTW, I have no idea why this is, as from my understanding the Mustang should have had it by a mile in terms of dogfighting, but there the numbers stand...)
I'd say that "experience" is the key word here, seeing that there were far more P-51 units than P-47 units the majority of freshly trained pilots went to the P-51 units while the veteran pilots flying the P-47 remained in theirs, keeping the average level of experience high. An average pilot flying a P-51 is certainly no better than an ace flying a P-47 and average pilots made up most of the P-51 units. Not to mention that most of the escort work wasn't dogfighting but hitting the intercepting enemy from a superior altitude and the P-47 had more firepower as well as better high altitude performance than the P-51 as already discussed.


I can't tell you how many times I've been to airshows and heard some bystander make the most ridiculous statements, like "...the Mustang was good, but you know that Navy Corsair had that big powerful Merlin engine and could beat anything the Germans had!" Right...:mixedsmi:
The Corsair is always a good one to pull into the discussion, of course it didn't have a Merlin but seriously speaking there was very little a P-51 could do but the F4U couldn't. It was equally fast, had an equally long range, was highly manoeuvrable especially at high altitude and speed... it could do almost be said that it had the good qualities of the P-47 and P-51 combined. I believe it would have done just as well as the P-51 if it had been used as an escort fighter and additionally brought home all those pilots who fell for a crippled coolant system.

[gecko]

I'd say that "experience" is the key word here, seeing that there were far more P-51 units than P-47 units the majority of freshly trained pilots went to the P-51 units while the veteran pilots flying the P-47 remained in theirs, keeping the average level of experience high. An average pilot flying a P-51 is certainly no better than an ace flying a P-47 and average pilots made up most of the P-51 units. Not to mention that most of the escort work wasn't dogfighting but hitting the intercepting enemy from a superior altitude and the P-47 had more firepower as well as better high altitude performance than the P-51 as already discussed.

In my example though, experience was quite comparable between the two units mentioned. The 4th was very experienced, with some members still around late in the war having experience dating from the unit's RAF days. And next to the 4th, the 56th was the longest serving 8th AF fighter unit. So I don't see it as a case of "average" vs. "ace". Both were among the best in the USAAF.


The Corsair is always a good one to pull into the discussion, of course it didn't have a Merlin but seriously speaking there was very little a P-51 could do but the F4U couldn't. It was equally fast, had an equally long range, was highly manoeuvrable especially at high altitude and speed... it could do almost be said that it had the good qualities of the P-47 and P-51 combined. I believe it would have done just as well as the P-51 if it had been used as an escort fighter and additionally brought home all those pilots who fell for a crippled coolant system.

I'm not as familiar with the handling of the Corsair, but I've flown the 4.0 AvHistory models of both the P-51 and Corsair and the Corsair handles like a truck in comparison. I can turn fight a Zero (carefully) in a Mustang, but it's suicide in a Corsair, so I'm not understanding your point on maneuverability. Your other points make a lot of since - especially about the coolant system, way too many Mustangs were lost due to one hole in the coolant tank. Not a problem in a Corsair or P-47.

[HouseHobbit]

The P-47 is one of those love it or hate it aircraft i guess..
They well well Known to bring home pilots that would have dropped most fighters into the ground..
Very well armed, and equal to the task at hand without Question..
Was most likely the Very best Ground attack fighter the allies had..
Heck the massive numbers of P-47's on D-day and afterwards did a Job on the Germans and there armor..
And as a escort they did a job on the Germans too..Lots of German aircraft ended there lives in the gun sight of the P-47..
I am able in CFS3 to down any aircraft using a P-47, But I do fly using the strength's the aircraft has..
Great for Boom and Zoom..
And that with the eight.50 cal m2 machine guns makes for a very deadly bird..

The Brits hail the Spit, the Germans the Bf 109/Fw190 and the Americans the Mustang
All I can down in a P-47 using the right tactics

And I am sorry to say the 56th did down some Spits with P-47's with Rookie pilots none the less too..
So what's that say about Spits and P-47's??

Me, I fly what I have using the best tactics for that aircraft..

And NO One has a Prettier P-47 either..:icon_lol:

[rocketred]

My Brilliant Friend is a rich, intense, and generous-hearted story about two friends

p47 and spitfire

[greycap.raf]

I'm not as familiar with the handling of the Corsair, but I've flown the 4.0 AvHistory models of both the P-51 and Corsair and the Corsair handles like a truck in comparison. I can turn fight a Zero (carefully) in a Mustang, but it's suicide in a Corsair, so I'm not understanding your point on maneuverability.

Manoeuvrability is more than turning at low speeds, and turning at low speeds is the only thing that matters when tangling with a Zero. The Corsair has better roll rate than the Mustang - the very reason why Fw 190 was such a threat to Spitfires despite turning like a barn door - and I just conducted a turning test with a 4.00 series P-51D (the fuselage tank placed to the correct lateral position instead of the CoG the droppable tank places it at) and a 4.00 series F4U-4. Both aircraft were pulled into a hard left turn of 360 degrees at 10.000 feet from 350 mph and 300 mph TAS. The times were 16 and 18 seconds respectively for the Mustang, and 15 and 16 seconds for the Corsair. Admittedly the Corsair suffers at low speeds due to its weight but at high speed it's every bit as good as the Mustang.


I am able in CFS3 to down any aircraft using a P-47, But I do fly using the strength's the aircraft has..

The problem is that in CFS3 I can down a Me 262 with a Gladiator, and a Yak-9 with a Blenheim bomber. The AI simply doesn't have a clue about air combat for most of the time.

[swpierce]

The problem is that in CFS3 I can down a Me 262 with a Gladiator, and a Yak-9 with a Blenheim bomber. The AI simply doesn't have a clue about air combat for most of the time.

Alas, that is the limitation of CFS3 AI. Tactics, which is so important in actual air combat, cannot be accurately replicated. The only tactic it knows is the close-in dogfight and you can never surprise the enemy with the boom-and-zoom, he always know you're coming.

[gecko]

Yes very true. 262s are particularly easy to down because the AI won't fly 'em right. And boom and zoom is hard to use yourself because they can still snipe you at long range as you climb away and can often climb better than you since they lack a fuel load.

[swpierce]

Yes very true. 262s are particularly easy to down because the AI won't fly 'em right. And boom and zoom is hard to use yourself because they can still snipe you at long range as you climb away and can often climb better than you since they lack a fuel load.

They lack a fuel load???? Well, that explains the impression I've always had that they have been able to coax out a better climb than I expect. I had always assumed that the AI was just more adept at adjusting the mixture, prop, cowl flaps than I was doing.

[bearcat241]

No one here as any RL combat experience in the types discussed, so where's the expertise? Everything experientially detailed here has been from within the flight dynamics structure of a retail simulator, which we all know is not a very accurate modeler of RL physics nor aerodynamics. In fact many RL pilots with lots of stick time think this retail sim stuff is all a joke. You can't seriously use any simulator successes against the P47 to validate what you think may have actually happened in the skies over Europe.

I'm with Gecko on his point about the 56th. They're the real experts on the Jug's dogfighting capabilities and they scored mightily against the Luftwaffe, even after the Mustang became the predominant frontliner in Europe. Forget the final tally in the victories count and when the clock started ticking in the contest (`43 or `44, it doesn't matter). That's not the point here. Its how the counts where achieved. And common sense dictates that you can't attribute hundreds of aerial dogfighting kills to BnZ tactics alone. If your squadron gets into this amount of fighting, you're gonna see it all: BnZ, hot pursuit, turn and burn, whatever...And if one would read up on the personal combat exploits of the 56th's aces, one might get the clue that it wasn't all BnZ stuff either, as many believe to be the P47's only advantage in a fight. To be clear, when i say read their personal exploits i mean their own words, not just what a writer believed happened.

And then there were those other "P47 experts" in the PTO - the 348th - who ravaged the IJA and IJN air forces over PNG which were flying so-called "superior performers": Tony's, Zero's, Oscars, Tojo's, Franks, and George's. Flying early and mid-war razorback types, Col. Neel Kirby and his gang of P47 marauders tore through the Japanese right to the end of hostilities (although Kirby himself was KIA before the PNG campaign ended).

I enjoy the forum discussion atmosphere as much as the next guy, but sometimes i think that we as modern day kids forget our place when discussing historical aircraft performance and assume that our "second-hand" book knowledge and sim experience is a good sub for lack of real life combat experience.

[rocketred]

the most air ...in skys i ever got was in travel times .....and the fight for me was not puking in bad turbulence


i did once fly on the concorde in younger years , once ...was alike a sardine can but fast



rest is 747, dc8-stretch dc9, etc,,,,,,,,



my combatt experience is again nill , but i do talk to vets yearly on dday , and Remembrance Day .....and next is hobbit . trying ot play his missions is a skill to stay alive ....lol



many tks


missed my calling


i am a collector of ww2 films , bluray and blackwhite ...again still on the ground

[gecko]

Well, I don't think any of us is claiming any first hand expertise. But all this information would be rather pointless if we couldn't extrapolate from it something of a picture of what it was like and do our best to understand why.

I don't entirely agree with you in regards to sim flying. We've come a long ways in getting closer to having planes that handle accurately. True, much of the stuff you get off the shelf is complete garbage in regards to realism (thinking stock CFS3 flight models:barf:) but more recently some reasonably good 3rd party flight dynamics have become available. The only one I can (partially) vouch for myself is the AvHistory 4.0 L-5, which, having flown small, light, high wing aircraft in a number of weight configurations, handles the way I would expect a slightly smaller, slightly lighter high wing aircraft to fly. Obviously it gets much more complicated by the time you get to something like a P-47, and sims will never be a substitute for real world experience, but carefully chosen flight models (for CFS3, AvHistory 4.0 flight models are the most accurate) can give at least a fuzzy general idea of how a given aircraft would handle and so isn't entirely invalid in a discussion like this. For some more obscure aircraft with little written on them, there is little else to go on.

The first hand combat reports you mention I find to be a great source, and informed a lot of my postings here. My own goal in this thread is to understand how these reports mesh with some of the technical data greycap and others have brought forward, which knowing greycap, is probably well sourced.

I know much less about the Thunderbolt in the Pacific. Do you find in your reading a more common use of B and Z with the 348th than with the 56th? Given their opponents I would assume this to be the case, but I haven't read much about it.

Daniel

[bearcat241]

Well, I don't think any of us is claiming any first hand expertise. But all this information would be rather pointless if we couldn't extrapolate from it something of a picture of what it was like and do our best to understand why...I don't entirely agree with you in regards to sim flying. We've come a long ways in getting closer to having planes that handle accurately.

I feel you on this Daniel...all i'm saying is let's pull back more in our discussions and consider the limits of our assumptions and conclusions if all we have to go on is the performance produced by the flight modeling of an insufficient sim engine. Example: How many times have you attempted to execute an extreme aerial maneuver like an inverted vertical reversement within the speed parameters of an aircraft's "specified" combat turn radius and max G only to find that the sim doesn't give you the max control input and behavior that is historically possible for a particular type? The rudder kick is totally ineffective, the violent back stick / forward stick motion doesn't generate the snappy response known for the type and the torque roll is nil, even though the records may indicate that the type had monstrous torque. That's the sim's flight modeling holding you back, not necessarily the flight dynamics of the model itself. In order to compensate for this loss of input authority, you might find yourself fiddling with the air files and exaggerating the design beyond what the designer states as accurate, when the real culprit is the sim itself.

Moreover, when we talk about easily shooting down P47's or any other type in turning fights within the sim, let's also consider the flying skills of our victims - the AI engine. Is the AI engine flying the victim's model to the edge of its prescribed envelope in these engagements while also accounting for fuel and ammo weight like a good human pilot would? Never...for one the engine doesn't factor fuel and ammo weight for AI, nor does it consistently push the envelopes of its models. And besides, there are a lot more discrepancies in AI behavior that lead to easy kills in the sim than one would expect in real combat. Have you ever seen an AI opponent hold a 5g turn with you in WEP long enough to turn the tables and get on your six? You'll never see this sort because the AI don't use WEP for one and secondly the sim will always bring the opponent target out of the turn prematurely and execute some dumb maneuver that puts the target right where you expect it, every time!

Yes, we've come a long way in getting closer to accurate handling, but we're still a long way off in retail simulation. There's just so much physics and behavioral programming that can go into "affordable" retail simulation. And a lot of small, but critical stuff gets brushed aside in rushing a product to market. So your flight world environment is far from perfect. Now we find ourselves drawing from our experiences from within this environment to form what we consider to be respectable conclusions of historical performances and specs.


I know much less about the Thunderbolt in the Pacific. Do you find in your reading a more common use of B and Z with the 348th than with the 56th? Given their opponents I would assume this to be the case, but I haven't read much about it.

The 348th FG reportedly scored 396 victories overall in the PTO (and they reportedly also used some P51's in `45 in addition to their established service in P47's). We have no way of knowing how much of that can be attributed to BnZ tactics. In regards to your question, you would need to read up on the individual aces of the group to determine how they personally conducted business. But pure logic would suggest that if even in the unlikely event that 75% of these kills were all the result of BnZ tactics, that would still leave 99 to other aerial tactics. I'll just let you guys assume which...;)

DJ

[hairyspin]

This sort of discussion is always interesting, as much for the participants' presuppositions as for the facts and real-life accounts under debate. We unfortunately don't have the FM expertise of AvHistory for CFS3 any more - this was valuable both for their painstaking work on flight models and the consistency of their approach. Gregory of AvH was one who also complained about the limitations of the CFS3 simulation engine, but I don't think many complain about what he achieved by the time of the AvH 4.0 flight model. Not many flight models are of such quality - don't start on about the stock CFS3 flight models, it's all too horrible.

I also think the best comparison between CFS3 models would be in the hands of multiplayer users - no AI issues there!

Regarding dogfighting the biggest, heaviest fighter of WW2 - the Jug - against lightweight, agile Japanese fighters I can only offer the following: Spitfire V pilots got the better of Bf109 opponents in a dogfight, but the same aircraft against a Zero in a dogfight was toast. Whereas Spitfire Vs flown in B & Z combat against Zeros could and did get the advantage, once the already experienced pilots learned to fight that way.

Which brings me to the other factor in real combat flying: what I didn't know until recently was that a typical Japanese pilot in the early war years had something like 700 hours flying time before he was let loose in a combat squadron. As the war progressed their pilots were less and less highly trained (and experienced) and so easier meat to experienced Allied pilots. Germany had the same problem: by Operation Bodenplatte, Jan 1st 1945, when the Luftwaffe launched hundreds of fighters on a knockout ground-attack raid on Allied airfields: many couldn't even find their targets and the standard of shooting - on stationary targets - for many who did was lousy.

And all of our discussions so far implicitly assume combat between equally advantaged sides in set-piece encounters: it was very rarely like that! If one Hurricane could take on an entire Gruppe of Bf109Es, shoot down three or four without catching so much as a single bullet hole and return to tell the tale then Bearcat's signature was entirely true - If you're in a fair fight, you didn't plan it right!

(the pilot came upon the Gruppe from behind and above with the sun behind him, picked them off one by one - they never saw him, nor did anyone else...)

[Ivan]

A lot of times, just looking at the raw statistics about an aircraft may be misleading. The reputation of the Thunderbolt for maneuverability is poor but this is based on its high wing loading.

I have the book "Warbird Buyers Guide" published by Motorbooks that describes a very extensive comparision between US fighter types. The results surprised me quite a lot.

From Memory:
The P-51D is more maneuverable than the P-47D. The difference is actually not much.
The P-47D rolls better than most US fighters and loses less of its roll rate when G-Loaded as in a turning fight.
The P-47D is much more precise as a gun platform than the P-51D;
If a pilot tries to fly both aircraft to make and HOLD a constant 4G turn, it is easier to do this in a P-47.

Now for some anecdotal evidence:
The book Genda's Blade describes an encounter between the N1K-2J Shiden Kai and the P-47. The Georges tried to fight Thunderbolts at medium to high altitude and were decisively beaten.

Robert Johnson flew his Thunderbolt against a Spitfire IX and used his roll rate (!) and zoom climb advantages to beat his unknown sparring partner.

The P-47N rolled better than the P-47D for some reason.

Off Topic:
The FW 190A has a reputation for poor maneuverability, but some unknown pilot flying one gave Eric Brown of the Royal Navy in a Spitfire a very hard time in a dogfight. The British test of Arnim Faber's early 190A against an early Spitfire IX claimed the 190A was more maneuverable except for turning circles.

Although the Corsair is a heavier plane than the P-51D, it also has a much larger wing, so wing loadings aren't that different. Also the P-51 uses a laminar flow airfoil that has a fairly low (around 1.2 max) Coefficient of Lift.

- Ivan.

[hairyspin]

Thanks for that Ivan! All goes to reinforce the combat pilot's approach - know your aircraft's strengths and use them; avoid its weaknesses.

[bearcat241]

The P-47N rolled better than the P-47D for some reason...

Clipped elliptical wings vs the original rounded designs and reshaped, slightly larger ailerons with upgraded aileron boosting, as i recall from specs. It also had longer legs which, along with drop tanks, allowed for long range B29 escorts, fighter sweeps, strikes and TOO strafing attacks deep into mainland Japan and eastern Asia from bases in the Okinawa Prefecture.

OT: The last "Ace in A Day" for the U.S. in WWII was reportedly 1/Lt. Oscar F. Perdomo, 464th FS, 507th FG stationed at Ie Shima/Okinawa province, flying P-47N-2 "Lil Meaties Meat Chopper" (nicknamed after his infant son). His 38 plane unit encountered a large group of Japanese aircraft over Korea and he shot down 5, including 4 Oscars in a twisting, turning furball. His account of that day didn't emphasize much BnZ stuff, mostly turn and burn it.

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/perdomo/perdomo.htm

Quote:

"Perdomo was a first lieutenant and a veteran of ten combat missions when on August 9, 1945 the United States dropped the world's second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan. The allies were still awaiting Japan’s response to the demand to surrender and the war continued, when on August 13, 1945 1st Lt. Perdomo, shot down four Nakajima “Oscar” fighters and one Yokosuka “Willow” Type 93 biplane trainer. This action took place near Keijo/Seoul, Korea when 38 Thunderbolts of the 507th Fighter Wing, USAAF, encountered approximately 50 enemy aircraft. It was Perdomo's last combat mission, and the five confirmed victories made him an “Ace in a Day” and thus the distinction of being the last “Ace” of the United States in World War II. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross and the Air Medal with one leaf cluster."

[rocketred]

excellent link on this Discussion .....
p-47


tks


joshua

[HouseHobbit]

A lot of times, just looking at the raw statistics about an aircraft may be misleading. The reputation of the Thunderbolt for maneuverability is poor but this is based on its high wing loading.

I have the book "Warbird Buyers Guide" published by Motorbooks that describes a very extensive comparision between US fighter types. The results surprised me quite a lot.

From Memory:
The P-51D is more maneuverable than the P-47D. The difference is actually not much.
The P-47D rolls better than most US fighters and loses less of its roll rate when G-Loaded as in a turning fight.
The P-47D is much more precise as a gun platform than the P-51D;
If a pilot tries to fly both aircraft to make and HOLD a constant 4G turn, it is easier to do this in a P-47.

Now for some anecdotal evidence:
The book Genda's Blade describes an encounter between the N1K-2J Shiden Kai and the P-47. The Georges tried to fight Thunderbolts at medium to high altitude and were decisively beaten.

Robert Johnson flew his Thunderbolt against a Spitfire IX and used his roll rate (!) and zoom climb advantages to beat his unknown sparring partner.

The P-47N rolled better than the P-47D for some reason.

Off Topic:
The FW 190A has a reputation for poor maneuverability, but some unknown pilot flying one gave Eric Brown of the Royal Navy in a Spitfire a very hard time in a dogfight. The British test of Arnim Faber's early 190A against an early Spitfire IX claimed the 190A was more maneuverable except for turning circles.

Although the Corsair is a heavier plane than the P-51D, it also has a much larger wing, so wing loadings aren't that different. Also the P-51 uses a laminar flow airfoil that has a fairly low (around 1.2 max) Coefficient of Lift.

- Ivan.

Thank you for this, it confirms much of what I have read about the P-47..
As a Young Hobbit reading the book "Thunderbolt" by Robert Johnson 56th Fighter Group..I was amazed..

I am a big fan of the P-47, if for no other reason the "Jug" did tend to get Home full of large Holes..

[gecko]

Just thought of something that hasn't been brought up yet. We've been comparing the P-47's performance with standard 109s and 190s. Particularly in the escort role, the aircraft they would have encountered would often be aircraft modified with extra armor and cannons as bomber destroyers. In most cases these changes resulted in severely limited dogfighting performance and may have leveled the turn-and-burn playing field for the P-47 considerably.

Also, P-47Ms and especially Ns were a whole different animal from D and C models, much better in every respect.

[rocketred]

well said

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwariiaircraft/p/p47.htm


Dubbed the "Thunderbolt," the P-47 entered service with the 56th Fighter Group in November 1942. Initially derided for its size by British pilots, the P-47 proved effective as a high-altitude escort and during fighter sweeps, as well as showed that it could out-dive any fighter in Europe. Conversely, it lacked the fuel capacity for longe-range escort duties and the low-altitude maneuverability of its German opponents.

By mid-1943, improved variants of the P-47C became available which possessed external fuel tanks to improve range and a longer fuselage for great maneuverability. Work on the aircraft continued as the war progressed with the arrival of the P-47D. Constructed in twenty-one variants, 12,602 P-47Ds were built during the course of the war. Early models of the P-47 possessed a tall fuselage spine and a "razorback" canopy configuration. This resulted in poor rear visibility and efforts were made to fit variants of the P-47D with "bubble" canopies.

This proved successful and the bubble canopy was used on some subsequent models. Two other notable editions of the aircraft were the P-47M and P-47N. The former was equipped with a 2,800 hp engine and modified for use in downing V-1 "buzz bombs" (http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/artillerysiegeweapons/p/v1.htm) and German jets. A total of 130 were built and many suffered from a variety of engine problems. The final production model of the aircraft, the P-47N was intended as an escort for B-29 Superfortresses (http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/militaryaircraft/p/b29.htm) in the Pacific. Possessing an extended range and improved engine, 1,816 were built before the end of the war.

[Ivan]

The FW 190As tended to get extra cannon and such, but they weren't very good past about 20,000 feet anyway. The Me 109s generally ended up as the escorts. The FW 190A-9 didn't do so badly up high, but there were not very many of those. The A-9s also tended to not be equipped with the outboard cannon so they would also be lighter.

Now as far as maneuverability / turning is concerned, The British tested a captured Me 109G-6 / R-6 (The cannon boat with the underwing gun pods) against the Mustang (unknown mark) and the 109 was more maneuverable though it didn't have the speed straight line performance. This is the source for the often quoted 386 mph Me 109G. Later models had better engines and were quite a bit faster and presumably even more maneuverable since they would have had more thrust to offset energy loss in a turning fight.

- Ivan.

[gecko]

Interesting, every source I've read on /R6 equipped 109s commented on its negative effect on handling. Do you have any sources that compare it with a stock G-6?