# P-47D or F4U-1?



## Sal Monella (May 1, 2006)

http://img280.imageshack.us/img280/6853/fig033hp.jpg

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/6500/p47dclimbandspeed7kd.jpg

Was the P-47D with the paddle blade better than the F4U-1?


----------



## Jank (May 1, 2006)

The P-47D with the paddle blade can reach 20,000ft in 7 minutes. The F4U-1reaches 20,000ft in 7.5 minutes.

I found this surprising. With slightly better climb, speed and clearly superior roll, dive and firepower, as long as the P-47 stays out of a tight turning fight, it looks like it could come out on top.


----------



## Sal Monella (May 1, 2006)

Does the Thunderbolt have a better roll rate than the Corsair? I didn't know that.

I too was surprised at that climb rate data. The paddle blade transformed the Jug into a competent air to air ship.

I agree though that in a turning fight (especially at low altitude), the Corsair would probably wax it. 

I think the advantages the Jug has would probably grow with the increase in altitude where its turbosupercharger could really pour on the horsepower.


----------



## syscom3 (May 1, 2006)

The P47 was a good "roller" at high altitude.


----------



## Jank (May 2, 2006)

Climb at S/L - 3,100fpm (Corsair) 3,200fpm (Thunderbolt)

Climb at 10,000ft. - 2,975fpm (Corsair) 3,050fpm (Thunderbolt)

Climb at 15,000ft. - 2,700fpm (Corsair) 2,900fpm (Thunderbolt)

Climb at 20,000ft. - 2,250fpm (Corsair) 2,650fpm (Thunderbolt)

Max Speed at S/L - 353mph (Corsair) 340 mph (Thunderbolt)

Max Speed at 20,000ft. - 405mph (Corsair) 415 mph (Thunderbolt)


----------



## elmilitaro (May 2, 2006)

Nice info.


----------



## Sal Monella (May 8, 2006)

Yes, good info. Looks like you plotted that data from the performance charts.


----------



## wmaxt (May 9, 2006)

Jank said:


> Climb at S/L - 3,100fpm (Corsair) 3,200fpm (Thunderbolt)
> 
> Climb at 10,000ft. - 2,975fpm (Corsair) 3,050fpm (Thunderbolt)
> 
> ...



Most sources post a top speed for the F4U-1 at 417mph - 420mph.

Vought actualy reduced the roll rate on the Corsair because the prototype rolled to quickly and easily.

wmaxt


----------



## elmilitaro (May 9, 2006)

Hmmm, didn't know that.


----------



## Jank (May 9, 2006)

Wmaxt, the chart for the F4U-1 shows exactly that. At 25,000ft, the top speed is 420mph. At 20,000ft, the top speed is 405mph.


----------



## Twitch (May 11, 2006)

Here's a factor to consider in ALL of these comparos. An aircraft engine is set up by the factory to produce best speeds at certain altitudes relative to boost, supercharger, turbo settings and carburation due to air density, temperature and grains of water per cubic foot of ingested air.

Remember crew chiefs hotrodded Mustangs, Tempests and others to pull max power levels below 10,000 feet for V-1 intercepts. When we compare speed levels at altitudes we must realize that to 2 planes at the same altitude will have different performance even if they both have the same top speeds at their respective best performing altitudes.

If a plane goes 410 MPH at 27,000 feet and another makes 410 at 19,500 feet if they meet at either specified level one will lack power and speed. If they mix it up at an arbitrary altitude both will have lesser top ends.


----------



## Jank (May 11, 2006)

Twitch, you are correct, of course, which is why I provided data points for the same altitudes for both aircraft. 

The 2,535 hp paddle blade and water injection "D" model was a different animal indeed. Who would have thought that it could match/out perform an F4U-1 in climb rate?


----------



## chris mcmillin (May 12, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Most sources post a top speed for the F4U-1 at 417mph - 420mph.
> 
> Vought actualy reduced the roll rate on the Corsair because the prototype rolled to quickly and easily.
> 
> wmaxt



The critical altitude (max altitude in which the engine produces max power) is most likely higher than 20,000 feet for the Corsair and certainly higher for the Thunderbolt. The higher the engine makes max power, the faster the airframe will go because the drag gets less the higher it goes.
Chris...


----------



## helmitsmit (May 12, 2006)

I heard that the Jug had a **** roll rate and it's turning was awful. Diving was it's strongest allie.


----------



## Sal Monella (May 12, 2006)

The F4U-1 can pull 2,000hp as high as 19,000ft. After that it begins to steadily drop off. At 25,000ft, it's pulling 1,500hp.

The chart on the P-47 doesn't indicate the H.P. curve but I recall from memory that the P-47D could pull 100% at close to 30,000ft.


----------



## Twitch (May 12, 2006)

P-47 roll rates were quite good. Bob Johnson out rolled enemy planes all the time. Fred Christensen related a combat he was in with Adolf Galland where they ended up doinf circular elevtor turns neither gaining on the other. The Jug literally held its own against a 109 in that respect. This is out of the mouth of one of the top P-47 aces to me.

There are accounts of wild turning combats at tree top level P-47 versus 109s or 190s. Don Gentile related an account of one of those and survived. The dry and stuffy figures that claim "The P-XX has a turning radius of XX at XXX MPH at XX,XXX altitude," are just so much data for data's sake. Since combats don't take place in vacuums under clinical conditions we will find surprising outcomes when we factor in pilots audacious and aggressiveness.

Just don't believe everything you hear about alleged performance limitations.


----------



## syscom3 (May 12, 2006)

I know the P47 (and the P38) had an effective turbocharger system that maintained a flat power rating throughout any altitude. 

I wonder if the F4U had a similar system?


----------



## Sal Monella (May 13, 2006)

The P-47D can maintain all of it's power up to about 28,000ft. The Corsair can maintain 2,000hp up to 19,000ft and by 25,000ft, she's down to 1,550hp.

The Corsair was never designed to be a high altitude aircraft.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 14, 2006)

> The Corsair was never designed to be a high altitude aircraft.


My point exactly..... Compare the 2 craft at their optimum combat altitudes......


----------



## helmitsmit (May 14, 2006)

good point.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 14, 2006)

I try not to get too involved in these comparisons, cause its all really silly anyways... Ive met many different pilots who flew all different fighter craft, and they all have different opinions....

My Grandfather flew several different aircraft, and stood by the Corsair as the ultimate fighter aircraft.....


----------



## Twitch (May 16, 2006)

Hehehe! Minor differences in performance are meaningless. There were few aircraft that were completely eclipsed by an opponent's. Pilots emphasized their ship's best points to exploit the enemy and avoided its weak points. 

I know 109 pilots who admit that the Fw 190 was better in most ways but they still preferred the 109! Just because a P-47 couldn't turn at the same rate as a 190 in most instances doesn't mean it was a dog. Real pilots got the most out of their crates. Did you know that if you flip off the ignition in a torque turn you can cut a tighter radius? It's little things like that learned by experience that make the difference not 11 MPH top speed advantage.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 16, 2006)

Agreed 100% Twitch...


----------



## evangilder (May 16, 2006)

Excellent point there.


----------



## Gnomey (May 16, 2006)

Agreed twitch good points.


----------



## Jank (May 16, 2006)

I think that having eight .50's is an advantage as well. At 750 rounds per minute, that's a total output of 6,000 rounds per minute. That's fearsome firepower!


----------



## helmitsmit (May 18, 2006)

Jank said:


> I think that having eight .50's is an advantage as well. At 750 rounds per minute, that's a total output of 6,000 rounds per minute. That's fearsome firepower!



good point


----------



## Jank (Jul 20, 2006)

I wonder how the P-47 "M" woiuld have fared against the F4U-4?


----------



## JF3D (Jul 21, 2006)

helmitsmit said:


> I heard that the Jug had a **** roll rate and it's turning was awful. Diving was it's strongest allie.




Negative, the Jug could roll like a *******. It was a boom and zoom fighter, not turn and burn. Until they put the paddle props on it, she took a while to get to altitude. Ironically she had better high altitude perfomance then the Mustang but was prefered for low level work due to the reliability of radial engine


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 21, 2006)

Right you are JF3D (any relation to R2D2?). From tests on the P-47C-1 in October and November of 1942:

3. Conclusions

e. The rate of aileron roll is the best found in any type of American fighter.

It was also flown in mock combat against the P-38F, P-39D-1, P-40F and P-51.

6. Discussion

(3)(a) It had superior rate of aileron roll at all speeds, and especially at high speed to all American fighter contemporary types, none could follow it in a fast reverse turn. 

The results can be read at the link below.

P-47C Tactical Trials


----------



## Jank (Jan 25, 2007)

By late in the war, the P-47D was a pretty hot ship given her size and weight.


----------



## renrich (Jan 27, 2007)

The F4U1D had a high speed at 20000 feet Of 417 to 425 with combat power.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 27, 2007)

All I can relate is the opinions of men I have met, who flew in both aircraft.... My Grandfather had, and his opinion of the P-47D, while an excellent aircraft, was inferior to the F4U with an experienced pilot...


----------



## renrich (Jan 27, 2007)

I don't believe that Vought ever tried to reduce the roll rate of the production F4Us. I have the book WHISTLEING DEATH by Boone Guyton who was the the chief test pilot on the Corsair after the prototype and they spent over 700 flight test hour improving the roll rate and the ailerons of the Corsair until it reputedly had the best roll rate of any US fighter.


----------



## renrich (Jan 27, 2007)

Yep, my uncle was an IP on P47s during the war and he said the Corsairs from a nearby NAS used to wax them regularly. Also the squadron leader of the Navy Jolly Rogers whose name was Blackburn in his book relates that the AAF pilots got to where they wouldn't even dogfight the Corsairs unless they went way upstairs.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 27, 2007)

Very true Renrich, those stories are quite accurate...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 27, 2007)

So again, if you wanted to fight at high altitudes, use the P47.

If you want to fight low or in the middle, use the Corsair.

Now, if you are escorting bombers at 30,000 ft, and need to provide top cover way above them so as to enable you to bounce any LW fighters up there, what will you use? P47 or F4U?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 27, 2007)

P-47D...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2007)

she does seem the more obvious choice...........


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 28, 2007)

I read somewhere about the Corsair had a higher crash rate for novice and intermediate pilots than the P47.

I don't know if that figure includes crash's for carrier training.
I would suspect the figure is basically true as even for landing on an airfield, the pilot is way back and has terrible visibility.

Off topic, but this thread reminds me of a story a guy I worked with at TRW 20 years ago told me. He was training at a navy mechanics school in 1944. His class was at morning drill before school started and a Corsair crashed on takeoff only a couple of hundred yards away. Many in the formation wanted to break ranks and rush out to help the pilot. Minutes went by, no pilot emerged, the crash trucks was taking its time and the formation was just straining on the "bit" to go and help. Finally the plane burst into flames killing the pilot. He told me that was one of the most important lessons they had to learn. Maintaining disiplin in the face of extreme danger. Soon he was at Guam where he saw lots of airplanes crashing.


----------



## quintisv (Jan 28, 2007)

They were both very outstanding aircraft that had a job to do and did it well.


----------



## Jank (Jan 30, 2007)

By June 1, 1944, all P-47D's in the ETO were using 100/150 grade fuel. (44-1)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45.pdf

At 70.0" Hg., with water injection, a maximum speed of 444 MPH was obtained at 23,200 feet.
P 47D Performance Test

Rate of climb (Note - no 70" HG climbs were made in this test, only 65"):
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p47d-44-1-climb.jpg

Top Speed:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg


----------



## renrich (Jan 30, 2007)

In answer to the question as to which fighter is best as an escort at 30000 ft it seems to me that both P47 and F4U could get to 30000 ft well enough with the P47 having an edge in performance at that altitude which increased at higher altitudes and the F4U having an edge below 25000 feet which increased at lower altitudes. Since most ACM took place below 25000 feet which fighter would you prefer? The Mig 15 had a definite performance advantage over the F86 above 30000 feet and was much more heavily armed but the kill ratio was heavily tilted for the F86.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 30, 2007)

B17's flew at 30K, with the LW flying up to get them. Better to have a good high flying plane able to engage them at high and mid altitudes and avoid the low altitudes 9where the bombers arent).

P47 is still the plane ot have for escort work.


----------



## renrich (Jan 30, 2007)

I read Bob Johnson's book and he spoke about the terrific roll rate of the P47 but my reference states that: " Nobody raved about aileron performance of P47s, though data for the P-47C-1 showed a peak roll rate of about 85 degrees per second (a 4.2 second full roll) at 250 mph IAS with a 50 pound pilot force on the stick." " for a P47D-30 or D-40 indicated a peak of about 60 degrees per second ( a 6 second roll) at around 220 mph IAS using a stick force of 30 lbs. Roll rate dropped to about half that value at 400 mph IAS.)


----------



## renrich (Jan 30, 2007)

My information indicates that few B17 or B24 missions were flown as high as 30000 feet especially over Europe.


----------



## renrich (Jan 30, 2007)

The P47 would definitely tend to do best using energy tactics whereas the Corsair would do best as an energy fighter against such as the A6M but would probably convert to angles tactics against An FW190.


----------



## Jank (Jan 30, 2007)

The F-86 had a lopsided kill ratio for reasons unrelated to its performance relative to the Mig-15. Had the Americans been flying the Mig-15 and the N. Koreans been flying the F-86, the kill ratio would have been the same in favor of the Americans.

I didn't know that this thread was about, "which fighter is best as an escort at 30000 ft." I think you are thinking of the thread about the P-47N and F4U-4.

I believe this thread is just a straight comparison in the air to air role of the late war variants of the F4U-1 and P-47D. 

In light of the 100/150 fuel in use in the ETO after 6/1/44 (apparently, not used in the Pacific), the performance of the P-47D was further enhanced with a 444mph top speed (70" HG) and a climb rate that exceeded the F4U-1 at all altitudes. Even at 65" HG, the P-47D could pull 3,260fpm at 10,000ft. There is no test data for the climb rate at 70" HG. This is not estimated or extrapolated data but data from actual tests on an unmodified, production line aircraft in combat trim.
P 47D Performance Test

The best climb rate for the F4U-1 was with WEP at S/L and was 3,210fpm.

I think it would be accurate to say that in a close in, twisting and turning fight where a lead plane tries to shake a chase plane (the sort of "fight" that American Corsair and Thunderbolt pilots might playfully engage in as a test of their flying abilities), the F4U-1 could certainly turn much, much tighter and would win. 

In the real world of air to air combat, it was not playful, close in slap fights though. Othyerwise the Zero would've been a real terror. The only advantage I see the late war F4U-1 having is turning radius. At all altitudes, climb goes to Thunderbolt, dive goes to Thunderbolt, roll rate goes to Thunderbolt, speed goes to Thunderbolt and offensive firepower goes to Thunderbolt. 

Now the F4U-4 was a different animal entirely. For openers, it had a rocketing climb rate well far and away superior to the P-47D and F4U-1.

Lastly, the F4U-1 had large parts of its wings and control surfaces covered in fabric. Little girl's skirts are made of fabric.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 30, 2007)

> I believe this thread is just a straight comparison in the air to air role of the late war variants of the F4U-1 and P-47D.



And it was shown that if you want to fight at low altitudes, use the F4U. Middle altitudes are even. High altitudes are for the P47.

I wouldnt want a F4U escorting a B17 at 30,000 feet. And I wouldnt want a P47 escorting light or medium bombers at 12,000 feet.


----------



## renrich (Jan 31, 2007)

Seems like syscom 3 has pretty well nailed it. The P47D-30 or 40 had a roll rate of 60 degrees per sec at 220 mph IAS. Roll rate dropped to half that value at 400 mph IAS. The roll rate of the Corsair was 90 degrees per sec at 290 mph IAS. The F4U1D was faster than the P47D from sea level to 15000 feet and even at 20000 feet where the P47D began to be faster. When the question was asked as to how long a runway a P47 needed, the answer was every bit of it.


----------



## Jank (Jan 31, 2007)

Do you have a citation for the assertion that the Corsair was faster from 0-15,000ft and also at 20,000ft? I see the P-47D pulling away after 10,000ft and remaining faster thereafter. (See the charts provided via the links concerning the Corsair and Thunderbolt which I have summarized below) 

Do you have a citation or data that supports your assertion that the Thunderbolt's roll rate was, well, lousy? 

I notice that you just sort of throw out claims without supporting evidence like when you said on the P-47N vs. F4U-4 thread, "_The P47B-N carried 267 rds per gun which gave them a firing time of 17.8 sec. The F4U1-4 carried 400 rds per gun which gave them a firing time of 26.7 sec." _ 

Actually, the P-47B,C&D could carry 425 rounds per gun and P-47N could carry 500 rounds per gun. (I cited evidence from pilots manuals and a Republic Aviation publication on capacities.) 

Speed of P-47D.
P 47D Performance Test
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg
S/L - 347mph
5,000 - 351mph
10,000 - 392mph
15,000 - 417mph
20,000 - 435mph
23,200 - 444mph (Top Speed)

Climb at 10,000 at 65" (less than 70" WEP) 3,260fpm


Speed of F4U-1.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-17930.pdf
SL - 365mph
5,000 - 383mph
10,000 - 392mph
15,000 - 410mph
20,000 - 430mph
20,300 - 431mph (Top Speed)

Climb at S/L at WEP 3,210fpm.
Climb at 10,000ft at WEP 3,010fpm

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/MSWF4UDATA.pdf
(Less favorable numbers for the Corsair vs. Thunderbolt)


----------



## Lt. Mereel (Jan 31, 2007)

the Corsair was used in the Pacific Theater againsts japan.

And the P-47 thunderbolt was used in the European Theater against Germany.

I like both of the aircraft, but I'll go with the Corsair.


----------



## Jank (Jan 31, 2007)

"_And the P-47 thunderbolt was used in the European Theater against Germany."_

The P-47 was used in the Pacific as well. And not just the "N" variant either but lots of "D" aircraft.

Thunderbolt: The P-47 in the Pacific: SS6079

I like the Corsair too.


----------



## Lt. Mereel (Jan 31, 2007)

whoops, havent heard much of the P-47 in the Pacific theater


----------



## Jank (Jan 31, 2007)

Renrich said, "_When the question was asked as to how long a runway a P47 needed, the answer was every bit of it."_

Indeed. Maximum take off weight for a P-47N was 21,198lbs! I believe the Corsair's was less than 17,000lbs.

The following is a fascinating read on P-47N's based out of Le Shima. By June 1, 1945, the 318th had racked up a 79 to 1 kill ratio. They also hold the all time record for the most planes destroyed by a fighter group in a single action when they encountered over 60 enemy aircraft and destroyed 34 without loss. They were the first to use napalm from the air, one of their pilots was the first to destroy an enemy aircraft with a rocket and they are credited with shooting down the last enemy aircraft of WWII. 

"Glory Gal" loaded for bear (Note the 1,000lb bombs under each wing, the 500lb bomb under the fuselage and 10 HVAR rockets (140lbs each) for total load of 3,900lbs!






"_The 318th Thunderbolts were rushed in between May 13th and 17th. Pilots were appalled by the airfield they found. Instead of the 5,800 dry feet needed to take off with 10 tons weight of plane and stores, they had 3,700 feet of wet sticky rock. Way too short for the big P-47 and the loads they were expected to lift. Major John Hussey, the 73rd CO, cut the tops off some trees on his first takeoff. 333rd CO Major Paul Fotjik described take off this way: "You put the tail wheel at the end of the runway, applied full throttle, full turbo, and the water injection (a "no no" on the ground). As the tail came up, we released the brakes. Sometimes we had to pop the flaps at the far end of the runway to get off. Fortunately, after clearing an embankment, we had a 400 foot drop-off to the ocean going north. We left many a wake in the water". They sometimes left tire tracks in the embankment as they took off too_."


~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html


----------



## JoeB (Jan 31, 2007)

From the linked page on 318th FG:
"May 28th was not: it produced two aces. Twenty-four T-bolts encountered 48 Japanese planes over Kanoya, and 10 pilots scored 17 kills, four probables, and 2 damaged. Stanley Lustic (19th) picked 2 off another pilot's tail and became an ace with 6 kills. And, in another two man show, Capt. John Vogt and his wingman Lt. Philip La Rochelle (19th) dropped their external tanks, and engaged 28 "Zekes" in a wild fight at 28,000 feet. Vogt got 5 and a probable, (ace in a day) and La Rochelle got 1 confirmed and 1 probable. The survivors had had enough and bugged out. "

Some of their opponents that day were the 'elite' 343rd Air Group, flying the N1K1J Shiden-kai (George). The 343rd lost 3 pilots KIA another WIA and at least one other plane belly landed. Looking at other published versions of this combat, the Georges were apparently the "Zekes" which came in at around 20k ft while the P-47's were attacking (actual) Zekes taking off from Kanoya East a/f. But the top cover element of P-47N's saw them at a distance and outclimbed them to 26k ft to start that part of the action at an advantage. Lustic's claims at least were probably against the 343rd. It's described in "Genda's Blade" by Sakaida from both sides and in more detail from the US side in other books.

Joe


----------



## Jank (Jan 31, 2007)

The only rate of roll information I have concerns tactical tests in a December 1942 report between the P-47C, P-38F, P-39D, P-51 and P-40F.
P-47C Tactical Trials

_(3) Maneuverability -- The P-47C-1 was flown in mock combat against the P-38F, P-39D1, P-40F, and the P-51._
...
_(a) It had superior rate of aileron roll at all speeds, and especially at high speed to all American fighter contemporary types, none could follow it in a fast reverse turn._
...
_(e) In close fighting the P-47C-1, due to its faster aileron roll, can quickly reverse turn and break off the combat almost at will._

_3. CONCLUSIONS:_
...
_e. The rate of aileron roll is the best found in any type of American fighter._


----------



## Jank (Feb 1, 2007)

Yes Joe.

For another good read on P-47N's in the Pacific, see "Oscar F. Perdomo - The Last Ace In a Day of WW II." 









For his personal actions Perdomo received the Air Medal with one leaf cluster and the Distinguished Service Cross for extraordinary heroism in action. He also won the honors of being the last USAAF pilot to become an “Ace in a Day”, and possibly the last pilot to claim this honor in World War II. _See link below._

Oscar F. Perdomo


----------



## renrich (Feb 1, 2007)

The performance information I am citing on WW2 fighters comes primarily from AMERICAS HUNDRED THOUSAND by Francis Dean, Schiffer Publishing 1997. Dean is an aeronautical engineer having a degree from MIT and worked for 35 years at Curtis-Wright and Boeing. It is apparent to me that there is a lot of data out there which conflicts. Being almost strictly an arm chair pilot most of what I know is what I read. However I reccomend this book to you highly. Even though you may disagree with some of it's material it is well written and appears to have been exhaustively researched. A 6 sec 360 degree roll for the P47D seems awfully slow to me as does a 4.2 sec roll for the Corsair. At the Joint Fighter Conference in 1944 the category of best ailerons at 350 mph showed the F4U1D finishing second behind the P51D. The P47D-30 finished 5th just in front of the P61B. I recently flew an L-39ZA whose roll rate is reputedly more than 300 degrees per second at 250 KIAS. I rolled it twice and it felt like what I imagined rollin a U-Bird or Jug would have felt like. FAST


----------



## Jank (Feb 1, 2007)

I have not read Francis Dean's book and thus, have nothing to offer in opposition or agreement for that matter. Did that book indicate that the ammunition capacity of the P-47B-N was 267rpg vs. 400rpg for the Corsair? 

I do have the Joint Fighter Conference. "Best ailerons" is not by definition nor necessarily "fastest roll rate." Also, I assume that you are well aware of the report's massive bias favoring USN over AAF aircraft. There are tallies of the pilots that evaluated each of the aircraft. Look at the ratio of USN to AAF evaluators for the USN and AAF fighters. 

Because of the general bias in favor of USN fighters, I think it is more interesting where USAAF aircraft come out on top of USN fighters. Where USN fighters come out on top, I think one must factor in the lopsided ratio of USN to USAAF pilot evaluators.

The votes were based not on obective tests measuring speed, climb and altitude but personal, subjective evaluations. It would be easy to see how a very large Thunderbolt might seem to have less responsive or slower aileron control. Familiarity and past experiences helped shape the evaluations. Look at how poorly the P-38L fared. (With it's boosted ailerons, it had a much faster roll rate by the way than the Thunderbolt, Mustang or Corsair) Look at how much better the F4U-1 fared over the F4U-4. Specifically, look at the Best Fighter Above and Below 25,000ft categories.

The categories that are for "Best" were not designed to be in ranked order. It was literally how many votes there were for 1st place. There were no votes for 2nd place and 3rd place, only trailing numbers for other aircraft.

I note that the Seafire (9th place) had less votes for Best ailerons at 350mph than the P-61 (7th place). Are you arguing that the Black Widow had a faster roll rate that the Seafire?


----------



## Jank (Feb 1, 2007)

I also see that the overall division of votes for the "Best" categories (as in "Best ailerons at 350mph") were:

Army - 9
Navy - 15 (66% more than the number of Army votes)
British - 7
Contractors - 20 (Naval contractors were overrepresented as well)


----------



## renrich (Feb 2, 2007)

That book stated that the standard load for a P47 was 267 rds per gun. This was in a table in the front of the book with all the fighters listed. In the section on the P47 in a caption under a picture of the P47,( there are many photos in the books with a good many photos of fighters mfg. in the US between the wars) it states that the max. ammo cap. of the P47 was 425 rds per gun. Actually the Corsairs outboard guns only had 375 rds the other 4 guns had 400 rds. In this book it does not mention the Seafire. The pilots voted the P47 as the best fighter above 25000 feet and the P51 the best fighter below 25000 feet. The F4U1D was voted the best fighter bomber. The P47D was voted the best strafer. There are some incongruities in the voting which I don't understand but apparently all those Navy pilots were appreciative of the AAFs fighters. I really think you would enjoy the book if you got a chance to review it.


----------



## Jank (Feb 2, 2007)

"_Actually the Corsairs outboard guns only had 375 rds the other 4 guns had 400 rds."_

I neglected to mention that. The maximum capacity for the Corsair was thus 2,350 rounds. The maximum capacity for the P-47B-D was 3,400 rounds and for the P-47N, it was 4,000 rounds.

"_In this book it does not mention the Seafire."_

The Seafire was evaluated at the Joint Fighter Conference. I only mentioned it because you pointed out that the Thunderbolt ranked just above the Black Widow for "Best ailerons at 350mph." (apparently arguing that the Thunderbolt's roll rate was poor) The Seafire ranked below the Black Widow and I think it would be safe to say that its roll rate was far superior to the Black Widow's. Thus, my point was that "Best Ailerons at 350mph" was not determinative of fastest roll rate.

I have done some reading and agree that the Corsair had an excellent maximum roll rate. I wish I had a chart showing the roll rate throughout the range of speed for both the Thunderbolt and Corsair.

One thing I recall reading about the Thunderbolt was that its roll rate was consistently high as opposed to having a sharp peak and valleys depending on speed. 

Perhaps someone else has some infornation on the roll rates of these two ships.


----------



## Jank (Feb 2, 2007)

More on the P-47 in the Pacific. The below piece centers on Thunderbolt ace, Colonel Neel Kearby. 

By early 1944, the Fifth Fighter Command had nineteen squadrons, eleven of which were equipped with P-47's.
.
Wings of Valor II- Neel Kearby
.
.
.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 2, 2007)

Jank said:


> The only rate of roll information I have concerns tactical tests in a December 1942 report between the P-47C, P-38F, P-39D, P-51 and P-40F.
> P-47C Tactical Trials
> 
> _(3) Maneuverability -- The P-47C-1 was flown in mock combat against the P-38F, P-39D1, P-40F, and the P-51._
> ...




Interesting enough, Sport Aviation Magizine got some flyable warbirds in 1990 and did a fly off measuring various variables. One was roll rate. The test was done at 200 kts. 10k ft., both right and left roll, full aileron deflection. The FG-1D is an F4U-1 without folding wings. This is the results.

Aircraft roll rate, degrees/sec, Left/Rright

P-51D 55/53

F6F-5 48/26

FG-1D 58/49

P-47D-40 66/61

This indicates that the P-47 would roll quite well at 10,000 ft.

*Classic Military Warnings*

"If your attack is going too well, you're walking into an ambush." Infantryman's Journal


----------



## jpatrick62 (Feb 9, 2007)

What I find amazing about comparisons tests between Army and Navy fighter, particularly the F4U is the fact there is any comparison at all. It's simply a matter of fact that Navy fighters need a additional bracing for the carrier landings, a retractable tailhook strong enough for the brutal decceleration, and folding wing mechanisms. All this adds considerable weight and drag, about 700 pounds for a WW2 airplane. If you really want to compare aircraft, either add this stuff to a P47 or take it off the F4U. Then you will get a real test of the design. All told, the Vought designers did a fantasic job of creating a naval fighter that was equal to and in many cases superior to, the best fighters of WW2. By the way, the army let it's own test pilots comment on the F4U and compared it to the P47/P51/P38. the results are here: 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02296.pdf

These 2 fighters were designed for different purposes early on. The naval fighter needs to get airborne quick and needs it's best fighting qualities at a lower alt than do escort fighters. The escort fighter generally has higher wing loading for reduced drag and higher speed, sacrificing low alt manuverability.

The designs of these 2 fighters culminated into the P47M and F4U-4 by 1945.
The F4U-4 was designed with much better higher alt performace, while keeping it's naval requirements for low alt performance. Quicte frankly, the F4U-4 was, in my estimation, probably one of the 3 premier fighters of the war.


----------



## Jank (Feb 9, 2007)

That test you cited has already been discussed above. If you go back and read, you can get caught up. It was of earlier models of the Corsair and Thunderbolt and was frankly surprising as most people (myself included) would have expected the Corsair to be far superior in most every tested value. 

And it isn't just the Corsair that was weighed down with extra weight due to its very different role. Because it was an escort fighter, the P-47 had a much greater fuel load. You will notice that the cited tests of the late war P-47D - 

P 47D Performance Test

- indicated a fuel internal fuel load of 370 gallons. All the test data on this thread for the Corsair is with 237 gallons of internal fuel.

133 gallons of fuel is not exactly light. In fact, it weighs well over 700 lbs! Shall we add that weight to the Corsair after subtracting 700lbs for the items you mentioned? 

How about the extra weight of that fantastic turbo-supercharger and its components to enable high altitude retention of engine power? 

The P-47 could be outfitted iwith six guns instead of eight too.

"_These 2 fighters were designed for different purposes early on. The naval fighter needs to get airborne quick and needs it's best fighting qualities at a lower alt than do escort fighters. The escort fighter generally has higher wing loading for reduced drag and higher speed, sacrificing low alt manuverability._"

I would generally agree with that but still think its fun to compare and contrast. I for one learn more in about aircraft from the various comparison threads than other sorts of threads.

Lastly, this thread concerns the F4U-1 and not the F4U-4 which was a different breast entiely. That beiong said, I would also agree that the F4U-4 was probably one the three best prop jobs of the war.

I think the P-47N was really a further evolution beyond the "M". At any rate, I think the P-47's evolution culminated with the XP-72 which had actually been ordered into production in late 1944 but then cancelled as the AAF decided that it wanted its fighter programs invested in long range escorts and jets. 

*3,450hp

Initial climb rate of 5,280fpm

Top speed at 25,000ft of 490mph*

Now that would have been a fearsome fighter!


----------



## jpatrick62 (Feb 9, 2007)

_133 gallons of fuel is not exactly light. In fact, it weighs well over 700 lbs! Shall we add that weight to the Corsair after subtracting 700lbs for the items you mentioned?_

The test I mentioned did not mention that the P47 was outfitted with 133 gallons of extra fuel, and I would suspect that both planes were outfitted similarly for testing purposes. Since this was an army test and service rivalry being what it was, I'm sure the army planes got every advantage necessary  

But back to my initial post. Interestingly, the Navy did exactly what I was wondering - what would a "clean" or unnavalized F4U-1 (early version) do? Esssentailly what does the design allow? In short, the F4U-1 maxxed out at 442 MPH without the drag of navalized items in 1943. Climb rate was unfortunately not tested.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02334.pdf

The reason all navalized versions of airframes do poorly compared to their land based versions (see Seafire vs Spitfire, Sea Hurricane versus the land based version) is additional weight and drag factors directly relating to their 
navalized requirements. 

That all being said, the P47 can best be compared to the P51 or even the P38 
since they were all considered high altitude escorts. Interestingly, the army picked the P51 over the P47 for ground support in Korea. This is strange in my book, considering the P47 models would have been better suited for this type of work.


----------



## Jank (Feb 9, 2007)

This thread is about the late war P-47D and the late war F4U-1. The comarison you cited was with an earlier F4U-1 variant and P-47C. The P-47C, I believe, had a full internal fuel capacity of 305 gallons vs. 230 for the Corsair. The F4U-1 was by no means the winner. Read it again. If you have some evidence that the Thunderbolt was given a margin of superiority just because it was an Army plane, please show me. Just saying that it "must have been the case" because your plane didn't do as well as you would have liked is intellectually lazy.

As for the next test you are citing with a "cleaned up" version of the F4U-1, go ahead and read that one again to.

442mph at 21,800ft @ 2,000hp. Anything there strike you as strange? Here's a hint. More horsepower at an even higher altitude?  The F4U-1 can't generate 2,000hp at 21,800ft. That was an estimated speed based on 2,000 horsepower. Didn't you wonder how a cleaned up aircraft could suddenly generate more horsepower at an even higher altitude?  Read what the actual top speed in the test run at WEP was.

Oh, lastly, the aircraft had a different propeller with a different gear ratio, neither of which were production standard. I guess that was to account for being non-navalized huh?


----------



## renrich (Feb 9, 2007)

As regards roll rate of the P47, Bob Johnson's book stated that the P47 had an excellent roll rate much better than the Spitfire. In mock dogfights when a Spit got on his tail since he could not outturn it or outclimb it he usually would start rolling and the Spit could not stay with him in that maneuver. His next move if he had the altitude was to dive since the Spit could not stay with him in a dive either. At the bottom of his dive he would zoom climb until the Spit was well below him then he would hammerhead stall the Jug and come down on the Spit which was rapidly running out of airspeed trying to follow him. An excellent example of early energy tactics.


----------



## Jank (Feb 9, 2007)

You know, I have Bob Johnson's book somewhere at home. You just gave me the impetus to pull it out and read it. For that I thank you.

Others on this forum have repeatedly made the point that we all get caught up in the minutia of top speed, rate of climb and the like. Hell it's fun! 8) 

In the end though, great pilots exploit the relative strengths of their aircraft such that even a tub like the P-47 can dance with Bf-109's and Fw-190's.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Feb 9, 2007)

I think it was a shame that the USAF didn't keep P-47s after WWII (other than for Reserve Units). The Corsair proved very useful in Korea as a fighter-bomber. The P-51s did okay but were vulnerable to ground fire since they had a liquid cooled engine.


----------



## Jank (Feb 9, 2007)

I agree. Someone on this forum once said that the P-47N had fuel cells as opposed to tanks in the wings that didn't run the risk of condensation forming from non-use. The P-47N would have been closer in performance to an "M" than a "D" without all that extra fuel. The N also had the capacity for 500 rounds per each of its eight guns. If they had switched out the M2's for M3's, can you imagine the inferno? Eight M3's firing at 1,200rpm. That's 160 rounds per second!

I would much rather have a Thunderbolt than a Mustang. That being said, I think the more versatile F4U-4 was better for close air support in Korea. 

Here is a picture of an "N" on LeShima.

"Glory Gal" loaded for bear (Note the 1,000lb bombs under each wing, the 500lb bomb under the fuselage and 10 HVAR rockets (140lbs each) for total ordinance load of 3,900lbs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2007)

Marshall_Stack said:


> The P-51s did okay but were vulnerable to ground fire since they had a liquid cooled engine.



All aircraft are vulnerable to ground fire. Even a radial engined aircraft is vulnerabel. Besides other parts of the aircraft the radial engine does not like ground fire either...


----------



## Jank (Feb 10, 2007)

I think you know what he meant Adler.

Something to chew on.

From the Rerport of Joint Fighter Conference, NAS Patuxent River, MD, 16-23 Oct. 1944:

Lieutenant Colonel Tyler: "_We have data which shows that in the entire European theatre the P-47is much better able to take punishment and return after any sort of mission - either ground attack or any mission which incurs damage. Thta may be due to the P-47 airplane or due to the air-cooled feature. We don't know which but it certainly can take it better than the other types_."


----------



## renrich (Feb 10, 2007)

I enjoy your posts Jank. Thank you. Yes, Johnson's book is outstanding and a good reference. I saw a comparison somewhere of his combat record and a Luftwaffe pilot's record over a similar time frame, I think it was Moelder's, and it was amazing how similar their records were. The point of the comparison was that if Johnson had stayed in action as long as some of the German pilots did, assuming he did not get killed, his no. of kills would have been way up there like the German pilot's were.


----------



## jpatrick62 (Feb 12, 2007)

Jank,

I think you need to reread the tests again yourself. The report clearly said that 2 speed test were physically conducted to geet the first result of 431 mph ON wep. In point 3, the testers clearly state that 1875 HP at 21,400 with ram was reasonable to expect, so I'm not sure where you state 2,000 HP would be out of capabilities. Remember, these guys actually did the tests and were there, they're not looking back at data unless you know something they don't. As for the remark about Army pilots favoring Army rides, that's not intellectual laziness, it's just reality. You youself stated earlier that the Combined 1944 fighter conference was slated heavily to the Navy (although I have the book and over 20 Army reps were there as well). Finally, as to my initial assertation that navalized fighters have excess weight that hinders their performance, that's not conjecture, that's fact. Look at the Seafire performance versus the statndard Spitfire, the Hurricanes as well. If you add a tailhook, extra bracing, and a folding wing mechanisms and drag to a P47, the performance will suffer and you'd be foolish to state otherwise.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2007)

Jank said:


> I think you know what he meant Adler.



No there is a big idea floating around and you see it alot on this thread. That misconception is that radials were no vulnerable to enemy fire and never broke. That is simply not true, especially the breaking part. I have worked on T-6 engines, if they never broke, I would not have had to work on them.

Were radials more rugged than inlines. Ofcourse they were, everyone knows that, but radials are machines too and dont take kindly to ground fire either.

That is what I truely believe a lot of people around here do not believe.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 12, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No there is a big idea floating around and you see it alot on this thread. That misconception is that radials were no vulnerable to enemy fire and never broke. That is simply not true, especially the breaking part. I have worked on T-6 engines, if they never broke, I would not have had to work on them.
> 
> Were radials more rugged than inlines. Ofcourse they were, everyone knows that, but radials are machines too and dont take kindly to ground fire either.
> 
> That is what I truely believe a lot of people around here do not believe.



Radials dont have coolant lines and radiators to spring a leak.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2007)

Radials still will quit working when lead is spit into them at a high velocity....


----------



## Jank (Feb 12, 2007)

"_No there is a big idea floating around and you see it a lot on this thread. That misconception is that radials were no vulnerable to enemy fire and never broke."_

Could you perhaps point out where anyone, at any time, has ever meant or otherwise intended to say that radials simply were not vulnerable to enemy fire and never broke? I for one have never see this "big idea floating around" which apparently rears its ugly head "a lot on this thread."

Again, you know what he meant. I supsect that if Marshall_Stack chimes back in, he can explain what he meant, which is what I think everyone else understood.

The big idea, Adler, is that radials could take a sh-t load of punishment and still bring their pilots back under circumstances where in-lines wouldn't.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2007)

No I do not have to to do any explaining. Is that a problem? Do you have a problem with me?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 12, 2007)

Deradler, you have to admit that having a liquid coollant system is one more thing to go wrong.

Air cooled radials simply are more reliable than liquid cooled engines.


----------



## Jank (Feb 12, 2007)

"_No I do not have to to do any explaining. Is that a problem? Do you have a problem with me?"_

Adler, you were the one who claimed that a big idea existed that radials were not vulnerable to ground fire and that this big idea could be seen a lot on this very thread. 

I disagree. I do not see it. I asked you to point it out so that you could set my stupid ass straight.

I have been respectful to you in this thread. Merely disagreeing with a claim by another and asking for the evidence that another says exists (that this big idea is floating around and can be seen a lot on this thread) should not be a problem either.

Hopefully we can agree on that.

I'm not sure how well this site would operate if when one's claims were challenged, the response was, "_No I do not have to to do any explaining. Is that a problem? Do you have a problem with me?"_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jank (Feb 12, 2007)

Jpatrick:

Yes, there were two actual speed runs. Those speeds were actual and were not estimated. The speeds on the two runs were 431mph and 423mph. The first of these actual speed runs is curiously similar to another actual performance test of the F4U-1:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-17930.pdf
(Note the top speed of 431mph and S/L climb rate of 3,210fpm - also with a different test propeller and cleaned up. *Note also that 2,000hp at WEP could be achieved as high as 16,400ft*)

Anyway, the report you cited went on to say, _"The maximum speed of F4U-1 airplane #02334 (special cleaned up version) is estimated to be 442mph."_

The F4U-1 could not pull 2,000hp at 21,800ft. Show me a test, report, chart that states otherwise.

This special cleaned up version had a different propeller as well with greater propulsive efficiency. The surface of the aircraft was "smoothed," wing irregularities were faired, wing walkways were removed and there was fairing of fuselage access doors and such. I suspect that the 444mph of the P-47D could have been increased through some or all of these modifications as well. 

As for the weight increase of the navalized version, as I indicated, aircraft of different roles have different baggage to contend with. The P-47 as an escort fighter had a lot of extra weight in fuel that the Cosair didn' have to contend with. The tests of the P-47D that I cited were all with full internal fuel of 370 gallons which is 133 gallons more than the tests cited by both you and myself for the Corsair at 237 gallons. (I believe one of the Corsair tests indiucated 230 gallons) 

The P-47 test I cited with a top speed of 444mph and 3,260fpm climb at 10,000ft was actual and had no special test propeller, surface smoothing or other cleaned up characteristics.

We need to judge aircraft as they existed and not with special test propellers, cleaned up characteristics, removed arrestor hooks, reduced fuel loads or the like to account for different roles.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 13, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Deradler, you have to admit that having a liquid coollant system is one more thing to go wrong.
> 
> Air cooled radials simply are more reliable than liquid cooled engines.



I agree with you. I have never said anything otherwise. I have allways stated that radials are more rugged.

There are just plenty of times that people post here that radials are invincible.

I make a simple statement and Jank wishes to blow it out of proportion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 13, 2007)

Jank said:


> "_No I do not have to to do any explaining. Is that a problem? Do you have a problem with me?"_
> 
> Adler, you were the one who claimed that a big idea existed that radials were not vulnerable to ground fire and that this big idea could be seen a lot on this very thread.
> 
> ...



Excuse me I should have said in this forum not in this thread. 

However no I will not back down on this. In the almost 3 years that I have been a member of this forum. You allways see people post about how a Radial will not succumb to ground fire. That is absolutly not true.

Yes the radial is not liquid cooled however you put rounds in a cylinder I dont care if you are air cooled or liquid cooled. Engines dont like lead.

The reason I ask if you had a problem with me is because this is twice now that you have questioned my opinion on something. If you wish to question facts that is fine (we can debate all day and night its fun  and I will admit if I am wrong in the end), but do not question an opinion that I hold. I do not question others opinions (unless it is syscoms opinion about Budweiser Beer ) it only leads to a pissing match that I will not loose.


----------



## renrich (Feb 13, 2007)

This is not to say that a radial engine is impervious to damage from enemy fire but this is a quote from the book, EIGHTY KNOTS TO MACH 2 by Richard Linnekin. " there is a color photo of an AD Skyraider sitting in the arresting gear of the USS Essex, burning furiously. That was Lt Roger Nelson of VA-55. Roger took a 37 mm hit in the accessory section of the R-3350 engine. It took out one cylinder completely and most of a second; that the engine continued to run was miraculous." He nursed the plane over the beach and to the task force where he executed a 3 wire landing. The deck crew put out the fire but the plane was a wreck and was jettisoned overboard. This was in Korea. Linnekin was the maintenance officer on his carrier and flew F9Fs. Good book with a lot of first hand experiences. Would a liquid cooled engine be able to absorb that damage and still run? I have read of numerous radials that did something similar.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Feb 13, 2007)

Okay, here it is for me..

1. I'm not a pilot
2. I'm not a airplane mechanic

I have however, read many accounts from WWII pilots that were afraid of "the golden BB" when flying glycol cooled engines. I have also read many accounts from pilots flying their P-47s back home with cylinders shot out.

If someone on this forum has worked on many types of engines, then I am not going to argue with that person. I am simply regurgitating what I have read from history.


----------



## Jank (Feb 13, 2007)

"_A Mission to Remember_" won out as the title over "_Thank God I wasn't flying a Spam Can Mustang_"

-------------------------

A Mission to Remember
August 12th, 1944
By Kenneth Kik Richard Kik Jr.

My grandfather always said that "a good war story means that 
something went wrong" August 12th, 1944 was one of those days. 

As told by Richard Kik Jr. 395th Fighter Squadron.

We took off on a usual mission armor cover flight at the Falaise 
track. Down at the Falaise track it was hard fighting, a lot of anti-
aircraft fire, a lot of infantry, armor, trucks, a lot of everything. I went 
down on a strafing run and hit this truck. *Previous to that I heard a 
thump somewhere in the airplane and I didn’t realize what it was, but 
when I came off the strafing run my wingman, Chuck Rife said "have 
you got the water on?" I said "no, why?" Chuck said "you’re trailing 
smoke." He came up and looked around and said "it’s coming off 
the bottom of the engine." It Turned out a 20 mm knocked two or 
three cylinders off my engine. That Pratt Whitney never stopped. 
I’m telling you, those people deserve a medal for that engine, I’ve 
never seen one like it.*

Our element leader, Captain Mazur said "well Rife, escort him 
home." So we started back across the line and as we got going 
along, Chuck caught a burst of anti-aircraft fire. Both of his wings 
were struck by 40mm rounds. The flak rounds exploded and pieces 
of metal entered his cockpit. The explosion damaged his 
instruments and shredded his parachute pack. So as we got across 
the line I told Chuck, "you better get ready to bail out." He said "I 
can’t, my parachute’s all tore up." I told Chuck you’ve got two live 
bombs on your wings, you’re not going to be able to belly land with 
those, can you drop them? He said "no, I can’t" and held up his 
bomb release, "cause here’s my bomb thing." It was a mess. He 
said "all my instruments are gone and I can’t put the gear down." So 
anyway, as we were going home and I’m talking to him all the time, 
telling him try to do this, try to do that. He finally worked it hard 
enough the handle, he said he had to take both legs and hold the 
stick over cause it kept wanting to roll. Finally he got the gear down 
manually. I said "okay, let’s just fly her in." Chuck said "I don’t have 
any instruments, I don’t have any idea what the speed is." I told him 
okay, I’ll tell you what, you fly on me, just stay right with me and we’ll 
get you down. So I kept the speed up pretty high and took him down 
to the runway. He made it down safely.
Then when I turned around to land it dawned on me I’m burning! I 
forgot about myself during this whole thing. The smoke’s rolling out 
now. So I whipped it around and landed, turned off the runway and 
the engine quit.

We made it! I jumped out of my plane and ran over to Chuck and 
helped him out of his damaged jug. Then I discovered that I also 
had two live bombs on I had forgot to drop. And one of them was 
hanging by the rear shackle, nose down. What happened was when 
I strafed that damn truck I was a little to low, Something had hit the 
nose fuse and I had a hanging armed bomb. They (the ground 
crew) were a little unhappy that I didn’t drop the bomb. Hell, I was 
happy to just be on the ground. There happened to be a whole 
bunch of AP reporters around that day, they write an article for the 
AP news.

Cliff Gamble stated that after Kik pulled Rife out of his plane he 
(Cliff) gave Kik a big hug and told him "Don't you ever do that again!"

Kik was awarded the Silver Star.

Charlie Rife was wounded in the lower back and spent a few days in 
the hospital.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2007)

Marshall_Stack said:


> Okay, here it is for me..
> 
> 1. I'm not a pilot
> 2. I'm not a airplane mechanic
> ...


Well I am a mechanic and pilot and I'll tell you radials and most air cooled engines are far superior to liquid cooled engines in their ability to be abused and take punishment. With that said, all it takes is one golden BB in the oil cooler or an oil cooler hose to be shot away and that big round engine may have about 2 to 5 minutes before it comes to a screeching halt.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 13, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well I am a mechanic and pilot and I'll tell you radials and most air cooled engines are far superior to liquid cooled engines in their ability to be abused and take punishment. With that said, all it takes is one golden BB in the oil cooler or an oil cooler hose to be shot away and that big round engine may have about 2 to 5 minutes before it comes to a screeching halt.



As said here and other places, some radials have returned home with a jug or two missing. This must cause loss of oil at some rate. Is the fact that the radial could get home due to limited oil loss and/or lots of oil (I have heard that C-124 engines had a 50 gal. oil tank each)?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2007)

davparlr said:


> As said here and other places, some radials have returned home with a jug or two missing. This must cause loss of oil at some rate. Is the fact that the radial could get home due to limited oil loss and/or lots of oil (I have heard that C-124 engines had a 50 gal. oil tank each)?


True - in many of those cases the oil getting blown out of the missing jug was under low pressure. The oil going to or from the oil cooler is generally under pressure. If the oil is allowed to escape all in one shot or if the oil flow around the engine is severely disrupted, that's when you'll have failure.

The most important area in a radial is the master rod - when the bearing on that fails, time to start praying....


----------



## Jank (Feb 13, 2007)

The oil capacity on the P-47C-M was *28* gallons.

The P-47N had a *40* gallon oil tank. The Republic Performance and Dimensions manual states, "_The large quantity of oil carried in the P-47N is to ensure satisfactory operation on long range missions._"

I believe that the engines on the P-38J and L had a capacity for 13 gallons. The Dauntless carried 20 gallons. I don't know about the P-51.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2007)

The P-47N being a long range fighter will both burn oil and "thow out oil through breather lines, something real common on recip engines.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 14, 2007)

Again people I am not saying that a radial will not take more punishment than an inline. I have never said so. However a radial is an engine as an engine is and is not oblivious to ground fire.

Besides the engine is not the only place to hit a plane and knock it out of the sky. If anyone actually believes that then they are very naive to the subject.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> True - in many of those cases the oil getting blown out of the missing jug was under low pressure. The oil going to or from the oil cooler is generally under pressure. If the oil is allowed to escape all in one shot or if the oil flow around the engine is severely disrupted, that's when you'll have failure.
> 
> The most important area in a radial is the master rod - when the bearing on that fails, time to start praying....



It still amazes me that an entire jug could be blown away, piston flying back and forth, and not damage the crank or master rod or anything else that would immediately seize the engine.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 14, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Again people I am not saying that a radial will not take more punishment than an inline. I have never said so. However a radial is an engine as an engine is and is not oblivious to ground fire.
> 
> Besides the engine is not the only place to hit a plane and knock it out of the sky. If anyone actually believes that then they are very naive to the subject.



I agree. The radial is still an engine with many sensitive parts and subject to failure even without damage. It is not "bullet proof". It is more rugged than a liquid cooled engine and obviously has fewer single point failures, but not none.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The P-47N being a long range fighter will both burn oil and "thow out oil through breather lines, something real common on recip engines.



The radial was know for being thirsty for oil.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 14, 2007)

davparlr said:


> I agree. The radial is still an engine with many sensitive parts and subject to failure even without damage. It is not "bullet proof". It is more rugged than a liquid cooled engine and obviously has fewer single point failures, but not none.



Thankyou someone finally got what I was saying...


----------



## Soren (Feb 14, 2007)

We have all heard of both FW-190's and P-47's come home with entire cylinders blown away, however I believe most radial engines wouldn't survive damage like this. A single projectile of 12mm or more can easily sieze a radial engine from working, its all about where it hits.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 14, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thankyou someone finally got what I was saying...



Oh I got you too! Many things can cause you to fall out of the sky. That's not even counting battle damage yet!


----------



## jpatrick62 (Feb 14, 2007)

_We need to judge aircraft as they existed and not with special test propellers, cleaned up characteristics, removed arrestor hooks, reduced fuel loads or the like to account for different roles._

Jank, 

While that is certainly true for aircraft performing similar roles (P51 vs P47 vs P38), when you campare aircraft built for different roles, you need to account for specialization. That's probably why this whole thread is essentially speculation, but it's fun nonetheless. The P47 was a high altitude bomber escort that also excelled as a rugged low alt combat support machine. Because the role of fighters in the naval sense required interception of torpedo planes and dive bombers at lower alts, naval fighters require more prformance at lower alts and more lift in the form of wing surface for better manuverability and getting airborne quickly off a carrier. If you look at the wing loading of the carrier fighters they are below 40 lbs/sq ft, while the Army aircraft generally allow high loaded aircraft. I guess that's what makes this thread so interesting: with what other navalized fighter is there a comparison in performance to land based fighters except maybe the F4U? It was truly a remarkable design for it's time, although it was not entirely a successful design. One other question remains that truly intrigues me - Why did the Army choose to use the P51 variants over the P47 variants for ground attack roles in Korea?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2007)

jpatrick62 said:


> Why did the Army choose to use the P51 variants over the P47 variants for ground attack roles in Korea?



Money....


----------



## davparlr (Feb 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Money....



Probably, but not the most wise choice.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2007)

It was decided in the late 1940's that the P-51 was going to be around for awhile and later model P-47s would eventually go away. I believe "F-47s" could be found in NG units into the 1950s but the "F-51" stayed around well into the 1950s. If you want to believe Martin Cadin, in his book "The Forked Tailed Devil" he made a claim that dozens of P-38s (F-38s) that were stationed in South Korea were hacked apart and buried a year or two before the start of the Korean War. 

Operating costs were a major player why the F-51 was chosen in lieu of later model F-47s, but I'm sure some one's own prejudice had something to do with this decision as well.

In contrast, F6Fs and F4Us served through out the 1950s with the F6Fs found in many Navy reserve units.


----------



## JoeB (Feb 14, 2007)

jpatrick62 said:


> One other question remains that truly intrigues me - Why did the Army choose to use the P51 variants over the P47 variants for ground attack roles in Korea?



It was the USAF after 1947. The reason was expediency given the Far East Air Force's familiarity, spare parts supply and even small number, 47 planes, of F-51's still on hand in Japan; they had flown the type until shortly before the war. Although, no F-51's were actually in operational FEAF units by June 1950. And actually the 10 F-51's in Japan immediately ready to go were given to the ROKAF (although some encountered NK planes while being ferried to South Korea by US pilots!). But there was a larger number of F-51's in ANG units on the US West Coast, more or less ready to be shipped out. Which they were, hastily in July 1950, so that some or all fighter squadrons in three of the five FEAF fighter wings, 8th, 18th and 39th, could switch back to F-51D's from the F-80's they flew when the war broke out.

However, the total numbers of F-47's and 51's on hand at the start of the Korean War wasn't as different as it sometimes assumed:

An original USAF document gives the inventory of F-47's and F-51's June 30 1950 (KW started June 25, US entered the 27th) as follows (important note, "inactive" and "active" in this document mean in storage or active flying condition. USAF means the active force component, Air National Guard means the reserve force component; the Air Force Reserve didn't have any of either plane at the time):
USAF: F-51's active: 99, inactive: 798, total: 897
F-47's active: 79, inactive: 771, total: 850

Air National Guard: F-51's active: 907, inactive: 0, total 907
F-47's active: 498, inactive: 1, total: 499

Total F-51's active: 1006, inactive: 798 , total: 1,804
F-47's active:577, inactive: 772 , total: 1,349

Joe


----------



## davparlr (Feb 15, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In contrast, F6Fs and F4Us served through out the 1950s with the F6Fs found in many Navy reserve units.



I think the Navy was tight for money after the war and was struggling to get a good carrier base jet aircraft (not really successful until the F9F). As such, they tended to hang on to any aircraft that flew. As an example, in 1969, when the Navy flew me to NAS New Orleans for a flight physical, they flew me in an R5D (C-54).


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Feb 15, 2007)

I think I read somewhere that the P-47Ns that were at Ie Shima (Okinawa) were dumped into the ocean after WWII. That would be a shame since they could have been readily deployed if still operational.


----------

