# Hawker Tempest V vs. P-47D-27



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)

I used to think that would prefer to be in a Tempest if in aerial combat. I think I would if I were at low altitude. This data surprised me though.

From Jabberwocky - 

Tempest V (ADFU and Hawker Trials)


5,000 ft - 3,640 ft/ min and 405-412 mph

15,000 ft - 2,750 ft/min and 420-430 mph 

28,000 ft - 850 ft/min and 405 mph


From Jank - 

P-47D


5,000 ft - 3,150 ft/min and 365mph

15,000 ft - 2,950 ft/min and 405 mph

28,000 ft - 1,800 ft/min and 435 mph

I have the following chart for the P-47


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2006)

The Tempest will definitely climb better than that, at something like 4,000 ft/min atleast.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)

Tempest V Performance Data

At Combat Power Rating

S/L 4,380 ft/min and 376 mph

4,000 ft - 3,740 ft/min and 397 mph

15,000 ft - 2,785 ft/min and 421 mph @ 16,000ft

28,000 ft - 1,020 ft/min and 405 mph


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2006)

Thats with the radiator flap open..


----------



## red admiral (Jul 18, 2006)

Closterman gives top speed of Tempest as 485mph with 2850hp (max rated) and 510mph with 3040hp (emergency), presumably at 16000ft.

Major difference in wing loading as well,

45lb/sq ft for the Tempest MTO

58lb/ sq ft for the P-47 MTO


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)

Wing loading for P-47 was 48.33 (14,500lbs / 300 sq. ft.)

Is that 485 mph and 510 mph data post war or non-production variants? Sounds awfully high like in 60-80 mph too high.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 18, 2006)

With max take off the wing loading is 58 lb/sq ft, going for combat weight as above then the Tempest V is about 36-37lb/sq ft

Those figures are for wartime Mk V aircraft that Closterman (33 victories) flew with 274 and 3 squadron.

Closterman's Book


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)

Call me unreasonable but I'm afraid I just don't believe there were production Tempests that saw combat that flew 485-510mph.

I'm seeing 2,420hp at 11lbs of boost (Sabre IIb - final production version). This spec sheet supercedes all priors and is dated February 2, 1945. Can you provide any further information?


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)

I think Closterman was playing rather loosely with his words. I frankly don't believe the account you stated above, nor his as stated below. The fourth, final and most powerful production of the Tempest was with the Sabre IIb which generated a maximum of 2,420hp with 11lbs of boost. 

Closterman says "In emergencies, you could over-boost it up to nearly 3,000hp and 4,000 revs; and the speed went up to 460 mph. In a dive the Tempest was the only aircraft to reach, without interfering with its handling qualities to any marked extent, subsonic speeds, ie. 550-600mph"

He goes on to say, "The 109's, knowing that we dived faster than they did, tried to get us up to 16,000 feet where our Tempests were heavy and our engines sluggish." 

Scroll down to read his account at:

Tempest V Performance Data


----------



## red admiral (Jul 19, 2006)

Maybe the speeds he quoted are exaggerations, but being 50mph off seems unlikely. 10-20mph more likely. What I can only surmise is that Closterman's Tempest had a Sabre V revving to 4000rpm and 3040hp. Maybe an in-field modification.


----------



## Jank (Jul 19, 2006)

On the subject of in field modifications, I understand that mechanics used to tweak the late war P-47D and raised the HP from 2,530 to something closer to the "M" which had 2,800.

Overboosting from max of 2,420 to 3,040? I'd like to see that!


----------



## Twitch (Jul 19, 2006)

Here's exactly what Clostermann said from his book-

"It was heavy, all of 7 tons. Thanks to its 2,400 HP engine it had a considerable margin of excess power and its acceleration was phenomenal. It was tricky to fly but its performance made up for it; at 3,000 feet, at economical cruising speed on 1/3rd power (950HP) with 2 45-gallon auxillary tanks, 310MPH on the clock ie., a true airspeed of 320MPH; at fast cruising speed, at 1/2 power (1,425HP) without auxillary tanks, 350MPH on the clock ie, a true airspeed of nearly 400MPH; maximum speed straight and level with +13 boost and 3,850 revs: 430MPH on the clock ie., a true air speed of 440MPH.

In emergencies you could over-boost it up to nearly 3,000HP and 4,000 revs, and the speed went up to 460MPH" and so on as you all have noted.

He never mentions 485 or 510 MPH as a maximum anywhere. He says he did 490 IAS once but at what altitude is unknown and it is unclear if he was in a shallow dive or not. What could be the blurry are is the difference in conversion of knots, IAS and TAS relative to the altitude. Clostermann being French thought in KPH too so did the editor assisting with "The Big Show" get any of the conversions right? Good question!

Clostermann is talking about speeds at 3,000 feet here and in one case with the drag of external tanks. We don't know the OAT -outside air temperature either, which affects things. Today we use a 2% factor as an average. Mathematically increase your indicated airspeed (IAS) by 2% per thousand feet of altitude to obtain the true airspeed (TAS).

Clostermann's conversions of IAS and TAS calculated at the 2% OAT factor come out a bit differently 310MPH IAS is 328MPH TAS, 350MPH IAS is 371 MPH TAS and 430MPH IAS is 456MPH TAS. A 1 % OAT factor would be 320, 360 and 443MPH TAS.

My P-51 manual shows a chart of the comparisons of IAS and TAS
at 40,000 ft. 
IAS 260 MPH is 495 TAS
35,000 ft
290/500
30,000 ft
330/510
25,000 ft
360/520
20,000 ft
400/530
15,000 ft
440/540
10,000 ft
480/550
5,000 ft
IAS 505 MPH is 560 TAS 

Since Clostermann is probably talking about the 1st Tempests in service we can assume it was the Tempest V (Tempest Is production plans were abandoned Tempest IIs entered service after the V) which had a top end of 435 MPH @ 17,000 ft. 

The only 485 MPH airplane Hawker made was the Fury prototype with the 3,055 HP Napier Sabre VII 24-cyl flat H engine. This and the less powerfull 18 cylinder radial production aircraft were post war anyhow.

The V was the only legitimate Tempest in service in numbers. It was officially a low and medium interceptor fighter and fighter bomber hence the lower performance at altitude. This was the ship used to combat V-1s. Only 800 Tempest Vs ever existed with the total including post-war delivered VIs being 1,149.


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2006)

Jank said:


> .
> 
> Overboosting from max of 2,420 to 3,040? I'd like to see that!



Wouldn't like to fly it though. I would be waiting for the big bang and seeing expensive pieces of metal flying around my ears


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 19, 2006)

Kids, don't try this at home with your Sabre IIb.

*7-1/2 hour WEP test on Thunderbolt engine*


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 19, 2006)

Sal Monella said:


> Kids, don't try this at home with your Sabre IIb.
> 
> *7-1/2 hour WEP test on Thunderbolt engine*


I agree its pretty hard to rebuild a previously failed block


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 20, 2006)

They were running Sabre IIcs up past 3850 rpm and 3500 hp and got Sabre IVs with ADI up to 4000 hp with a little difficulty before wars end. Maybe not as reliable as the R-2800 but the sheer brute force of the Sabre shouldn't be underestimated.

My favourite Tempest was always the Centarus powered Mk II, which was apparently much nice to fly; much quieter (the Sabre SCREAMED along at 3700 rpm) a little faster and more nimble. Its something of a pity the RR tended to get most of the development money, as Bristol and Napier could of had their engines sorted a lot earlier with some judicious financing.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 20, 2006)

The reason I said Sabre IIb is because that is that engine that is being claimed to have been overboosted from maximum 2,420hp @ 11bs to 3,040hp @ God only knows what. That was the engine that went into the last wartime variant of the Tempest.

What aircraft were using the Sabre IIc's and IV's before the war's end?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

1. Closterman was known to lie and exagerate on just about everything he did. I would not take his word for anything, especially when more reliable sources say otherwise.

2. Id take the P-47 any day. In my opinion it is a much more rugged and better design.


----------



## Jank (Jul 20, 2006)

Amazing test. The XP-72, which was ordered into production later in 1944 but then cancelled, was to be produced with a very powerful engine that gave it a maximum speed of 490mph at combat loaded weight. The XP-72 was the first fighter to be designed around the huge 28-cylinger Pratt Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major, the most powerful piston engine produced during World War 2.

Pratt and Whitney R-4360 Engine


----------



## red admiral (Jul 20, 2006)

Well there is the Rolls-Royce Crecy giving up to 5000hp from 26litres and weighing 820kg.


----------



## Jank (Jul 20, 2006)

Concerning the Rolls-Royce Crecy:

Only six complete examples were built when the research was terminated in December 1945. An additional eight vee twins were built. Serial numbers were even, Rolls-Royce practice being to have even numbers for clock-wise rotating engines when viewed from the front. Crecy number 10 achieved 2500 hp on 21 December 1944. *Subsequently single cylinder tests achieved the equivalent of 5000 bhp for the complete engine*.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 20, 2006)

True, jets were the way forward.

Its not just the power of the Crecy which is impressive, the 2-stroke exhaust also gives considerable thrust - especially at high altitudes. Can't get that with a turbocharger. The exhaust thrust from the Merlin contributed about 30mph to the top speed iirc, with the addition of individual ejector stubs increasing this. You can also deafen your opponents, the Crecy is one of the loudest engines ever produced.


----------



## Erich (Jul 20, 2006)

I'll take Clostermanns views with a grain of salt just like his kill totals.

the Tempest under his butt and his squadron was a great machine, though against the Dora 9 from II./Jg 301 flown by Rudi Würff he just about got killed, Clostis wingman was vapourized and Clostis Tempest was dug into the ground like a wet sieve. another occassion he attributes his wingmans demise, the Tempest literally was blown into nothing as well as Clostis Tempest was torn to shreds in May of 45, the Frenchman consdered it to be ground 2cm fla, in reality it was 2 Me 262A-1a's of NJG 11 ............. it will be covered in our book.

sorry a bit off topic of sorts


----------



## billswagger (Mar 27, 2009)

Probably depending on the mission, but i"d still favor the P-47. 
It had better range and could go much higher than the Tempest, which later in the war would've been advantageous. 
Pluss, side by side, the P-47 looks like a tough piece of machinery, while it dwarfs the Tempest, making it look like a coffin with wings. 
Depsite the Tempest speed, their thin wings and light airframe would've been easy pickins, when contrasted to the P-47 airframe, which could also get going pretty fast with the right maneuvers. 

any info on roll rate comparisons??
P-47D-27 vs Tempest V II


----------



## red admiral (Mar 27, 2009)

The Tempest and P-47 are very similar aircraft built for low altitude and high altitude respectively so are difficult to compare. If its at low altitude, the Tempest wins. At high altitude, the P-47.
 
Below 20,000ft the Tempest has a large advantage in rate of climb and speed. Roll rate seems to favour the P-47 at low speed but the Tempest at high speed. The Tempest accelerates very well given the large amount of power and high engine rpms. It also dives and zoom climbs extremely well. Far from being a coffin with wings, its more like a flying tank. Its heavily built like the P-47 and able to withstand a lot of damage.

In late 1944/45 when the problems with the Sabre are fixed, the Tempest V is probably the best fighter at low level, and the II is even better.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 27, 2009)

red admiral said:


> The Tempest and P-47 are very similar aircraft built for low altitude and high altitude respectively so are difficult to compare. If its at low altitude, the Tempest wins. At high altitude, the P-47.
> 
> Below 20,000ft the Tempest has a large advantage in rate of climb and speed. Roll rate seems to favour the P-47 at low speed but the Tempest at high speed. The Tempest accelerates very well given the large amount of power and high engine rpms. It also dives and zoom climbs extremely well. Far from being a coffin with wings, its more like a flying tank. Its heavily built like the P-47 and able to withstand a lot of damage.
> 
> In late 1944/45 when the problems with the Sabre are fixed, the Tempest V is probably the best fighter at low level, and the II is even better.



I have to challenge your notion that the Tempest was built like a tank. Most of the weight was in the engine. The wings were kept thinner and the fuselage much thinner and lighter than the P-47s. Maybe the Typhoon shared some similar qualities, but no other fighter plane came close to the P-47s ruggedness. And i say "coffins" to refer to their limited performance above 20K, where most dog fights occurred at the time the Tempest first flew. Germans may have been reluctant to fly low enough to fight these planes, but some of the literature suggests that Tempests were very vulnerable when caught from above. 

It was a dominate low level fighter and served its purpose well.


I was wanting actual numbers on roll rates. I know the P-47 was actually a very proficient roller above 250IAS, as was the Tempest above 350IAS.


----------



## Magister (Mar 27, 2009)

_"Maybe the Typhoon shared some similar qualities, but *no other fighter plane came close to the P-47s ruggedness.*"_

I would assume that the Hellcat could suffer similar damage and bring its pilot home.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 28, 2009)

The fastest Hawker piston fighter was a single prototype of the Hawker Fury, LA610, which achieved 485mph in level flight when fitted with the Napier Sabre VII in a very neat close cowl which made easily the best looking Fury model too, No Tempest reached that speed. Also the ruggedness of the Tempest is not just Red Admirals notion, the Tempest was the biggest and heaviest single piston engined fighter ever produced in the UK, the thinness of its wings is relative and came about as a way to give good high altitude performance, which the Typhoon always lacked, there seems to be some misunderstanding of the Tempest, such was the size of the Tempest that the Fury began life as the 'Tempest Light Fighter' to meet the RAF's demand to reverse the upward trend in fighter size and weight. The description 'light airframe' could definitely not be applied to this aircraft.


----------



## davebender (Mar 28, 2009)

No amount of "ruggedness" will save an aircraft hit squarely by the 4 x 2cm cannon of a flakvierling or Fw-190. You need to protect the pilot, oil cooler and engine cooling system. Beyond that the best defense is superior aircraft performance.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 29, 2009)

davebender said:


> No amount of "ruggedness" will save an aircraft hit squarely by the 4 x 2cm cannon of a flakvierling or Fw-190. You need to protect the pilot, oil cooler and engine cooling system. Beyond that the best defense is superior aircraft performance.



i would agree....not getting shot was the idea.lol No pilot was flying around in a plane so tough it couldn't be shot down. 
The point made, was that the P-47 was a tougher plane and could handle quite a bit more damage than the Tempest V. The Tempest was probably an easier plane to get away in below its altitude threshold, but 109s could still out turn and out accelerate it. It had to dive, "hit the deck" to get away. when they got caught from above, they were toast. Shredded, exploded, poof....gonner. Vaporized.
There are still claims that it was the most successful interceptor, but hard to prove because the way numbers and credit was given to keep morale high. 
there are some interesting reads on the topic....just use google books.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 29, 2009)

billswagger said:


> i would agree....not getting shot was the idea.lol No pilot was flying around in a plane so tough it couldn't be shot down.
> The point made, was that the P-47 was a tougher plane and could handle quite a bit more damage than the Tempest V. The Tempest was probably an easier plane to get away in below its altitude threshold, but 109s could still out turn and out accelerate it. It had to dive, "hit the deck" to get away. when they got caught from above, they were toast. Shredded, exploded, poof....gonner. Vaporized.
> There are still claims that it was the most successful interceptor, but hard to prove because the way numbers and credit was given to keep morale high.
> there are some interesting reads on the topic....just use google books.


Hi billswagger,
How does one measure the toughness of the P47 compared to the Tempest? 
P47 weighed about 10,000 lbs empty, Tempest weighed 9275 empty. Only 725 lbs difference. P47 was 3 feet longer, but wing area and wingspan were nearly identical. Basically, either plane had plenty of mass to absorb damage. Keep in mind that the Tempest was basically a thin winged Typhoon, and the Typhoon was one of the most successful ground attack aircraft of WWII, a job which required a very tough plane. 
The radial engine in the P47 give it an edge in surviving combat damage, but that's about it as far as I can see. 

Any fighter caught from above was "toast, shredded, poof, gonner". 

The 109 would have had an initial acceleration advantage over the Tempest, but combat reports indicate very similar turn capabilities. 

I don't agree with your thought about Tempest interceptor claims being innaccurate because of numbers and credit being 'adjusted' to keep morale high. (my interpretation, not trying to put words in your mouth.  ) At the time the Tempest was introduced into service, morale for the allies was very high, they knew they were going to win the war, success rates were high against increasingly inexperienced Luftwaffe pilots, and Tempest pilots were flying what they considered to be the hottest plane on the planet. I don't believe Tempest over-claims were any higher than other allied planes.


----------



## Magister (Mar 29, 2009)

_The radial engine in the P47 give it an edge in surviving combat damage, but that's about it as far as I can see. _

If we were to assume just about equal survivability with respect to everything other than the engines, what kind of a margin of superiority, if any, would you assign to the R2800?


----------



## billswagger (Mar 29, 2009)

claidemore said:


> I don't agree with your thought about Tempest interceptor claims being innaccurate because of numbers and credit being 'adjusted' to keep morale high. (my interpretation, not trying to put words in your mouth.  )


What i meant by that, was that a pilot who single handedly shot down a bomber in a Tempest V, might get 1/4 credit for the kill, while the other three wingman, also get a 1/4 credit for the kill. This wasn't always the case, but you could see how, kill numbers can be flawed.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 29, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Hi billswagger,
> How does one measure the toughness of the P47 compared to the Tempest?
> P47 weighed about 10,000 lbs empty, Tempest weighed 9275 empty. Only 725 lbs difference. P47 was 3 feet longer, but wing area and wingspan were nearly identical. Basically, either plane had plenty of mass to absorb damage. Keep in mind that the Tempest was basically a thin winged Typhoon, and the Typhoon was one of the most successful ground attack aircraft of WWII, a job which required a very tough plane.
> The radial engine in the P47 give it an edge in surviving combat damage, but that's about it as far as I can see.


these are interesting figures. 
I've read the bulk of the weight of a tempest is its engine. How much does the engine and cooling system weigh???
I'll try to look it up, assuming you described the Hawker Tempest V, but i'll also see if i can find the V type II. 

The P-47D-25, was closer to 11,000 pounds empty. 
I'll have to look to see how much weight its engine was. 


mass vs mass, is one thing, but the very description "thinner wings" should stimulate some thought. My previous post admittedly compared the Typhoon as tough or nearly as tough as the P-47.


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 29, 2009)

I looked around and I see that the two engines are very simular in weight while sitting dry.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 29, 2009)

beaupower32 said:


> I looked around and I see that the two engines are very simular in weight while sitting dry.



If you rely on what Wiki says...lol

I had to know more...

Google Image Result for http://fastjeff57.tripod.com/napiersabre.jpg

This article shows the PW-2800 weighing 2350lbs
Napier Sabre II weighing in at 2500lbs.
There are various articles that put the weight of the engine in terms of percentage, (40% of 7200lb) for example...equating to about 2800lbs.
but i could not find specifics on percentage of weight fir the Tempest V

I would also offer looking at cutaways of the aircraft, to see the disbursement of mass. 


finally, 
in my search for weight information, I found this article expressing the vulnerability of the engine. 
napier sabre | 1944 | 0765 | Flight Archive


----------



## red admiral (Mar 29, 2009)

Lots of evidence in this regard is anecdotal yet I have never seen the Tempest being regarded as anything but rugged. Same for the Sabre, maintenance and reliability problems when first introduced, but no problems with vulnerability. That contributors opinion in Flight is only an opinion, not reality.

A lot of the Tempest airframe is made up of engine weight, but so is the P-47, especially if you include the weight of the turbo and ducting as well. Without the engine they're be very little left of the P-47.

Thinner wings doesn't mean more vulnerable. They were thinner to reduce drag and increase critical mach number.

The Tempest is better at low altitude, the P-47 at high altitude. At 20,000ft there isn't much to choose between them but I'd prefer the Tempest for better acceleration, zoom climb, dive and armament.


----------



## davebender (Mar 29, 2009)

Where else would you find a ground support aircraft? Performance above 15,000 ft is meaningless when discussing fighter-bomber performance.


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 29, 2009)

Thats a bit of a 20/20 hindsight, the Typhoon and Tempest were originally concieved for the role of an interceptor fighter, armed with four cannons. 

It was following problems with the Typhoon airframe and the Sabre engine, coupled with the fact that there was not much - apart from the occasional FW 190 Jabo raids - to intercept anyway was the type pressed into a fighter bomber role. But both of them were meant and were fighters, not fighter bombers - not anymore than any other fighter that got a bomb rack put on it!


----------



## drgondog (Mar 29, 2009)

billswagger said:


> What i meant by that, was that a pilot who single handedly shot down a bomber in a Tempest V, might get 1/4 credit for the kill, while the other three wingman, also get a 1/4 credit for the kill. This wasn't always the case, but you could see how, kill numbers can be flawed.



If one a/c was shot down and four guys received 1/4 credit, their is only 1.0 awarded. No over claim for your example.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 29, 2009)

billswagger said:


> What i meant by that, was that a pilot who single handedly shot down a bomber in a Tempest V, might get 1/4 credit for the kill, while the other three wingman, also get a 1/4 credit for the kill. This wasn't always the case, but you could see how, kill numbers can be flawed.



AFAIK there is only one instance of a bomber kill being shared by 4 Tempest pilots, a Ju188 on March 31/45. 
The Hawker Tempest Page
If you compare 1944 claims to 1945, you will see a greater ratio of 1/2 shared kills, indicating the scarcity of e/a and both pilots taking a 'squirt' at a victim, but I don't see that as pointing to any shortcomings of the Tempest as an interceptor.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 29, 2009)

billswagger said:


> If you rely on what Wiki says...lol
> 
> *Wiki - is always a decent point of reference if not always 100% correct. If it is only source, it is better than making it up. *
> 
> I would also offer looking at cutaways of the aircraft, to see the disbursement of mass.



Bill - just out of curiosity what will You specifically learn looking cutaways to 'see disbursement of mass'??

Just off the top you will find most WWII fighters designed for CG somewhere around 30% MAC.

Strngth of wing design is not determined by inspection, but by analysis. You have to know what the airframe loading was for the critical design checks, then look at the way the load paths take the load from say a tail in a roll to the fuselage to determine what the designer was trying to do with spar to bulkhead/fittings to longerons and shear panels.

If you don't know the cross sectional area of the longerons, you don't have a clue what tension and compression loads are taken in them. If you don't have the skin thickness and rivet spacing you can't get much on the design shear distribution.

If you can get those kinds of details by inspecting a 'cutaway', will you teach me?


----------



## claidemore (Mar 29, 2009)

billswagger said:


> finally,
> in my search for weight information, I found this article expressing the vulnerability of the engine.
> napier sabre | 1944 | 0765 | Flight Archive



This link shows a scan of a letter to the editor from an ex "Major?" in the RAF. Not much different from an opinion posted on these forums by any of us. 

Also I checked a few sources on weights of both the R2800 and Napier Sabre, they are within 10 lbs of each other dry weight. 

Magister: I give the radial engine the edge in survivabilty because it is air cooled.


----------



## Magister (Mar 29, 2009)

claidemore, yes, your earlier post also said, "_The radial engine in the P47 give it an edge in surviving combat damage, but that's about it as far as I can see_."

How much of an "edge" would you grant to the R2800 engine? I think an "edge" is generally thought of as being minor. Are you saying that the superiority of the R2800 in ability to survive combat damage is minor or do you have a different definition of edge in mind? (my definition may be off)


----------



## claidemore (Mar 29, 2009)

Minor, is a relative term. By 'edge' I mean 'advantage', and I know of no way to quantify the advantage of the 2800 over the N/S as far as combat damage survivability, beyond a basic understanding that the presence of the liquid cooling system provides one extra area of vulnerability.


----------



## Magister (Mar 29, 2009)

I wonder if the Sabre would be considered tougher than the Merlin. I think the R2800 was generally considered much, much tougher than the Merlin.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 29, 2009)

drgondog said:


> If one a/c was shot down and four guys received 1/4 credit, their is only 1.0 awarded. No over claim for your example.



true, but then if 5 airplanes show 2 kills a piece, but 3 of them did the bulk of the work, then it makes one particular aircraft look more consistent, rather than recognizing superior piloting skills of an individual aircraft. 

For example:

Wow...5 tempest got 9 kills, with only two loses. 


or....


1 pilot shot down 3 (later shot down)
joe "ace" Schmow downed 4
Bill Swagger downed 1
Drgondog downed 1 (also shot down.... )
Pilot C....0 kills


Whats better for your morale???

Eitherway, you'd have higher morale than the Germans. 2-9 is bad number to hear, when you had odds..


----------



## billswagger (Mar 29, 2009)

claidemore said:


> This link shows a scan of a letter to the editor from an ex "Major?" in the RAF. Not much different from an opinion posted on these forums by any of us.
> 
> Also I checked a few sources on weights of both the R2800 and Napier Sabre, they are within 10 lbs of each other dry weight.
> 
> Magister: I give the radial engine the edge in survivabilty because it is air cooled.



Napier Sabre II, right??

Please site the sources, i dug and dug, and the engine that was 10lb heavier was the Napier Sabre V, which could be a 300lb difference to the SabreII.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 29, 2009)

The next route i could go with a demonstration of the superior durability of the P-47 airframe is that it could carry an external load of 2000lbs. 

What was the external load the Tempest V could carry?? 

Fighter bombers going deep into Germany needed to be able fly high.

Late war air to air combat was a "vultch contest"....highest planes often had the advantage and were more likely to keep it, as dogfighting was not as common and often discouraged from the allied side.
I think the Tempest had its fighter bomber roll, but it would be better described as ground support. when i think of Bombs and rockets, the P-47 comes to mind, all though the Typhoon, as i mentioned twice before, was a better comparison. 

This is just my opinion, which i'd back with sources, but ish....none of that seems to hold weight with this crowd. 

You know...Seagulls are harder to shoot down, does that make them as durable as the P-47?? lol

watch out below....


----------



## Glider (Mar 29, 2009)

Survivability I would give to the P47 if only for the radial engine. 
As for the external payload I don't think there is much in it as both could carry 2,000lb of bombs but the P47 had more options as the Tempest didn't carry rockets during the war. Please don't ask me why, I have no idea.
Both dived like stink but the Tempest had the advantage in a climb.
Clearly the P47 had the advantage at altitude which is not important for a GA aircraft.
Clearly the P47 had a longer range which never does any harm.

Which would I call the best as a GA the P47.
Which would I call the best as a low medium fighter, the Tempest for the climb
Which would I call the best at altitude, the P47
Which would I rather be attacked by? No idea as I would be in the biggest deepest hole I could find


----------



## drgondog (Mar 29, 2009)

billswagger said:


> The next route i could go with a demonstration of the superior durability of the P-47 airframe is that it could carry an external load of 2000lbs.
> 
> *Bill - the hang weight of either airframe is most unlikely to be the structural limit analysis focus. More likely it would be a 7-8 g pullout with a full load of fuel and ammo. I suspect the same pullout with two 1000 pound bombs still attached would result in a very big hole in the ground but the wings would be somewhere else.*
> 
> ...



The 'crowd' - keeps posting sources to back up performance, and grants you some of your stated points about relative advantages of the P-47.

I like both ships and see advantages/disadvantages in both. To me the Jug was better suited to high altitude performance arena and the Tempest seemed better low to medium with a cross over around 20K.

Where you seem to stumble a little bit is offering opinions on features like structural integrity where you really have no facts to offer - which invites a challenge or two on your opinion and has no referenced links with performance - which is readily sourced.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 29, 2009)

Hi billswagger,


> Late war air to air combat was a "vultch contest"....highest planes often had the advantage and were more likely to keep it, as dogfighting was not as common and often discouraged from the allied side.
> I think the Tempest had its fighter bomber roll, but it would be better described as ground support. when i think of Bombs and rockets, the P-47 comes to mind, all though the Typhoon, as i mentioned twice before, was a better comparison.


Yup, altitude advantage has been a part of air combat since it's beginnings in WWI. 
I'm curious to see what sources document allied pilots being discouraged from dogfighting in the ETO? Makes sense against Zeros and Oscars in the PTO, but in Europe allied fighters were quite capable of 'dogfighting' with 190s and 109s, and in the AFDU trials turning ability was directly compared.
Tempest was primarily a mid and low alt _fighter_, their secondary role was ground attack. 


> Fighter bombers going deep into Germany needed to be able fly high.


 How high is 'high'? Ground attack aircraft didn't usually fly at high alt, nor did they go particularly deep into Germany, their targets being tactical in nature. In fact they commonly flew at low to medium alt, with escorting fighters above. The higher you are the harder it is to see targets on the ground and it takes a lot of extra fuel and time to climb higher with a heavy load of ordnance, which just has to come back down to the ground to be delivered. Exit from the target area was not done at high alt either. 
Consider the Soviet emphasis on ground attack and army cooperation. VVS literally had zero high alt fighters (some in PVO). Medium and low alt were the norm for ground attack planes and their escorts.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 29, 2009)

Try not to take me to literally, folks.
Planes still fought and engaged, but the classic dogfight where planes duked it out through twists and turns, gaining advantage...etc. was a thing of the past. 

Late war fights were energy fights. Usually relying on a dive of some sort to either evade an attack or, gain energy to take a swipe at an enemy plane. 

Come to think of it, that was probably always the more common tactic of the European theater even when Spit 1As were duking it out with early model FWs. 
Anyhow, fighters were discouraged from dogfighting, meaning...they'd make their quick pass on a plane then get away. Long turn battles and jockeying for position was less common in both theaters because the planes weren't designed for that kind of performance. They were designed for speed. 

I refuse to cite information that is readily available through a brief google search, or books.google. Or you can also flip through a few other threads and probably find enough information to write your own chapter on the History of WW2. 
I can recommend reading anything by Martin Bowman, particularly his take on the P-47 and Bf109K from 1943 to 1945.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 29, 2009)

billswagger said:


> Try not to take me to literally, folks.
> Planes still fought and engaged, but the classic dogfight where planes duked it out through twists and turns, gaining advantage...etc. was a thing of the past.
> 
> *So turning and manuevering fightes were a 'thing of the past' in WWII?*
> ...



take a walk through a couple hundred encounter reports and find the full spectrum

Mustang Encounter Reports

Mike has P-47 enconter reports and Spit encounter reports also. Study them and see how much agreement there is for your point of view?


----------



## claidemore (Mar 29, 2009)

billswagger said:


> Come to think of it, that was probably always the more common tactic of the European theater even when Spit 1As were duking it out with early model FWs.



Actually the Spit MkIa would have been duking it out with Me109 Emils's. The FW190 was contemporary with Spitfire Mk Vs. 

One possible advantage the P47 might have had over the Tempest in the ground attack role was the inability of the Tempests guns to be aimed below the datum line. There was a danger of flying into the ground during low level strafing runs. 
Anybody know if the P47 guns could be adjusted to shoot below the datum line?


----------



## davebender (Mar 30, 2009)

Could the P-47 carry a more effective gun package ILO the .50cal MGs?


----------



## Magister (Mar 30, 2009)

Somewhere on this forum, there is a thread concerning the feasibility of installing six 20mm cannons (three in each wing) in the P-47. As I recall, there was a back and forth about whether it could have been done in light of the Hurricane's successful employment of four 20mm cannons.

Whether it should have been done is, of course, a different issue. The Thunderbolt's eight .50's were very effective against aircraft and lightly armored vehicles / equipment.

Notable is the fact that included in the USAAF's first order for the XP-72 in 1944 (eventually canceled) was an alternate armament package of four 37mm cannons.


----------



## davebender (Mar 30, 2009)

That would be perfect for the CAS role. .50cal MGs just don't cut it against bunkers and armored vehicles.


----------



## red admiral (Mar 30, 2009)

It would depend on what the 37mm cannons actually were. I don't think it's been found what gun they would actually be fitted. The M4, M9 or something else. Probably better sticking with 0.50" or 20mm guns in the wings and having heavier weapons on underwing pods (like the 47mm fitted to a Tempest)


----------



## davebender (Mar 30, 2009)

What's wrong with the 37mm M9 aircraft cannon? It was made U.S. Army standard during January 1943.

47mm is too large for general use. In fact 30mm is probably optimum.


----------



## HoHun (Mar 30, 2009)

Hi Red Admiral,

>Probably better sticking with 0.50" or 20mm guns in the wings and having heavier weapons on underwing pods (like the 47mm fitted to a Tempest)

An interesting German development was an underbelly gun pod for the Me 109G, housing a MG 151/20 firing synchronizedly through the propeller disk.

I'm not sure which of the large cannon models were really suitable for synchronization, but for fitting a large-calibre cannon to a fighter, that could be an attractive option. 

(On the Tempest V, the chin radiator might get in the way, though 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Sep 22, 2009)

I think both fighters were in fact tied. The P-47 was faster at high altitudes, had a better dive, stronger armament, was more durable. On the other hand the Tempest was faster at medium and low altitudes, and was better at a climb. Still the P-47 durability could not compete with the Tempest's four 20mm cannons, and the Tempest also had a hell of a dive.
I can't really say the situations with maneuverability, but I think the p47 was more maneuverable at high altitudes.

I also think both were tied in the fighter-bomber/close-support role, it just depends what you want. If you wanted a fighter that could take a bunch of punishment from anti-aircraft and decimate the ground forces with a large amount of bombs and rockets, it would have to been the P-47. But if you wanted a fast fighter that could swoop in and quickly knock out the enemy with either bombs or rockets it would be the Tempest.

If I had to choose which one I would want to fly, it would be the Tempest. First of all, I am a great fan of the 4 x 20mms (some corsairs, late Japanese fighters, fw190). Secondly if I would want to be able to always outrun the enemy; something the Tempest could do with the 109 and 190. Lastly, I would choose rockets way over bombs in the ground attack role.

Respects to the P-47, but I would feel more comfortable in the Tempest.


----------



## Josh64 (Sep 27, 2009)

Both were great aircraft for what they did. But I would say the P-47, just because of its combat record, Tally, and of couse Ruggedness. The inline engine of a Tempest/Typhoon would die from a well placed pistol bullet. And thats why the RAF pilots in their Typhoons/Tempests suffered three times (I believe) the loss rate of the Thunderbolt Pilots. But I think just the tally the Jug chalked up in the Fighter Bomber Role settles the argument. And contrary to poular belief, it was an effective low altitude fighter.


----------



## Josh64 (Nov 10, 2009)

> Still the P-47 durability could not compete with the Tempest's four 20mm cannons



Yes the Tempest had more firepower with its 20mm cannons. But when you say that the P-47's durability can't compete with them, do you mean that the P-47 couldn't withstand hits from 20mm guns? Because I think many P-47 pilots would disagree, just read Robert Johnson's (56th FG ace) story of his encounter with an Fw-190 in June 1943. If you google this statement you'll find many articles about it. If that's not what you meant though just disregard this message.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 10, 2009)

Josh64 said:


> Yes the Tempest had more firepower with its 20mm cannons. But when you say that the P-47's durability can't compete with them, do you mean that the P-47 couldn't withstand hits from 20mm guns? Because I think many P-47 pilots would disagree, just read Robert Johnson's (56th FG ace) story of his encounter with an Fw-190 in June 1943. If you google this statement you'll find many articles about it. If that's not what you meant though just disregard this message.



RJ's account of that particular fight is disputed (by multiple first hand sources), so its not the best source to use.

Personally, I think the ruggedness of the P-47 is often OVERSTATED, not understated. Yet, it still had the lowest loss rate of the USAAF's single seat fighters in the ETO and MTO. 

Yes, I agree that the Sabre V on the Tempest/Typhoon was more vulnerable to ground fire and other damage, but even the mighty R-2800 could be brought down by a single RC round in the right/wrong place. 

The Sabre V was also more prone to mechanical failure than the R-2800, which I think is the major ace in the hole for the P-47.

It comes down to personal preference.

Above 20,000 ft there is no comparison, the P-47 is better on account of its turbocharger.

But, below 15,000 feet do you prefer the P-47 which is more rugged/survivable fighter against damage, particularly ground fire, but more vulnerable when it comes to combating enemy fighters? Or do you want the Tempest V, which is more competitive against enemy fighters at lower altitudes but more inclined to burst into flames if it runs into enemy fire or expire from its own engine troubles.

To me, it depends on the general combat situation you're in. If you're fighting for control of local airspace above the battle ground (al la MTO 1941-1944, CBI 1941-1945, Russia threater 1941-1945), I'd want a Tempest V. 

If I was escorting bombers deep into enemy territory (ETO 1942-1945, PTO 1943-1945) I'd want a P-47.

My personal preference is for the Tempest V, I just like Hawker aircraft.

But, if you were a general conducting a war, think on this:

The P-47 can do all the jobs the Tempest V can do, and do them acceptably well. BUT, the Tempest V cannot do the long-range/high alt job that the P-47 could do.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 10, 2009)

Jabberwocky said:


> RJ's account of that particular fight is disputed (by multiple first hand sources), so its not the best source to use.
> 
> Personally, I think the ruggedness of the P-47 is often OVERSTATED, not understated. Yet, it still had the lowest loss rate of the USAAF's single seat fighters in the ETO and MTO.
> 
> ...



What was the range of the Tempest, I remember it being quite good without being great. I have a figure in front of me saying the range of the P-47D was 1800 miles?

Does a figure of around 1000miles sound about right for the Tempest?


I also pick the Tempest V, the Tempest has always appealed to me. I like the idea that I can open the throttle and escape from danger and when i get into shooting range unleash some serious firepower.


----------



## davebender (Nov 10, 2009)

Nor should anyone expect it to as the RAF bombed mostly at night. The Tempest and P-47 were equally useless for escorting British heavy bombers.


----------



## claidemore (Nov 11, 2009)

Not exactly sure, but I think the range of the Tempest V with drop tanks was 1500 miles, and the P47 with drop tanks 1100-1250 miles. P47 did have an 1800 mile 'ferry' range, but that is a wee bit different.
Had they needed the Tempest for high alt work, (RAF had Spitfires for that role) they would have continued developement of the 3 speed 2 stage supercharger for the Napier Sabre engine. With the supercharger high alt performance of the Tempest should have been on par with the P47. Later variants of the Sabre engine (Mk VII for example with water methanol injection) had excellent alt performance.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest V combat radius with no tanks was just 240 miles. This is including provisions for 5 min at take off power, 2 min at climb power, 15 minutes at fast cruise and 5 min at full combat. The balance was at economical cruise of 45 gal/hr. Fuel tank is 160 Imp gal. 

With 2 x 45 Imp gal tanks it was 405 miles, with above caveats

With 2 x 90 Imp gal tanks it was approximately 620 miles, again with above allowances. This figure is my own calculation, based of the RAF's allowances for the 2 x 45 gal configuration. I don't think the RAF got the 2 x 90 gal configuration onto the Tempest until late 1944.

Theoretical still air cruising range (ferry flight) with no externals was about 680 miles. With 2 x 45 tanks it was about 1,200 miles. With 2 x 90 it was about 1,770 miles. This is with no combat or fast cruise, just take-off and climb allowances of 20 Imp gal.

The RAF credited the 'Thunderbolt II' (P-47-D bubbletop) with 445 mile combat radius on internal fuel (or 85% better than the Tempest V). Internal tank is 309 imp gal. Radius with 2 x 138 gal tanks was 795 miles, or about 30% better than the Tempest V with 2 x 90 gal tanks. 

I've got no first hand sources on ferry range, but given RAF figures for the Tempest and Spitfire, these are typically 2.75-2.9 times combat radius. This translates to about 1,250 miles clean and 2,200 miles with tanks for the P-47. 

I'd actually pull these down a little, probably to about 1,150 and 2,050 miles or even a little less, because the Sabre was relatively more efficient at economical cruise and relatively more thirsty opened up than the R-2800 (45 gal/hr vs 52 gal/hr at cruise, 220 gal/hr vs 215 gal/hr at full combat power of +11 lbs boost and 72" manifold, respectively).

The Thunderbolt also had better endurance, as it covered the longer range at lower speeds (about 25 mph slower when flying with external tanks). So, while a Tempest V might make its 620 mile combat mission in about 2.5-3 hours, the P-47 would take about 10% longer to do the same distance. This might only translate to another 15-20 minutes, but it all helps.

This is a good thing when escorting heavily laden bombers, or orbiting with weapons on pylons waiting for a ground target, by maybe not so good if your about to get jumped by fighters (speed = life and all that).

So, the P-47 can go 10% further on a combat mission on internal fuel than the Tempest V can with two 45 Imp gal external tanks. That's quite a feather in its cap. Although it does use about 25% more fuel doing so.


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 12, 2009)

Thanks for that post, very informative


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 12, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Bill, simply - the WWII fighter versus fighter engagements (in the range of 100,000+ ) took all forms based on the tactical situation.



agreed


----------



## claidemore (Nov 12, 2009)

My sources ( ichecked four different ones) give a 'range' for the Mk V Tempest of 740 miles on internal fuel. 
Range with drop tanks is given as 1530-1580 depending on source. The one source states that this 1530 mile range is with the two 45 gallon tanks, and that the 90 gallon tanks were generally used for ferryting. 

The Hawker Tempest Page

At Mike Williams site there is a chart that gives both range and radius. Radius is listed as 239 w/o drop tanks and 404 with 45 gallon tanks. Range on that document is 593 w/o and 1011 with tanks. 
On the Mk V data sheet at the same site, range at most economical cruise is listed as 1210 miles wth 45 gallon tanks, and 1770 with 90 gallon tanks. That chart indicates that 105 miles should be subtracted for 5 mins of combat. 

Tactical radius of the P47C was estimated to be 240 miles. 

P47M range at crusing speed is given as 785 miles (205 gallon internal fuel). With 110 gallon belly tank, tactical radius is 400 miles. 

Basically:
---with 2 x 45 gallons of extra fuel, combat radius for the Tempest is 404 miles. 
---with 110 gallon belly tank, combat radius for P47M is 400 miles. 

Looks to me like there is little difference in range between these two aircraft if you don't compare apples to oranges.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Nov 12, 2009)

The P-47M has 370 gallons internal fuel capacity.

_"---with 110 gallon belly tank, combat radius for P47M is 400 miles."_

No.


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 12, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> The P-47M has 370 gallons internal fuel capacity.
> 
> _"---with 110 gallon belly tank, combat radius for P47M is 400 miles."_
> 
> No.



What do you think then?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Nov 12, 2009)

I consulted the Republic Aviation Specifications and Capacities for the P-47M. The internal fuel capacity is 370 gallons - same as the later model D.

Unfortunately I don't have time to dig out range data but with 370 gallons of internal fuel capacity and a 110 gallon belly tank, the radius would be more than 400 miles.

(Edit) I'm not sure about the 400 mile radius now that I think of it. I see on Spitfire Performance the following though:

*REPUBLIC AVIATION 
Corporation	Report No. ES-300
Farmingdale, L. I., New York	Model AP-16a

October 14, 1944

Model Specification for
Republic Model – AP-16a
Fighter Offensive

Air Corps Type Designation P-47M
...
Performance (With Design Useful Load)
(1). Guaranteed Performance
...
(m)	Range at Cruising Speed with 205 gals. of fuel - 785 miles*


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 12, 2009)

claidemore said:


> My sources ( ichecked four different ones) give a 'range' for the Mk V Tempest of 740 miles on internal fuel.
> Range with drop tanks is given as 1530-1580 depending on source. The one source states that this 1530 mile range is with the two 45 gallon tanks, and that the 90 gallon tanks were generally used for ferryting.
> 
> The Hawker Tempest Page
> ...



All the figures I'm using are from wartime planning docs or aircraft data sheet.

I looked up the USAAF P-47 tactical planning characteristics sheet

Long range cruise for a P-47D-26RE with 370 US gal (296 Imp gal) in clean config was 1030 miles in 5.3 hours. With 780 US Gal (620 Imp gal) was 2,100 miles, in 10.2 hours. 

That's 2.78 air miles per gallon clean and 2.69 air miles per gallon with three external tanks.

Using the rough rule of thumb for combat radius of clean range divided by 2.8, then we get a 365 mile combat radius in clean config for a late P-47D.

Earlier P-47s obviously had worse range and they had much less internal fuel. The 47C and early D's had 305 US gal internal, which would give a range of about 800-835 miles (heavier Ds consuming more fuel per air mile), and a combat radius of about 300 miles. 

These figures aren't quite up with the RAF's, being off by about 80 miles in radius for clean config (albeit with less internal fuel).

Still, its a SIGNIFICANT range advantage over the Tempest, with a clean combat radius of 240 miles (according to RAF planning figures). Clean combat radius is still better by more than 50%. Even the earlier C/D models have a better than 25% range advantage.


----------



## claidemore (Nov 13, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> I consulted the Republic Aviation Specifications and Capacities for the P-47M. The internal fuel capacity is 370 gallons - same as the later model D.
> 
> Unfortunately I don't have time to dig out range data but with 370 gallons of internal fuel capacity and a 110 gallon belly tank, the radius would be more than 400 miles.
> 
> ...



Below is from Spitfire Performance website as well: Oct 3 1943 doc. 
Interesting that an accompanying doc shows radius for P47D as 600 miles, P47M/400 and P47N/1310.


----------



## claidemore (Nov 13, 2009)

Jabberwocky said:


> All the figures I'm using are from wartime planning docs or aircraft data sheet.
> 
> I looked up the USAAF P-47 tactical planning characteristics sheet
> 
> ...



By comparison, the Tempest Mk V with 20% reduction factored in, gets 3.2 air miles per gallon with two 45 gallon tanks, and 4.04 air miles per gallon at most economical cruise (without the 20% reduction). 
That's considerably better fuel economy. 

Basically the P47D is getting more range by carrying much more fuel. With the extra 30 gallon internal tank that was an option on the Mk V, and 180 gallons from the two 90 gallon drop tanks, we get a max cruising range of 1770 miles. That would seem to be adequate to the task in Northern Europe, I believe London to Berlin is 579 miles.
Of course there is still the lack of a high alt supercharger for any long range escort job.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Nov 13, 2009)

So you think that just with internal fuel of 370 gallons (no 110 gallon external tank), the combat radius would be significantly less than 400 miles?


Notice how the weight is significantly greater on the M than the D in your source? (This is where alarms should be going off).

I suspect that the listed "combat weight" of 13,262lbs for that 400 mile radius is without an *additional* 750lbs from the belly tank and 110 gallons of fuel. 


Per Republic Aviation Specifications and Capacities, the "combat gross weight" of the P-47M (full internal fuel and full ammunition load) is 13,275lbs. That's without a 110 gallon belly tank and just happens to be a mere 13lbs off from the "combat weight" in the source you have cited.

Look at this link. (An accompanying document to the one you cited.) It also shows a 600 mile radius for the D with 330 gallons of external fuel. If that is the load out condition for the D as reflected in your cited source which also shows a 600 mile radius for the D, then the weight issue becomes even more problematic as the D is carrying an extra *1,500lbs* of fuel more than the M (220 gallons more in two tanks instead of one) and yet the M is listed with a heavier weight.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-differences.jpg


I probably missed this but why are we talking about the P-47M again? *P-47D-27 vs. Tempest V*


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Nov 13, 2009)

The first doc is a supplement to the second.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Josh64 (Nov 15, 2009)

Jabberwocky said:


> RJ's account of that particular fight is disputed (by multiple first hand sources), so its not the best source to use.
> 
> Personally, I think the ruggedness of the P-47 is often OVERSTATED, not understated. Yet, it still had the lowest loss rate of the USAAF's single seat fighters in the ETO and MTO.
> 
> ...



Great Points, I totally agree!
Just curious though, who has argued against Robert Johnson's story of his encounter that day?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Nov 15, 2009)

According to these two sources, the altitude performance of the Thunderbolt is already present at 15,000ft as far as climb goes. Are there other tests that indicate better for the Tempest? Both the below tests are mid 1944.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tp.htm

Tempest

S/L 4,380 ft/min and 376 mph

4,000 ft - 3,740 ft/min and 397 mph

15,000 ft - 2,785 ft/min and 421 mph @ 16,000ft

28,000 ft - 1,020 ft/min and 405 mph


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html

P-47

10,000ft - 3,260ft/min and 345 mph

15,000ft - 3,200ft/min and 416 mph

23,200ft - 2,680ft/min and 444mph

28,000ft - 2,175 ft/min and 427mph


----------



## red admiral (Nov 15, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Are there other tests that indicate better for the Tempest?



Tempest V Performance

Plenty of performance tests from 1944 showing better results. Speed varying between ~370mph at sl up to ~435mph at 18000ft. I've seen better climb performance as well, around 4700fpm at sl and 2800fpm at 18000ft.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Nov 15, 2009)

The link you provided was the one I used for the data I listed for the Tempest. Did you mean to provide a different link?


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 15, 2009)

i think him talking on different performances with highest boost down in the page


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Nov 15, 2009)

I'm not seeing the "4700fpm at sl" figure. I'm also not seeing the "2,800fpm at 18,000ft:" figure.

I don't have my glasses with me though.


----------



## red admiral (Nov 15, 2009)

The spitfire performance and wiiaircraftperformance sites link into each other.

I said I've seen better performance figures elsewhere, probably with 11 and 13lb boost.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Nov 15, 2009)

Yes, I'm talking about both links.

Tempest V Performance (the link you provided)

and the link inside the above

Tempest V Performance Data


Again, I'm not seeing the "around 4700fpm at sl and 2800fpm at 18000ft" in the link you provided in post #83. Perhaps it isn't there? 

Maybe you can cut and paste the relevant excerpt and the link that supports it? I'm not challenging you, I just don't see it.

At any rate, I never said the Thunderbolt was competitive at S/L and 2,800fpm at 18,000ft is still 320fpm less than the 3,120fpm of the Thunderbolt at 18,000ft.








At 18,000ft, the Thunderbolt is showing 428mph. (not significantly different than ~435mph)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## red admiral (Nov 16, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Maybe you can cut and paste the relevant excerpt and the link that supports it? I'm not challenging you, I just don't see it



I've seen higher numbers on different sites and books. Flight archive is good for a few articles on the Tempest.

One I have quickly to hand is the following link; Aces High Fighter Comparison, where the data in compiled from various test reports and reconciled into an excel database to allow easy comparison.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Nov 16, 2009)

_One I have quickly to hand is the following link; Aces High Fighter Comparison, where the data in compiled from various test reports and reconciled into an excel database to allow easy comparison._

With all due respect, I hope you will understand if I reject, outright, the "Aces High Fighter Comparison Chart" compiled from data submitted by players of the game "Aces High."

At any rate, to bring this discussion back on target, my only point is only that that the superiority of the Thunderbolt may manifest prior to 20,000ft - more like 15,000ft.


----------



## billswagger (Nov 16, 2010)

Now that i think about it, these two planes do have similar mass.
The only thing that might've made the Tempest more vulnerable was the cooling system. 
I'd still say the P-47 was in the same class of ruggedness as the Typhoon, and the Tempest would've been a lighter version of that if only for trimming down the wings some. 
All three aircraft were probably structurally comparable. 

Its been some time since id seen that mike williams post. 
That document showing 443mph at 29,000ft for the P-47D
Incredible. 


Bill


----------



## davparlr (Nov 16, 2010)

billswagger said:


> Its been some time since id seen that mike williams post.
> That document showing 443mph at 29,000ft for the P-47D
> Incredible.
> 
> ...



It has an incredible engine. Look at the hp rating for the N at the site listed. It shows 2800 hp flat rated up to 33,000 ft. I don't have the -25 engine power profile but I suspect it is similar with hp of 2600. I know of no other fighters that has that kind of power up that high except maybe a P-38 model. This is the main reason why the P-47 was selected as the best allied fighter above 25k by the joint fighter conference.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406-speed.jpg


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 8, 2012)

Regarding the ruggedness of these two, the Tempest's ultimate load factor was 14.5 g, whereas that of the P-47 was 12 g, according to a British document provided by Neil Stirling (I have placed the copy somewhere safe for I could not find it right now...).


----------



## Glider (Jul 9, 2012)

davparlr said:


> This is the main reason why the P-47 was selected as the best allied fighter above 25k by the joint fighter conference.
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406-speed.jpg



Its worth remembering that at the time of the conference the P47N was brand new and not in service. The RAF aircraft that participated were well past it. It would have been interesting if the Hornet or Tempest II had been able to participate


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Aug 23, 2019)

At any point a comparison between a dedicated low-altitude short-range fighter and a high-altitude interceptor/heavy fighter is completely pointless. Only an idiot will choose to fight against a Tempest in his P-47 below 5000ft, or fight against a P-47D in his Tempest at 35000ft. Here is a comparison between a Tempest II and a P-47 restricted to 58inHg of boost and 2700rpm (unfair, in comparison with a Tempest II there should be a P-47M with 76inHg and 2800rpm):

Tempest II Tactical Trials

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

