# Hawker Typhoon IB or Republic P-47D-27



## Jank (Nov 10, 2005)

Curious which of these aircraft could outperform the other in air to air combat at low, medium and high altitudes.


----------



## Glider (Nov 10, 2005)

Good question. High would have to be the P47, Medium probably the P47 but low I don't know. 
I would also be interested to get the views of others


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2005)

Radial Engine - Big advantage T-Bolt!


----------



## Glider (Nov 10, 2005)

In air to air combat I wouldn't have thought that it made much difference. At low altitude the P47 looses its diving ability although the Typhoon was no slouch (once they sorted out the structural problems). Also low altitude exposes the P47's one weakness which was its climb rate where I would have thought the Typhoon had the advantage.
Both were well armed for air to air combat and at low altitude the Typhoon was probably a bit faster. Against that the P47 could roll well, I don't know the rates but I would be suprised if the Typhoon could match it.
So at low altitude its close.


----------



## Sal Monella (Nov 10, 2005)

Typhoon has a little better climb rate about 3,000 vs. 2,750 for P-47. P-47 has better dive, roll and can take a lot more punishment. The armaments don't really favor either 4x20mm vs 8 .50 cal. (At 750 rpm, those 8 .50 cals are putting out 100 rounds a second.)

I think the P-47's performance gets progressively better as the altitude increases where the Tiffy is a low altitude ship. I would say maybe a slight advantage to the Tiffy at low altitude, an advantage to the P-47 at medium altitude and a significant advantage to the P-47 at high altitude.


----------



## Glider (Nov 10, 2005)

I would go with that assesment Sal.


----------



## book1182 (Nov 10, 2005)

Good question... In air to air combat the P-47 would win the high altitude award hands down. The medium altitude would be a toss up I think. It would probably come down to who had the better pilot or the better starting position. I would have to say P-47. Down low though no doubt about it the Typhoon would win. It was built to intercept the low level hit and run raids.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 10, 2005)

At low level, the Typhoon, and if the -47 pilot knows his shit, the Tiffy pilot is probably gonna die... Anything above that, the -47 dominates...


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 11, 2005)

book1182 said:


> Good question... In air to air combat the P-47 would win the high altitude award hands down. The medium altitude would be a toss up I think. It would probably come down to who had the better pilot or the better starting position. I would have to say P-47. Down low though no doubt about it the Typhoon would win. It was built to intercept the low level hit and run raids.



The Typhoon was actually designed and built as a high altitude bomber destroyer, not a low level attack aircraft. The original specification (F.18/37) that it was built to called for an advanced fighter to replace the Spitfire and Hurricane, capable of 400mph+ at 15,000 feet, armed with not less than 12 Bownings and to act as a steady firing platfor for the armament. It just so happened that the Napier Sabre engine performed poorly above about 20,000 feet and the thick wing of the Typhoon gave relatively poor lift and climb at high altitudes. The British eventually realised that it worked well as a low level fighter and so they tasked it with intercepting and chasing th e 'tip and run' jabo attacks that plauged England from mid 1942 through to 1943.


Comparing a Typhoon Ib with a P-47D-27;

Typhoon Ibs came in a couple of different versions depending on the production run, but I'll take the standard Sabre IIa engined version from the fifth production batch (the largest) with the bubble top canopy, whip type aerial and 4 bladed propellor as an equal counterpart to the P-47D-27 with paddle bladded Hamilton prop. Earlier Sabre II variants were a little slower (by 7-10 mph) while later Sabre IIb and Sabe IIc variants were anywhere from 5-15 mph faster at the same altitudes. A Sabre IIa engined Typhoon is probably the most representative version for mid 1944.

The Jug was credited with 3,785 A to A kills during the war, while the Typhoon was credited with just 249. So, in absoulte terms the P-7 was FAR more effective as a combat aircraft. The P-47 also had the lowest loss rate of any single engined fighter in Europe, just .07% of combat sorties flown by a P-47 resulted in a loss, so it wins there. But there were also some 15,600 P-47s built, compared with 3,300 Typhoons.

At sea level to about 8-10,000 feet the Typhoon has a speed and climb advantage, even when you consider the effect of the new props on the P-47. The P-47D-27 pulls about 365 mph at 8,000 feet. The Typhoon Ib does about 385 mph at the same height, variants with a Sabre IIb did about 7 mph more. Above this though, the Sabre has to change stages and drops about 5-10 mph to about 12,000 feet. Here the P-47 has a significant advantage in raw speed (up to 15 mph) and power due to the turbosupercharging, with no loss of power at this altitude.

Between 12000 and 18,000 feet the two planes are roughly equal in terms of speed, generally within 5 mph of each other. The Typhoon tops out at about 405 mph at 18,000 feet, for a Sabre II engined variant. Sabre IIa/b version with a 4 bladed prop did about 412mph at similar heights. At 18,000 feet a P-47 does about 400 mph.

In the rolling plane the P-47 is far superior to the Typhoon, at all speeds. The Typhoon was one of the slowest rolling planes of the war. So the P-47 can change direction more easily, a large advantage in combat.

Turn performance favours the Typhoon, but only just. The RAF rated the Typhoon as slightly inferior to a P-51 in terms of turn, and slightly better than the 190 and Tempest at 10,000 feet. I'm inferring from this that the Typhoon had better turn performance than the P-47, which was judged slightly worse than the Tempset. 

Zoom climb favours the heavier and cleaner P-47, as would the dive, although the Typhoon was certainly no slouch there. The Typhoon was rated to over 500 mph in a dive. The notorious tail shedding was a result of sympathetic vibrations and mass balance deficiencies, not to any structural weakness. 

Armament wise I feel that the 4 x 20mms were superior to the 8 x .50 cals of the P-47D against a variety of targets (fighter, bomber, ground), but that argument is probably never going to get settled. Its a basic question of rate of fire vs damage per round. Both were VERY efficient against fighter sized targets though. Both aircraft were noted for being exceptional gun platforms, steady at speed and with high rates of fire.

Above 18,000 feet the P-47 was clearly the superior fighter. The problems that the Sabre had at altitude and the turbosupercharging of the P-47 mean that anywhere above this the P-47 simply outclimbs and outruns the Typhoon. In between 8 and 18,000 feet its something of a toss up, the slight superiority of the Typhoon in turn and speed being negated by the better roll, dive and zoom of the P-47. On the deck up to about 8,000 feet the Typhoon has a very slight edge, the Sabre enjoying the heavier air and the thick wing section of the Typhoon providing better lift and climb.

As an all around weapon the P-47 is the better plane; faster at medium to high altitude, with a tougher engine, better warload and much better range. As a low altitude interceptor and fighter-bomber the Typhoon holds some of the cards, and with pilots of equal skill it probably comes off slightly better at below about 10,000 feet. Personally my favourite aircraft of the war is the Typhoon, but as an all around weapon of war the P-47D was much superior.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 11, 2005)

Jabberwocky said:


> book1182 said:
> 
> 
> > Good question... In air to air combat the P-47 would win the high altitude award hands down. The medium altitude would be a toss up I think. It would probably come down to who had the better pilot or the better starting position. I would have to say P-47. Down low though no doubt about it the Typhoon would win. It was built to intercept the low level hit and run raids.
> ...


I agree with that assessment Jabberwocky.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

Gotta be the Jug!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 11, 2005)

Below the 4000 meters the Typhoon still had a chance. Had a better turn rate, but lower rate of roll dive and acceleration. In mi opinion the 4x20 mm are better ( when not jammed) than the 8x.50.

*Hawker Typhoon Mk.IB R7698
W/Cdr Denys Gillam
No.266 (Rhodesian)Sqn RAF*








*Hawker Typhoon Mk.IB R7679
No.56 Sqn RAF
November 1942*







*Hawker Typhoon Mk.1B DN317
No.56 Sqn RAF
March 1943*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

I allways liked the way the Typhoon looked though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 11, 2005)

it's about as mean as the british get 

and at low level i'd give it to the tiffy, above that the P-47, which seems to be the general concencus.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

I will buy that. Id still take the ruggedness of the P-47 at low level anyday. She to me is like the US A-10 of WW2.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 11, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will buy that. Id still take the ruggedness of the P-47 at low level anyday. She to me is like the US A-10 of WW2.


Agreed Alder, that she was. I like the looks of the Tiffy as well. As lanc said it is about as mean looking a British plane there was.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2005)

I still say the round engine of the -47 is a great advantage. The Tiffy has an Achilles heel - Glycol!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

I think the engines of the 47 were possibly its biggest advantage. It gave her good performance and were very reliable.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 12, 2005)

gave it one of the best looking engine cowlings of the war too, IMO........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

Yes she was pretty.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2005)

I agree with what les said...Id have the P-47 anyday...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2005)

i'm torn between my desire to remain bias to the british and proud of it and my desire to pick the better plane

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 13, 2005)

All I got to say is below 1000' Glycol sucks!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2005)

I agree...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

Of the 2 I am for the P-47. Hell the P-47 is probably my favorite US Aircraft. I have always like the Jug!


----------



## cdodders (Aug 18, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> The Typhoon was actually designed and built as a high altitude bomber destroyer, not a low level attack aircraft. The original specification (F.18/37) that it was built to called for an advanced fighter to replace the Spitfire and Hurricane, capable of 400mph+ at 15,000 feet, armed with not less than 12 Bownings and to act as a steady firing platfor for the armament. It just so happened that the Napier Sabre engine performed poorly above about 20,000 feet and the thick wing of the Typhoon gave relatively poor lift and climb at high altitudes. The British eventually realised that it worked well as a low level fighter and so they tasked it with intercepting and chasing th e 'tip and run' jabo attacks that plauged England from mid 1942 through to 1943.
> 
> 
> Comparing a Typhoon Ib with a P-47D-27;
> ...



As for the Air to Air kills, simply stating the number of kills per aircraft type isn't a good comparison. As you pointed out, there were roughly 5 times as many P-47s built than Typhoons. So on that basis, the P-47 averages out at 0.2426 kills per aircraft, and the Typhoon 0.0755 kills per aircraft, meaning the P-47 brought down roughly 3 times as many aircraft than the Typhoon. Then we have to look at some other factors. The P-47 can operate well at all altitudes, while the Typhoon is confined, by performance issues, to low-level. Which then means the P-47 is more likely to encounter enemy aircraft. Also, the Typhoon was only used (to my knowledge) on the European Front, while the P-47 was also used in the Far East, furthering its chances of enemy aircraft encounters.

So numbers alone cannot tell the whole story. 

Plus I have read somewhere (and quite a while ago) that the German Army feared the Typhoon more than any other aircraft on the western front


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 18, 2013)

> So numbers alone cannot tell the whole story.



You're right, but Jabberwocky raised some pretty pertinent points in his post all those years ago. I'd have to go with the consensus and agree with the P-47, although the Typhoon is very capable brute of a machine, no doubt, its big Achilles heel was its Sabre engine.


----------



## Kryten (Aug 19, 2013)

P47D is a late model so you cant really compare it to the later Typhoons as they were primarily ground attack, how the early Tiffie compared with the early Thud is more of a question, visibility defiantly favours the Hawker offering!


----------



## mario29811 (May 6, 2016)

Do you people know the story of Robert S. Johnson, a quintuple ace in World War 2? He was flying a P-47 when he was pounced on by 3 Fw-190s. The latter peppered his plane with 20mm cannon fire that sent the jug into a death spiral. Miraculously, Johnson recovered from the stall and headed home. On his return trip, his plane was pounced on once again, this time, by German ace Egon Meyer, who fired on him until he ran out of ammunition. When Johnson returned to base, he started to count how many bullet holes riddled his plane. When he reached 200 without moving around the plane, he gave up. Considering the Jug's tank-like construction, it can easily destroy a Hawker Typhoon, which was originally intended to be a fighter, but failed to meet its requirements.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2016)

mario29811 said:


> Do you people know the story of Robert S. Johnson, a quintuple ace in World War 2? He was flying a P-47 when he was pounced on by 3 Fw-190s. The latter peppered his plane with 20mm cannon fire that sent the jug into a death spiral. Miraculously, Johnson recovered from the stall and headed home. On his return trip, his plane was pounced on once again, this time, by German ace Egon Meyer, who fired on him until he ran out of ammunition. When Johnson returned to base, he started to count how many bullet holes riddled his plane. When he reached 200 without moving around the plane, he gave up. Considering the Jug's tank-like construction, it can easily destroy a Hawker Typhoon, which was originally intended to be a fighter, but failed to meet its requirements.


I think if you read some of the threads on this forum, a great majority of the folks on here not only know about this one particular story, they could tell you more about this incident in greater detail (and truthful accuracy) than Martin Cadin.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (May 7, 2016)

nuuumannn said:


> its big Achilles heel was its Sabre engine.



Once the Sabre was sorted in production (the RAF ended the war with a large surplus of spare Sabres to cope with engine problems that ceased) the real Achilles Heel was the thick wing. Bung a Tempest behind the Sabre and you have a very different beast.


----------

