drgondog
Major
Redundant but required if P-47N Starts in Jan 1943 with a quantity of One. Redundant when 47N crosses over 30,000
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The P 47 was designed initially as an interceptor/fighter. As an escort fighter it was doing a job it wasnt initially designed for because no such concept existed. In service, as an escort, it had better dive performance than climb performance but that does not mean it had no climb performance, it was a single engined aircraft with a 2,300-2500BHP engine, of course it could climb.
Many British and German pilots in the BoB would like to have swapped planes the British wanted to be able to dive and chase the enemy and the Germans wanted to climb back to protect the bombers before their opponents. It takes a rare leap in technology to be obviously best at everything especially a job that didnt exist when the plane first flew.
Many British and German pilots in the BoB would like to have swapped planes the British wanted to be able to dive and chase the enemy and the Germans wanted to climb back to protect the bombers before their opponents. It takes a rare leap in technology to be obviously best at everything especially a job that didnt exist when the plane first flew.
P-47, like all of the ww2 aircraft, changed a lot during the production. Having the P-47N in service almost 2.5 years earlier than historically would be akin to the LW having a completely de-bugged Fw 190A-3 for the BoB, RAF having the Mosquito in 1939, Japanese having the Hayate and Ki-100 in 1943, RAF again with Tempest and Hornet in 1942 etc. Let alone the jets.
A 'new' service that precedes the historical service just by 6 months would mean major changes in some battles and campaigns.
A 'new' service that precedes the historical service just by 6 months would mean major changes in some battles and campaigns.
Having the Enola Gay and Bockscar(with bomb load) in 1942 would have changed the whole war and geopolitics in months.
- Thread starter
- #25
DSR T-888
Airman
Okay guys, I'm talking strictly on tactics here. Like boom and zoom. Why was Boom and zoom so effect if that's what the P-47 pilots were using as tactics?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
If you go to youtube and search for "P-47 gun camera" footage, you will see that the P-47 got right into wicked turning fights as well as high-speed diving attacks...the tactics varied depending on circumstances, but overall, the P-47 was a very capable fighter in high-energy confrontations.
parsifal
Colonel
The P-47 was built like a proverbial brick sh*thouse for a start and really didn't give a lot away in terms of performance either, in fact in most areas it was superior to its opponents. it did particularly well up high, and its armament was better suited to fighter engagements than the nominally heavier LW gun fitouts which made defelection shooting more difficult in my opinion.
If you can gain the height and have good diving capability, both of which the jug was able to do often you are given an enormous advantage.
The jug was an aircraft suited to the roles assigned to it. there was a reason why some air forces continuesd to use it as first line equipment through to the '60s in one or two instances....
If you can gain the height and have good diving capability, both of which the jug was able to do often you are given an enormous advantage.
The jug was an aircraft suited to the roles assigned to it. there was a reason why some air forces continuesd to use it as first line equipment through to the '60s in one or two instances....
- Thread starter
- #28
DSR T-888
Airman
Don't quote me on this, but I remember reading somewhere on the forums that a German pilot wasn't afraid of the Mustang, but they were afraid of diving Thunderbolts because they could do nothing to avoid them. I can imagine a Bf-109 having a hard to getting away from the P-47, because of the 109s heavier control surfaces.
Token
Senior Airman
Energy dictates the fight, and the guy with the energy (higher / faster) can decide when and where to engage. He can fight the fight the way he wants to. An energy fighter will normally come out on top of an angles fighter assuming the driver keeps his head and does NOT get sucked into the other guys fight. I am not saying the P-47 was incapable of anything else, the record seems to indicate pretty clearly it was a lot better rounded than some people judge today, but speed, acceleration in a dive, and zoom climb were definitely within its wheelhouse.
The more successful Jug pilots essentially used energy fighting, whether they called it that or not. By the way, energy fighting does not necessarily mean boom and zoom, but it does lean heavily in that direction.
T!
- Thread starter
- #30
DSR T-888
Airman
Yes.
I've heard P-47 pilots saying they didn't care for the P-51's tighter turn, because they had "tactics" that they used against the Luftwaffe. I'm assuming this is not only "BNZ" but proper energy management. Simply not engaging in turn fights,but rather forcing your enemy to fight on your terms. The ability to have top speed and dive as advantages allows the pilots to determine the fight. A pilot with these advantages also always you to escape the fight at anytime.
To my belief this is why the heavier fighters, Fw-190, P-47, F4U, Tempest and Hellcat preformed so well against their enemies. All of these aircraft have in common is good dive performance, great roll rate and light control surfaces. Even tho they weren't as nibble as the Bf-109s and Spitfires, they did very well against them. Fw-190s were used to great affect against the Spitfire, because of the instantaneous turn at high speeds, better roll rate and better dive performance. Pretty much the exact same idea with the Hellcat and Corsair against the Zero.
When the P-47 came out the Fw-190 pilots felt very hopeless(as shown with the reports that Stona shared), because the tactics they relied on to fight the Spitfires had no chance against the P-47. The P-47 was equal in roll rate at HIGH SPEED not low, greater dive performance and possibly equal elevator forces at high speed. It must of been very scary watching the Enemy A/C follow everyone of your moves as you tried to maneuver away.
What I'm trying to get at is, I've read P-47 pilots saying they had "tactics", but I've never seen them being described in detail. However in the flight sim community "BNZ" tactics are used to great affect.
I've heard P-47 pilots saying they didn't care for the P-51's tighter turn, because they had "tactics" that they used against the Luftwaffe. I'm assuming this is not only "BNZ" but proper energy management. Simply not engaging in turn fights,but rather forcing your enemy to fight on your terms. The ability to have top speed and dive as advantages allows the pilots to determine the fight. A pilot with these advantages also always you to escape the fight at anytime.
To my belief this is why the heavier fighters, Fw-190, P-47, F4U, Tempest and Hellcat preformed so well against their enemies. All of these aircraft have in common is good dive performance, great roll rate and light control surfaces. Even tho they weren't as nibble as the Bf-109s and Spitfires, they did very well against them. Fw-190s were used to great affect against the Spitfire, because of the instantaneous turn at high speeds, better roll rate and better dive performance. Pretty much the exact same idea with the Hellcat and Corsair against the Zero.
When the P-47 came out the Fw-190 pilots felt very hopeless(as shown with the reports that Stona shared), because the tactics they relied on to fight the Spitfires had no chance against the P-47. The P-47 was equal in roll rate at HIGH SPEED not low, greater dive performance and possibly equal elevator forces at high speed. It must of been very scary watching the Enemy A/C follow everyone of your moves as you tried to maneuver away.
What I'm trying to get at is, I've read P-47 pilots saying they had "tactics", but I've never seen them being described in detail. However in the flight sim community "BNZ" tactics are used to great affect.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Fw190 was very close in size and weight to the Bf109...it was not a large aircraft when compared to it's contemporaries.
The Fw 190 was indeed a small fighter, eg. smaller than P-39, let alone the Spitfire or P-51.
What the Fw 190 had over Spitfire V was also the raw speed, the advantage was soon known to the Spit's drivers who were advised now to cruise much faster than before, in order no to be jumped upon. The rate of roll was indeed another of 190's strong points, esp. when compared with Spit or Bf 109.
What the Fw 190 had over Spitfire V was also the raw speed, the advantage was soon known to the Spit's drivers who were advised now to cruise much faster than before, in order no to be jumped upon. The rate of roll was indeed another of 190's strong points, esp. when compared with Spit or Bf 109.
GregP
Major
Hi Tomo,
The turbo was in the back of the P-47 for weight and balance. Had they put it in front, the pilot would be sitting just in front of the fin.
The Fw 190 had almost exactly the same wingspan as a P-39 and the originals were a small tad shorter, but considerably heavier. Air-cooled radials need displacement for power and that means weight. The BMW 801 was some 700 pounds heavier than the Allison V-1710, and that's dry weight.
So the early Fw 190s were short ... but heavy. They weren't ever lightweights, but were good performers. The Fw 190D was a LOT heavier than the radial models and lost all semblance of smallness as well as a lot of roll authority. The Ta-152 got even bigger and heavier, with 1,000 pounds more weight for max takeoff. By mid-life the Fw 190 family wasn't small by any means. It was normal expected size and a bit heavier than expected.
As we get older we all seem to add weight, huh?
The turbo was in the back of the P-47 for weight and balance. Had they put it in front, the pilot would be sitting just in front of the fin.
The Fw 190 had almost exactly the same wingspan as a P-39 and the originals were a small tad shorter, but considerably heavier. Air-cooled radials need displacement for power and that means weight. The BMW 801 was some 700 pounds heavier than the Allison V-1710, and that's dry weight.
So the early Fw 190s were short ... but heavy. They weren't ever lightweights, but were good performers. The Fw 190D was a LOT heavier than the radial models and lost all semblance of smallness as well as a lot of roll authority. The Ta-152 got even bigger and heavier, with 1,000 pounds more weight for max takeoff. By mid-life the Fw 190 family wasn't small by any means. It was normal expected size and a bit heavier than expected.
As we get older we all seem to add weight, huh?
The overall tactical situation is being ignored in posts above. This applies equally to Luftwaffe fighters attempting to engage bomber formations whilst trying to avoid but still often being bounced by US escort fighters, and for the RAF Spitfires operating in pointless Circus and Rodeo operations near the limit of their range being engaged by the Luftwaffe who came up and chose to engage, or not, on their own terms.
Cheers
Steve
Cheers
Steve
Had the P-47 have had the turbo just aft the engine, the pilot will still remain where it was historically. The turbo would have displaced the main fuel tank. Of course, with such layout the wing will be more afront. Granted, without the air cooled turbine blades, such an arangement is disaster wait to happen; I agree with an often seen comment that P-47 was designed around the powerplant. We can recall that Curtiss-built one-off Doublebold cut the main fuel tank so another crew member could sit just between the engine compartment and usual piot's place.
'Usual' P-47:
The P-51D grossed at ~11200 lbs ithout drop tanks, or almost 5100 kg. The Fw 190D-9, no drop tanks, grossed at 4300 kg. So yes, by European stadards it was mid-siza and heavy weight, until we compare it with much heavier and bigger Typhoon/Tempest. The D-9 was smaller than P-63, and compared with R-2800 powered fighters it was really small and light.
Not me - ~75 kg for the last 25 years
Fuselage comparison: pic
Last edited:
" 1st March 1945 - ... Major Borris had led twenty-four aircraft up from Furstenau at 0835. He and seven other pilots had to abort because of radio or landing gear difficulties, and the sixteen remaining planes were led south by Oblt. Heckmann. They engaged about forty P-47s and P-51s in and beneath the clouds between Düsseldorf and Köln at altitudes of 500-1000 meters [1500 to 3000 feet].
The Gruppe War Diary comments that the Thunderbolt pilots were experienced, and were able to turn with the Focke-Wulfs. The Germans were badly scorched. Five pilots failed to return; all were killed ... Their opponents were the 406th Fighter Group's 512th Squadron, which had jettisoned its bombs when bounced by more than a dozen "very aggressive" fighters. The Thunderbolt pilots claimed 2-0-2 Fw 190s and 2-0-2 Bf 109s, while losing none of their number."
Lt. Hans Bleich, KIA (Fw 190D-9 Werk.Nr. 600353).
Uffz. Franz Putsch, KIA (Fw 190D-9 Werk.Nr. 210920).
Uffz. Karl-Erich Zeidler, KIA (Fw 190D-9 Werk.Nr. 211003).
Uffz. Leo Dombrowa, KIA (Fw 190D-9 Werk.Nr. 210273).
Uffz. Rudolf Delor, KIA (Fw 190D-9 Werk.Nr. 211009).
See p.438-439
Don Caldwell. The JG 26 War Diary. Grub Street Books, 1998.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Tomo,
I didn't compare the Fw 190 to a P-51; you compared it to a P-39.
The Fw 190 is way heavier than a P-39 with a similar wingspan and only a very small bit shorter ... which can probably be accounted for by it's having a radial up front. The P-36 was shorter than a P-40, too.
Nothing else was implied or meant.
You can't keep the pilot where he is in the P-47 if you put the turbo up front. That would mean moving the gas tanks and that would be fine when they are full, but you'd be out of CG forward when they are empty. That's probably why there are ZERO aircraft with fuel tanks in the tail cone ... unless you're talking ultralights with the pilot sitting on the point of the nose.
I didn't compare the Fw 190 to a P-51; you compared it to a P-39.
The Fw 190 is way heavier than a P-39 with a similar wingspan and only a very small bit shorter ... which can probably be accounted for by it's having a radial up front. The P-36 was shorter than a P-40, too.
Nothing else was implied or meant.
You can't keep the pilot where he is in the P-47 if you put the turbo up front. That would mean moving the gas tanks and that would be fine when they are full, but you'd be out of CG forward when they are empty. That's probably why there are ZERO aircraft with fuel tanks in the tail cone ... unless you're talking ultralights with the pilot sitting on the point of the nose.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #38
DSR T-888
Airman
IIRC I think this P-47 pilot describes another dogfight where the P-47s shot down Fw-190D9s. He was flying a P-47M which produces 2800Hp @ 72"Hg and was further increased to 76"Hg which is just under 3000Hp. He also mentions that the P-47M could easily turn inside of a Fw-190.
EAA Video Player - Your Source for Aviation Videos
EAA Video Player - Your Source for Aviation Videos
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
P-39D
Wing span: 34 ft. (10.36m)
Length: 30 ft. 2 in. (9.19m)
Weight (empty): 5,462 lb. (2,478kg)
P-39N/Q
Wing span: 34 ft. (10.4m)
Length: 30 ft. 2 in. (9.2m)
Weight (empty): 6,516 lb. (2,955kg)
Fw190A-8
Wing span: 34 ft. 5 in. (10.51m)
Length: 29 ft. 5 in. (9.00m)
Weight (empty): 7,060 lb. (3,200kg)
P-47D
Wing span: 40 ft. 9 in. (12.42m)
Length: 36 ft. 1 in. (11.00m)
Weight (empty): 10,000 lb. (4,535kg)
We can see that the Fw190A-8 and the P-39N/Q (comparable in service timeline) were very close in size and weight.
None of which were even close to the mass of the P-47, however...
GregP
Major
The P-39Q was 6,516 lbs empty; 7,570 loaded; and 8,400 gross.
The Fw 190 A-8 was 7,060 empty; 9,735 loaded; and 10,000 gross.
They aren't even close in weight. The P-39Q routinely operated over a ton lighter than the Fw 190 A-8. You could put a pilot and 300 pounds of ammo in a P-39Q and still be lighter than an empty Fw 190 A-8. With the the horsepower these planes had, a ton extra won't help sparkling performance, and the P-39 needed less weight to have low-level performance, which it had. It just faded at the mid-teens in altitude (feet).
It might have been interesting to see a 2-stage Merlin P-39 and see how it could do up high, but that's another discussion entirely and unrelated here.
The Fw 190 A-8 was 7,060 empty; 9,735 loaded; and 10,000 gross.
They aren't even close in weight. The P-39Q routinely operated over a ton lighter than the Fw 190 A-8. You could put a pilot and 300 pounds of ammo in a P-39Q and still be lighter than an empty Fw 190 A-8. With the the horsepower these planes had, a ton extra won't help sparkling performance, and the P-39 needed less weight to have low-level performance, which it had. It just faded at the mid-teens in altitude (feet).
It might have been interesting to see a 2-stage Merlin P-39 and see how it could do up high, but that's another discussion entirely and unrelated here.
