# P-47 Dogfighting tactics.



## DSR T-888 (Dec 1, 2015)

What tactics did the pilots that flew the P-47 use to fight the Luftwaffe? I ask this question because the ideal fighter would have good maneuverability, tight turn, good acceleration and good rate of climb. But the P-47 had 0 of these attributes. The only advantages the P-47 had was sometimes top speed, dive and rate of roll. So why did the 56FG that only flew P-47s yield the greatest American aces in the European theater? How could a plane that was only really known for its ground attack capabilities proved to be such a great fight in the hands of the 56FG?

Thanks.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2015)

Who says that the P-47 lacked performance?

It's R-2800 radial was producing 2,600 hp (1,938kw) and allowed it exceptional performance, especially at high altitude. It had a good rate of climb: 3,180 feet per minute (16.15 mps), nothing could out-dive it and with a good pilot in the office, it could turn with the best of the enemy. In the end, the P-47 even claimed 20 Me262s and intercepted 4 Ar234s.

Sure, the razorbacks had some problems, but those were ironed out with the introduction of the D. It was a beast and could take terrible punishment and remain airborne and anything that was downrange of it's 8 .50s was ripped to shreds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 1, 2015)

If you go to Nigel Julian's excellent 56th FG site here

56th Fighter Group in World War II

and click the 'reports' tab you can access about 300 encounter reports which will let you know, from first hand accounts, exactly how the pilots of the P-47 fought the Luftwaffe. Read them and draw your own conclusions.

In my opinion they support what graugeist has written above. There was certainly no performance gap between the P-47 and contemporary German aircraft. The US pilots were usually much better trained and often more experienced than their adversaries and were able to fight to the strengths of their aircraft whilst exploiting the weaknesses of the enemy's.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 1, 2015)

DSR T-888 said:


> What tactics did the pilots that flew the P-47 use to fight the Luftwaffe? I ask this question because *the ideal fighter would have good maneuverability, tight turn, good acceleration and good rate of climb*. But the P-47 had 0 of these attributes. The only advantages the P-47 had was sometimes top speed, dive and rate of roll. So why did the 56FG that only flew P-47s yield the greatest American aces in the European theater? How could a plane that was only really known for its ground attack capabilities proved to be such a great fight in the hands of the 56FG?
> 
> Thanks.



The speed was maybe the most important, and in 1943-44 P-47 was some 30 mph faster than the main opponent, the Fw 190A. We can say that Zero have had all the bolded abilities, and Allied AFs have found the way to beat it while using high speed. The Zero also lacked protection ( another important thing in a combat aircraf; it never acquired self-sealing tanks) thus making easy for bursts that hit it to became instant kill. 
Another important thing was that P-47 was outfitted with 8 HMGs, perhaps the best anti-fighter weaponry widespread in the ww2. 
The current doctrine of the LW in the ETO was also to blame - the bombers were slated as prime targets, thus lending the initiative to the P-47s if those can be flown far enough (300-375 miles from England in second half of 1943).

Another major thing for a fighter is combat range.

Steve (stona) kindly provided some interesting documents here on how helpless the Fw 190 drivers felt when the P-47 was around in second half of 1943. This is when 'only' 2000 HP was available.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2015)

I think the P 47s biggest drawback is that it just looks too big. From all I have read it performed better than it looks like it could.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 1, 2015)

Size (necessitated by fuel, armament ammo carried, plus the turbo it's plumbing) was a disadvantage - it will be easier to spot it by a Fw 190 or a Bf 109 driver, than vice-versa. Bigger size means also a bigger target.
BTW, the size of P-47s wing was smaller than of the Corsair, Hellcat or, just by a tad, Tempest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 1, 2015)

Most people don't realize why the fuselage is so large. The bottom 1/3 of the entire fuselage was nothing but ducting. Since the turbocharger was behind the pilot (for C.G. reasons), you had to get the fresh air back to the turbo from the cowling intake, the exhaust to the turbo, the compressed air to the intercooler, and the cooled compressed air back to the carburetor. There are two tunnels along the lower fuselage where the hot exhaust flows back that are Dzused on all along the side.

Ducting isn't really all that heavy compared with other types of equipment. According to pilot reports, it turned pretty well, too. In the air it doesn't take second place to very many piston aircraft, at least by enough to matter. It won't win a climbing fight against a Spitfire but, then again, nothing else in WWII would, either.

Once it got the paddle-blade prop, it would out-climb most Axis fighters except the Bf 109 at lower altitudes. And it got better the higher it went. At 30,000+ feet it was one of the best fighter aircraft of the war, and the ETO was generally a high-altitude theater, probably due to European weather. A LOT of the fall, winter and spring in the ETO area are IFR at lower altitudes in and around mountains. That likely accounts for the generally higher operations in the ETO, though there may be other factors in there, too.

I heard one WWII vet get asked which fighter was his favorite. He had flown P-51s, P-38s, and P-47s. His answer was classic. He said it depended on whether he was the shooter or being shot at. If he was the shooter he wanted a P-51, but not by a wide margin. If he was being shot at, he wanted to be in a P-47 by a huge margin. He said that when you were straffing and saw one hit a tree and still fly home, it went from looking like a jug to something beautiful to contemplate flying. He claimed to have seen that more than once, but perhaps he was embellishing a bit, I can't say for sure. The P-47 could take punishment better than most other fighters according to reports, but I make no specific claims.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2015)

No, you're right, Greg...the P-47 was about as rugged as the B-17 in it's ability to absorbe punishment.

There are cases where the Jug made it back to Britain with part of it's engine shot away or flying through trees that produced damage such as compacting it's cowling, buckling the wing's leading edges and folding back the props...and yet, remained airborne to make it back to base or in some cases, aloft long enough for the pilot to find a safe place to set down.

Like I said before, it was a beast.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 1, 2015)

GregP said:


> Most people don't realize why the fuselage is so large. The bottom 1/3 of the entire fuselage was nothing but ducting. Since *the turbocharger was behind the pilot (for C.G. reasons)*, you had to get the fresh air back to the turbo from the cowling intake, the exhaust to the turbo, the compressed air to the intercooler, and the cooled compressed air back to the carburetor. There are two tunnels along the lower fuselage where the hot exhaust flows back that are Dzused on all along the side.



Agreed with most of what you've said Greg. Some disagreements, though.
The turbocharger was behind the pilot probably because it would keep it away from temperature peaks from hot exhaust gasses. Basically, Seversky/Republic got it right with the layout of the turbocharger with P-43 and P-47, while the Curtiss and Bell got it wrong with XP-37 and XP-39.



> Once it got the paddle-blade prop, it would out-climb most Axis fighters except the Bf 109 at lower altitudes. And it got better the higher it went. At 30,000+ feet it was one of the best fighter aircraft of the war, and the ETO was generally a high-altitude theater, probably due to European weather. A LOT of the fall, winter and spring in the ETO area are IFR at lower altitudes in and around mountains. That likely accounts for the generally higher operations in the ETO, though there may be other factors in there, too.



Paddle blade prop coupled with ADI really meant something for the P-47. The engine power got to 2300 HP, than quickly to 2600 HP, than with 150 oct fuel 2800 HP - all before the D-day. 
For the USAF, the high alt operations were due to having bombers capable to fly at 25000 ft, initially beacause it was thought that on that altitude they will be out of the reach of enemy AAA (USAF almost got that right) and fighters (USAF got that wrong) where the heavy defensive power will help out (wrong).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 1, 2015)

DSR T-888 said:


> the ideal fighter would have good maneuverability, tight turn, good acceleration and good rate of climb. *But the P-47 had 0 of these attributes.*



And what do you base that on?!?!?


----------



## soulezoo (Dec 1, 2015)

In various "what if" threads questions abound differing acft and whether something else was needed.

"What if" P-47N was available Jan 1943... what other acft built would not be needed by allies?

In keeping with the OP, would the P-47N change dogfighting tactics to an extent that it obviates other acft made?


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And what do you base that on?!?!?



It doesnt look like it could.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 1, 2015)

In the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference, attended by 150 US, Brit, USAAF, USN, USMC pilots and civilian test pilots - the attributes of visibility, cockpit layout, landing speed, bombing capability, maneuverability, performance (roll, acceleration, speed, climb, dive, turn), handling, stability, controllability, dive recovery, trimability, takeoff, ground handling, etc for Seafire, FM-2, XF8F-1,F4U-1C/D , F6F-5, P-47D-25/N/M, P-51D-15, F7F-1,FG-1/-1A,P-38L-5, YP-59, P-61A, P-63, Firefly and Mosquito. 

There were many categories for rankings best to worst - but the Best All Around Fighter Under 25,000 feet was P-51D, and the BEST All Around Fighter Above 25000 Feet was the P-47D.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 1, 2015)

pbehn said:


> It doesnt look like it could.


you're right, so it probably can't!


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2015)

pbehn said:


> It doesnt look like it could.


There were quite a few Luftwaffe pilots that would tell you that looks can be deceiving...including this Me163 pilot.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> you're right, so it probably can't!



That seems to be the basis of most opinion on it, alongside a spitfire Me109 or P51 it is big so "obviously" it cant turn or climb, regardless of the fact that it could.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Dec 1, 2015)

soulezoo said:


> In various "what if" threads questions abound differing acft and whether something else was needed.
> 
> "What if" P-47N was available Jan 1943... what other acft built would not be needed by allies?
> 
> ...



Why change? - it might be less effective at low altitudes but better than P47D when no fuel remains in the wings so it will be evenly matched in maueverability (or slight disadvantage with lower roll and turn rates) by 109s and 190s while still being much faster. At high altitudes it would be without peer while using speed and dive and zoom climb tactics - as the P-47.

The point is that if it isn't started early enough (including advanced development on R-2800 engine) to design and build the P-47N, AND break ground on at least five huge manufacturing centers, train the people, build the tooling - all by 1942, there will never be enough P-47Ns to 'replace' anything except in series. (i.e. Replace the P-40 as P-39s are still wanted by the USSR, then replace the P-39, then replace the P-38s (more expensive, higher training costs, higher operating costs), then Maybe replace the P-51.

Conversely if you back up the timeline for Packard and Merlin Mustang by one year and convert Curtis and Bell facilities to gradually re-tool, the P-39/63 and P-40 airplanes will go away starting in 1943 - but probably not the P-47D and P-38 as equally valuable multi role US Fighters. You don't convert Lockheed with the P-80 in the pipeline.. P-59 was obsolete when it first flew but might hold a small section of Bell mfg capacity through 1944.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2015)

It should be pointed out, though, that the P-47 (and several other types) could run into serious trouble against an Fw190 at lower altitudes IF the Fw190 had an experienced pilot behind the stick.

But late in the war, this became the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## ChrisMcD (Dec 1, 2015)

GregP said:


> Once it got the paddle-blade prop, it would out-climb most Axis fighters except the Bf 109 at lower altitudes. And it got better the higher it went. At 30,000+ feet it was one of the best fighter aircraft of the war, and the ETO was generally a high-altitude theater, probably due to European weather. A LOT of the fall, winter and spring in the ETO area are IFR at lower altitudes in and around mountains. That likely accounts for the generally higher operations in the ETO, though there may be other factors in there, too.
> 
> I agree with Greg. The P-47 was a superb high altitude fighter - arguably the best in the timescale. Republic took a while to get all the ducting sorted for the R2800, but it seemed to be a comparatively trouble free aircraft at high altitude in the ETO (appologies to P-38 fans) and did a great job.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 1, 2015)

soulezoo said:


> In various "what if" threads questions abound differing acft and whether something else was needed.
> 
> "What if" P-47N was available Jan 1943... what other acft built would not be needed by allies?
> 
> In keeping with the OP, would the P-47N change dogfighting tactics to an extent that it obviates other acft made?



The P-47N will probably be flown like the 'usual' P-47D - at big altitude and big speed, to make the best of the boom'n'zoom tactics, since it was even heavier than the P-47D. The P-47N in Jan 1943 makes P-38, P-51, P-63 and P-82 redundant (let alone P-39 or -40), but those would be produced anyway.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 1, 2015)

Redundant but required if P-47N Starts in Jan 1943 with a quantity of One. Redundant when 47N crosses over 30,000


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2015)

The P 47 was designed initially as an interceptor/fighter. As an escort fighter it was doing a job it wasnt initially designed for because no such concept existed. In service, as an escort, it had better dive performance than climb performance but that does not mean it had no climb performance, it was a single engined aircraft with a 2,300-2500BHP engine, of course it could climb.

Many British and German pilots in the BoB would like to have swapped planes the British wanted to be able to dive and chase the enemy and the Germans wanted to climb back to protect the bombers before their opponents. It takes a rare leap in technology to be obviously best at everything especially a job that didnt exist when the plane first flew.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 1, 2015)

P-47, like all of the ww2 aircraft, changed a lot during the production. Having the P-47N in service almost 2.5 years earlier than historically would be akin to the LW having a completely de-bugged Fw 190A-3 for the BoB, RAF having the Mosquito in 1939, Japanese having the Hayate and Ki-100 in 1943, RAF again with Tempest and Hornet in 1942 etc. Let alone the jets. 
A 'new' service that precedes the historical service just by 6 months would mean major changes in some battles and campaigns.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> P-47, like all of the ww2 aircraft, changed a lot during the production. Having the P-47N in service almost 2.5 years earlier than historically would be akin to the LW having a completely de-bugged Fw 190A-3 for the BoB, RAF having the Mosquito in 1939, Japanese having the Hayate and Ki-100 in 1943, RAF again with Tempest and Hornet in 1942 etc. Let alone the jets.
> A 'new' service that precedes the historical service just by 6 months would mean major changes in some battles and campaigns.



Having the Enola Gay and Bockscar(with bomb load) in 1942 would have changed the whole war and geopolitics in months.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DSR T-888 (Dec 1, 2015)

Okay guys, I'm talking strictly on tactics here. Like boom and zoom. Why was Boom and zoom so effect if that's what the P-47 pilots were using as tactics?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2015)

DSR T-888 said:


> Okay guys, I'm talking strictly on tactics here. Like boom and zoom. Why was Boom and zoom so effect if that's what the P-47 pilots were using as tactics?


If you go to youtube and search for "P-47 gun camera" footage, you will see that the P-47 got right into wicked turning fights as well as high-speed diving attacks...the tactics varied depending on circumstances, but overall, the P-47 was a very capable fighter in high-energy confrontations.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 1, 2015)

The P-47 was built like a proverbial brick sh*thouse for a start and really didn't give a lot away in terms of performance either, in fact in most areas it was superior to its opponents. it did particularly well up high, and its armament was better suited to fighter engagements than the nominally heavier LW gun fitouts which made defelection shooting more difficult in my opinion. 

If you can gain the height and have good diving capability, both of which the jug was able to do often you are given an enormous advantage.


The jug was an aircraft suited to the roles assigned to it. there was a reason why some air forces continuesd to use it as first line equipment through to the '60s in one or two instances....


----------



## DSR T-888 (Dec 1, 2015)

Don't quote me on this, but I remember reading somewhere on the forums that a German pilot wasn't afraid of the Mustang, but they were afraid of diving Thunderbolts because they could do nothing to avoid them. I can imagine a Bf-109 having a hard to getting away from the P-47, because of the 109s heavier control surfaces.


----------



## Token (Dec 1, 2015)

DSR T-888 said:


> Okay guys, I'm talking strictly on tactics here. Like boom and zoom. Why was Boom and zoom so effect if that's what the P-47 pilots were using as tactics?



Energy dictates the fight, and the guy with the energy (higher / faster) can decide when and where to engage. He can fight the fight the way he wants to. An energy fighter will normally come out on top of an angles fighter assuming the driver keeps his head and does NOT get sucked into the other guys fight. I am not saying the P-47 was incapable of anything else, the record seems to indicate pretty clearly it was a lot better rounded than some people judge today, but speed, acceleration in a dive, and zoom climb were definitely within its wheelhouse.

The more successful Jug pilots essentially used energy fighting, whether they called it that or not. By the way, energy fighting does not necessarily mean boom and zoom, but it does lean heavily in that direction.

T!


----------



## DSR T-888 (Dec 2, 2015)

Yes. 

I've heard P-47 pilots saying they didn't care for the P-51's tighter turn, because they had "tactics" that they used against the Luftwaffe. I'm assuming this is not only "BNZ" but proper energy management. Simply not engaging in turn fights,but rather forcing your enemy to fight on your terms. The ability to have top speed and dive as advantages allows the pilots to determine the fight. A pilot with these advantages also always you to escape the fight at anytime. 

To my belief this is why the heavier fighters, Fw-190, P-47, F4U, Tempest and Hellcat preformed so well against their enemies. All of these aircraft have in common is good dive performance, great roll rate and light control surfaces. Even tho they weren't as nibble as the Bf-109s and Spitfires, they did very well against them. Fw-190s were used to great affect against the Spitfire, because of the instantaneous turn at high speeds, better roll rate and better dive performance. Pretty much the exact same idea with the Hellcat and Corsair against the Zero. 

When the P-47 came out the Fw-190 pilots felt very hopeless(as shown with the reports that Stona shared), because the tactics they relied on to fight the Spitfires had no chance against the P-47. The P-47 was equal in roll rate at HIGH SPEED not low, greater dive performance and possibly equal elevator forces at high speed. It must of been very scary watching the Enemy A/C follow everyone of your moves as you tried to maneuver away.

What I'm trying to get at is, I've read P-47 pilots saying they had "tactics", but I've never seen them being described in detail. However in the flight sim community "BNZ" tactics are used to great affect.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 2, 2015)

DSR T-888 said:


> ...To my belief this is why the heavier fighters, Fw-190, P-47, F4U, Tempest and Hellcat preformed so well against their enemies...


The Fw190 was very close in size and weight to the Bf109...it was not a large aircraft when compared to it's contemporaries.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 2, 2015)

The Fw 190 was indeed a small fighter, eg. smaller than P-39, let alone the Spitfire or P-51.

What the Fw 190 had over Spitfire V was also the raw speed, the advantage was soon known to the Spit's drivers who were advised now to cruise much faster than before, in order no to be jumped upon. The rate of roll was indeed another of 190's strong points, esp. when compared with Spit or Bf 109.


----------



## GregP (Dec 2, 2015)

Hi Tomo,

The turbo was in the back of the P-47 for weight and balance. Had they put it in front, the pilot would be sitting just in front of the fin.

The Fw 190 had almost exactly the same wingspan as a P-39 and the originals were a small tad shorter, but considerably heavier. Air-cooled radials need displacement for power and that means weight. The BMW 801 was some 700 pounds heavier than the Allison V-1710, and that's dry weight.

So the early Fw 190s were short ... but heavy. They weren't ever lightweights, but were good performers. The Fw 190D was a LOT heavier than the radial models and lost all semblance of smallness as well as a lot of roll authority. The Ta-152 got even bigger and heavier, with 1,000 pounds more weight for max takeoff. By mid-life the Fw 190 family wasn't small by any means. It was normal expected size and a bit heavier than expected.

As we get older we all seem to add weight, huh?


----------



## stona (Dec 2, 2015)

The overall tactical situation is being ignored in posts above. This applies equally to Luftwaffe fighters attempting to engage_ bomber formations_ whilst trying to avoid but still often being bounced by US escort fighters, and for the RAF Spitfires operating in pointless Circus and Rodeo operations near the limit of their range being engaged by the Luftwaffe who came up and chose to engage, or not, on their own terms. 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 2, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hi Tomo,
> 
> The turbo was in the back of the P-47 for weight and balance. Had they put it in front, the pilot would be sitting just in front of the fin.



Had the P-47 have had the turbo just aft the engine, the pilot will still remain where it was historically. The turbo would have displaced the main fuel tank. Of course, with such layout the wing will be more afront. Granted, without the air cooled turbine blades, such an arangement is disaster wait to happen; I agree with an often seen comment that P-47 was designed around the powerplant. We can recall that Curtiss-built one-off Doublebold cut the main fuel tank so another crew member could sit just between the engine compartment and usual piot's place.

'Usual' P-47:









> So the early Fw 190s were short ... but heavy. They weren't ever lightweights, but were good performers. The Fw 190D was a LOT heavier than the radial models and lost all semblance of smallness as well as a lot of roll authority. The Ta-152 got even bigger and heavier, with 1,000 pounds more weight for max takeoff. By mid-life the Fw 190 family wasn't small by any means. It was normal expected size and a bit heavier than expected.



The P-51D grossed at ~11200 lbs ithout drop tanks, or almost 5100 kg. The Fw 190D-9, no drop tanks, grossed at 4300 kg. So yes, by European stadards it was mid-siza and heavy weight, until we compare it with much heavier and bigger Typhoon/Tempest. The D-9 was smaller than P-63, and compared with R-2800 powered fighters it was really small and light.



> As we get older we all seem to add weight, huh?



Not me - ~75 kg for the last 25 years 

Fuselage comparison: pic


----------



## EKB (Dec 2, 2015)

DSR T-888 said:


> I've heard P-47 pilots saying they didn't care for the P-51's tighter turn, because they had "tactics" that they used against the Luftwaffe. I'm assuming this is not only "BNZ" but proper energy management. Simply not engaging in turn fights,but rather forcing your enemy to fight on your terms. The ability to have top speed and dive as advantages allows the pilots to determine the fight. A pilot with these advantages also always you to escape the fight at anytime.




_“ 1st March 1945 - ... Major Borris had led twenty-four aircraft up from Furstenau at 0835. He and seven other pilots had to abort because of radio or landing gear difficulties, and the sixteen remaining planes were led south by Oblt. Heckmann. They engaged about forty P-47s and P-51s in and beneath the clouds between Düsseldorf and Köln at altitudes of 500-1000 meters [1500 to 3000 feet]. 
The Gruppe War Diary comments that the Thunderbolt pilots were experienced, and were able to turn with the Focke-Wulfs. The Germans were badly scorched. Five pilots failed to return; all were killed ... Their opponents were the 406th Fighter Group's 512th Squadron, which had jettisoned its bombs when bounced by more than a dozen "very aggressive" fighters. The Thunderbolt pilots claimed 2-0-2 Fw 190s and 2-0-2 Bf 109s, while losing none of their number.”_

Lt. Hans Bleich, KIA (Fw 190D-9 Werk.Nr. 600353). 
Uffz. Franz Putsch, KIA (Fw 190D-9 Werk.Nr. 210920). 
Uffz. Karl-Erich Zeidler, KIA (Fw 190D-9 Werk.Nr. 211003).
Uffz. Leo Dombrowa, KIA (Fw 190D-9 Werk.Nr. 210273).
Uffz. Rudolf Delor, KIA (Fw 190D-9 Werk.Nr. 211009).

See p.438-439
Don Caldwell. *The JG 26 War Diary*. Grub Street Books, 1998.


----------



## GregP (Dec 2, 2015)

Tomo,

I didn't compare the Fw 190 to a P-51; you compared it to a P-39. 

The Fw 190 is way heavier than a P-39 with a similar wingspan and only a very small bit shorter ... which can probably be accounted for by it's having a radial up front. The P-36 was shorter than a P-40, too.

Nothing else was implied or meant.

You can't keep the pilot where he is in the P-47 if you put the turbo up front. That would mean moving the gas tanks and that would be fine when they are full, but you'd be out of CG forward when they are empty. That's probably why there are ZERO aircraft with fuel tanks in the tail cone ... unless you're talking ultralights with the pilot sitting on the point of the nose.


----------



## DSR T-888 (Dec 3, 2015)

IIRC I think this P-47 pilot describes another dogfight where the P-47s shot down Fw-190D9s. He was flying a P-47M which produces 2800Hp @ 72"Hg and was further increased to 76"Hg which is just under 3000Hp. He also mentions that the P-47M could easily turn inside of a Fw-190. 

EAA Video Player - Your Source for Aviation Videos


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> ...The Fw 190 is way heavier than a P-39 with a similar wingspan and only a very small bit shorter ... which can probably be accounted for by it's having a radial up front. The P-36 was shorter than a P-40, too...



P-39D
Wing span: 34 ft. (10.36m)
Length: 30 ft. 2 in. (9.19m)
Weight (empty): 5,462 lb. (2,478kg)

P-39N/Q
Wing span: 34 ft. (10.4m)
Length: 30 ft. 2 in. (9.2m)
Weight (empty): 6,516 lb. (2,955kg)

Fw190A-8
Wing span: 34 ft. 5 in. (10.51m)
Length: 29 ft. 5 in. (9.00m)
Weight (empty): 7,060 lb. (3,200kg)

P-47D
Wing span: 40 ft. 9 in. (12.42m)
Length: 36 ft. 1 in. (11.00m)
Weight (empty): 10,000 lb. (4,535kg)

We can see that the Fw190A-8 and the P-39N/Q (comparable in service timeline) were very close in size and weight.

None of which were even close to the mass of the P-47, however...


----------



## GregP (Dec 3, 2015)

The P-39Q was 6,516 lbs empty; 7,570 loaded; and 8,400 gross.

The Fw 190 A-8 was 7,060 empty; 9,735 loaded; and 10,000 gross.

They aren't even close in weight. The P-39Q routinely operated over a ton lighter than the Fw 190 A-8. You could put a pilot and 300 pounds of ammo in a P-39Q and still be lighter than an empty Fw 190 A-8. With the the horsepower these planes had, a ton extra won't help sparkling performance, and the P-39 needed less weight to have low-level performance, which it had. It just faded at the mid-teens in altitude (feet).

It might have been interesting to see a 2-stage Merlin P-39 and see how it could do up high, but that's another discussion entirely and unrelated here.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> The P-39Q was *6,516* lbs empty; 7,570 loaded; and 8,400 gross.
> 
> The Fw 190 A-8 was *7,060* empty; 9,735 loaded; and 10,000 gross.
> 
> ...


So 500 pounds isn't close?


----------



## GregP (Dec 3, 2015)

It's semi-close in empty weight. None actually flew empty ... until they ran out of ammo, altutide, gasoline, and ideas ... some all at the very same time.

Nothing to spark about here, Graugeist. A 30%+ weight difference is significant in aircraft of the same size. If it's a 15% change, then maybe we're in the ballpark. In the end, it's nothing to disagree over. If you think a ton difference is minor, then is IS to you, and WWII is over. We already know what happened and I'd much rather tip a cold brew than argue.

One passenger means a lot to a 2,200 pound, 180 HP aircraft, perhaps not to a 6,500 pound, 1325 HP aircraft. I've never flown one myself.

Though a ton of weight is significant to me in a 6,500 pound airplane, it really doesn't matter. I've only seen ONE P-39 fly and ONE replica Fw 190 A-8 at the museum. The 190 has a P&W R-2800 in it and might not notice the difference anyway ... I think in WWII combat, it made a difference with 300+ less HP for an additional 2,000+ more pounds of weight, but perhaps not. If I had a choice, I'd take a lighter aircraft. If I didn't, I suppose I'd fly it anyway, particularly if I were in the Luftwaffe in WWII. In either case, I'd take an Fw 190 over a P-39 every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Not doing so probably meant a nocturnal visit from the Gestapo, somewhat to your detriment, as well as lower performance.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 3, 2015)

Just a quick bit of perspective, Greg.

My uncle flew the P-36 up until Pearl Harbor and shortly after, was transitioned to the P-39. He was horrified and hated every single minute that he spend aloft in it.

His sentiments regarding the P-39 was that his life wasn't worth a plugged nickel in or out of combat with that "steaming pile of sh!t cleverly disguised as an aircraft".

When he transitioned into the P-38, things were looking up as far as he was concerned.

Although, to his last days, he lamented the day they took his beloved P-36 away.

The moral of the story here: weight (size) isn't everything


----------



## GregP (Dec 3, 2015)

Then there are the Soviet pilots who shot down more than Dick Bong did while they were flying those same awful P-39s. It was also one of Chuck Yeager's favorite fighters at low to medium altitude. Go figure.

I suppose it depends on your perspective.

To me, lower wing loading combined with good coefficient of lift when combined with sufficient strength, a good pilot, a decent rate of roll, and some reasonable armament means everything in a dogfight ... which didn't happen ALL that often anyway.

The combination of variables makes evaluation somewhat like palm reading, predicting the next election, or wondering what John Travolta will embarrass himself with next time.

But I get your point. Cheers. No worries. I'd take the P-38, too ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> Then there are the Soviet pilots who shot down more than Dick Bong did while they were flying those same awful P-39s.



I count 4. 

Soviet P-39 Aces

- keep in mind that Bong and McGuire had breaks in combat where the Soviets, like the Germans had little rest. Bong could have easily brought his score to well over 50 if given the chance.


GregP said:


> It was also one of Chuck Yeager's favorite fighters at low to medium altitude. Go figure.



Very true, but at the same time he didn't have to fly it in combat.

Many comparisons are made with the Soviets flying P-39s. Many forget that the Soviet P-39 was a different animal when compared to the P-39s operated in the southwest Pacific during 1942. Additionally they utilized the aircraft where it performed best - at low and medium altitudes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 3, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Many comparisons are made with the Soviets flying P-39s. Many forget that the Soviet P-39 was a different animal when compared to the P-39s operated in the southwest Pacific during 1942. Additionally they utilized the aircraft where it performed best - at low and medium altitudes.



Very true. 

The Soviets quickly discarded with four .30s and accompanying 4000 (!) rds of ammo - weight equivalent of the 'lethality pack' the Hurricane and Spitfire carried during the BoB. Some of USA-specific parts of radio gear were also removed - up to three (!) radio sets were sometimes carried in USAF's P-39s. From spring of 1943 also the improved engine was in service, improving the capabilities above 12000 ft; IIRC the USAF never got that. P-39 was also far better built than Soviet-made fighters, each was with radio that really worked - no wonder that VVS Stalin clamored for more. 
The early P-39s were lousy above 12000 ft, rate of climb was especially apalling, and could not help much with IJA/IJN bombing runs detected flying above 15000 ft. The internal fuel was insufficient for operations in Asia/Pacific.


----------



## GregP (Dec 3, 2015)

Likely those same Soviet pilots were also flying in a "target rich environment," to steal a quote from Top Gun, especially when compared with flying U.S. P-39s over long water distances and not seeing anyone most of the time. In contrast, the Soviets were probably no more than minutes from the front line, and were probably too close for comfort at ALL times, perhaps too close to the GRU as well.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> Tomo,
> I didn't compare the Fw 190 to a P-51; you compared it to a P-39.



Not sure what's the fuss about. We're comparing fighters, as we allways do .



> The Fw 190 is way heavier than a P-39 with a similar wingspan and only a very small bit shorter ... which can probably be accounted for by it's having a radial up front. The P-36 was shorter than a P-40, too.



The BMW 801D was one heavy engine, the whole powerplant (engine, cowling, oil system, prop) was only 10-12% lighter than the two stage R-2800 powerplant found in Corsairs and Hellcats.


> You can't keep the pilot where he is in the P-47 if you put the turbo up front. That would mean moving the gas tanks and that would be fine when they are full, but you'd be out of CG forward when they are empty. That's probably why there are ZERO aircraft with fuel tanks in the tail cone ... unless you're talking ultralights with the pilot sitting on the point of the nose.



Nobody will shift around the turbo in the historical P-47, but will make the closely-coupled turbo installation from a clean sheet of paper. With such layout of powerplant, plenty of fuel will be stuffed in the big, 300 sq ft wing from the get go, plus what can be put under the pilot, as historically.


----------



## GregP (Dec 3, 2015)

Actually, Tomo, I'd vote for anything to make the P-47 smaller and lighter. I was just thinking that if the P-047 airframe remained the same, and if you shifted everything forward to put the turbo in front of the pilot, with all the associated weight, that the fuel would HAVE to stay near the CG, leaving the pilot / cockpit as the only movable ballast.

It could be you are right and the entire cockpit might easily compensate. But, having sat in a the P-47 cockpit (during annual), I certainly wouldn't want to be any farther back towards the rear of the fuselage. The visibility wasn't all that great forward to start with. Then again, the only radial fighter I have ever been able to see out the front of when in it is a Hellcat.

Can't see forward out of a Corsair, a P-47, an Fw 190 A-8, a D4Y Judy, or a Skyraider ... though it isn't bad, comparatively. I see a pattern here ...


----------



## pbehn (Dec 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> Can't see forward out of a Corsair, a P-47, an Fw 190 A-8, a D4Y Judy, or a Skyraider ... though it isn't bad, comparatively. I see a pattern here ...



I always thought the Dewotine 520 was about as bad as it got.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 3, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I always thought the Dewotine 520 was about as bad as it got.


Aparently, because of the sheer size of the engine and cowling along with the stance of the maingear to provide clearance for the massive props, the F4U and P-47 were among the worst for forward vis with T/O-landing as well as forward vis in a fight.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 3, 2015)

Both F4U and P-47 have had a fuel tank between pilot and engine, thus the view over nose will be lousy. Spitfire and D.520 were also with fuel tank(s) in such a position, neither is regarded as good in visibility over nose. 
Too bad the F4U didn't received the fuel tank under the pilot (in manner of Fw 190) when change was made from XF4U-1. The Sea Fury got a bit elevated pilot's compartment to help out with visibility for TO and landing.


----------



## GregP (Dec 3, 2015)

Just goes to show that you don't really have to see much to shoot something down!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Both F4U and P-47 have had a fuel tank between pilot and engine, thus the view over nose will be lousy.



There are few tail draggers, regardless of pedigree where the visibility over the nose is "good".

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 3, 2015)

Maybe they'd do better if they flew armed crop dusters! You can see over the noses of THEM! 

Doesn't seem to stop 'em from having collisions with the ground, though. Maybe visibility is just overrated ... they shoot down enemy aircraft without being able to see them and then hit the ground when they can see it clearly and nobody is shooting at them!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 6, 2015)

GregP said:


> Likely those same Soviet pilots were also flying in a "target rich environment," to steal a quote from Top Gun, especially when compared with flying U.S. P-39s over long water distances and not seeing anyone most of the time. In contrast, the Soviets were probably no more than minutes from the front line, and were probably too close for comfort at ALL times, perhaps too close to the GRU as well.



and more than likely those soviet pilots flew for a longer tours than US pilots. the us limited tours to a certain number of missions then the guys got to go home.. german and soviet pilots would fly several sorties a day and have more opportunity to see and be in combat...whereas the escort pilot would fly 5+ hours, on one mission a day and maybe or maybe not see combat.


----------



## VBF-13 (Dec 11, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Who says that the P-47 lacked performance?
> 
> It's R-2800 radial was producing 2,600 hp (1,938kw) and allowed it exceptional performance, especially at high altitude. It had a good rate of climb: 3,180 feet per minute (16.15 mps), nothing could out-dive it and with a good pilot in the office, it could turn with the best of the enemy. In the end, the P-47 even claimed 20 Me262s and intercepted 4 Ar234s.
> 
> Sure, the razorbacks had some problems, but those were ironed out with the introduction of the D. It was a beast and could take terrible punishment and remain airborne and anything that was downrange of it's 8 .50s was ripped to shreds.


I just love this plane. And I agree with all this. From the looks of it, it's a bomber, not a fighter. But it's going to stay in the fight, and it's going to come back in one piece, when a P-51, for example, is all but a goner. I'll just add, they extended its range, too, over time.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 12, 2015)

VBF-13 said:


> I just love this plane. And I agree with all this. From the looks of it, it's a bomber, not a fighter. But it's going to stay in the fight, and it's going to come back in one piece, when a P-51, for example, is all but a goner. I'll just add, they extended its range, too, over time.



The P-51 had about the same loss rate per 1000 sorties as the F4U in a very lethal environment in Korea.

The challenge to the WWII P-47 legacy in Europe is that it often could not Get in the fight from Big Week forward when the 8th and 15th went deep.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 12, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There are few tail draggers, regardless of pedigree where the visibility over the nose is "good".



The figures I've collected over the years don't deal with the general over-nose visibility but the 'fighting view' (in British parlance); the view over the nose as it relates to the gunsight/deflection shooting.

In that case the best single engine is the Fulmar at 10 degrees. Worst is the Allison Mustang at 22​/3​ degrees.

Thunderbolt is 31​/4​ degrees.

These are approximate figures of course since things change slightly with speed and altitude.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 12, 2015)

drgondog said:


> The P-51 had about the same loss rate per 1000 sorties as the F4U in a very lethal environment in Korea.
> 
> The challenge to the WWII P-47 legacy in Europe is that it often could not Get in the fight from Big Week forward when the 8th and 15th went deep.



Surely a matter of perception of legacy, I am sure the US pilots engaged in ground support after D-Day would not have changed mounts for a P 51. Both jobs needed doing.


----------



## stona (Dec 12, 2015)

And those 9th AF pilots still scored plenty of air to air victories in their P-47s. Eagleston ended up with 18.5, how many would he have scored flying with the 8th AF ?
Cheers
Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 12, 2015)

Greyman said:


> The figures I've collected over the years don't deal with the general over-nose visibility but the 'fighting view' (in British parlance); the view over the nose as it relates to the gunsight/deflection shooting.
> 
> In that case the best single engine is the Fulmar at 10 degrees. Worst is the Allison Mustang at 22​/3​ degrees.
> 
> ...



Actually poor nose visibility is more applicable during taxi and takeoff while the tails still sits on the gound

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Dec 12, 2015)

stona said:


> And those 9th AF pilots still scored plenty of air to air victories in their P-47s. Eagleston ended up with 18.5, how many would he have scored flying with the 8th AF ?
> Cheers
> Steve



Actually Eagleston got All of his scores in P51's. 13.5 in P-51B's flying escort while the 354FG was attached TDY to 8th AF, Zero in P-47 from Dec 1, 1944 through Feb 15 1945, then 5 more in P51D in March 1945. In Korea he got 2-1-7 MiGs with 4FIW.

As an aside the entire force 9AF P-47s were awarded ~1290 air VC - a little less than 2X of the 56FG total of 665.5

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 12, 2015)

I always wondered how the P-47 would have stacked up in Korea...I can imagine it would have certainly scoured the earth much like it did in WWII, but as the Jets came into being, would it have been able to fend off the MiGs?

Of course, the Skyraider took the P-47's lofty perch as a premier ground attack beast...but it still makes me wonder


----------



## VBF-13 (Dec 13, 2015)

drgondog said:


> The P-51 had about the same loss rate per 1000 sorties as the F4U in a very lethal environment in Korea.
> 
> The challenge to the WWII P-47 legacy in Europe is that it often could not Get in the fight from Big Week forward when the 8th and 15th went deep.


There was a guy in my Dad's old-timer club who flew the P-47. I don't have the squadron. It was in Europe, about 1944. The club was mainly Pacific and Naval, but when you're in your 70s and 80s, you'll take whatever comes along, lol. This guy was built like a P-47. He said the P-47 cockpit had a lot of leg and arm room. Correct me if I got it wrong, but he said they'd make it pretty deep into Germany in these. I don't know if he meant all the way to Berlin, but these were the later models he was flying.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 13, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually poor nose visibility is more applicable during taxi and takeoff while the tails still sits on the gound



For sure - just adding related tidbits.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 14, 2015)

VBF-13 said:


> There was a guy in my Dad's old-timer club who flew the P-47. I don't have the squadron. It was in Europe, about 1944. The club was mainly Pacific and Naval, but when you're in your 70s and 80s, you'll take whatever comes along, lol. This guy was built like a P-47. He said the P-47 cockpit had a lot of leg and arm room. Correct me if I got it wrong, but he said they'd make it pretty deep into Germany in these. I don't know if he meant all the way to Berlin, but these were the later models he was flying.



The P-47D-25 and newer models had 365 internal gallons, up from 305. In mid July the 78thFG did a target escort to Leipzig but by this time only the 56, 78, 353 and 356 FG had P-47s and the P-38 groups were switching to P-51s.

The range for this mission was enhanced by Allied capture on most of France so the Jugs didn't have to go all the way back to England if(when) they were low on fuel.

The P-47M, lighter with same fuel did make it to Berlin occasionally and southeastern Germany at the end of the war in April 1945. Conversely the P-51 was shooting up Prague area airfields.

The Jug should not have done better than the F4U in Korea and the loss rate for the F4U was only just below the P-51D. As to shooting down MiGs - only when the MiG (like the Me 262) driver was overcome by stupid and engaged in a turning fight at low altitude.

The F4U lost 494 to all causes, 325 to combat, .52 % loss rate (5.2 per 1000)
The P-51 lost 475 to all causes, 341 to combat, .54% loss rate

Arguably Korea was a more intense AA threat environment than ETO/MTO.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2015)

The late version P-47D would've had a significantly greater range/radius that the F4U-1/-4. The distance between Hiroshima and Seoul is some 380 miles - out of reach for the F4U, well within the reach of the (edited) P-47. Granted, the F4U comes on it's own when operated from the carrier.
Point was made in an earlier thread that P-47 with a punctured oil system will have more minutes than F4U before the engine dies due to the greater amount of oil carried, twice as much of oil was aboard.



drgondog said:


> ...
> The P-47M, lighter with same fuel did make it to Berlin occasionally and southeastern Germany at the end of the war in April 1945. Conversely the P-51 was shooting up Prague area airfields.



Bill - the P-47M was as heavy as (late) P-47D. Basiacally same airframe with new engine.



> As to shooting down MiGs - only when the MiG (like the Me 262) driver was overcome by stupid and engaged in a turning fight at low altitude.



Very true.



> Arguably Korea was a more intense AA threat environment than ETO/MTO.



Interesting - is the assesment of the N.Korean AAA available on-line?


----------



## Milosh (Dec 14, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The distance between Hiroshima and Seoul is some 380 miles - out of reach for the F4U, well within the reach of the F4U.



???? typo?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2015)

Whoops, I'll edit that.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 14, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> ...The distance between Hiroshima and Seoul is some 380 miles - out of reach for the F4U, well within the reach of the F4U...


The distance between Hiroshima and Seoul is certainly within range of the P-47N and the Corsair, including the F4U-4.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 14, 2015)

Tomo - you are right about the M, it is not lighter but 200 pounds heavier than the D-25 when comparing empty weights.

The statistics weren't online but were published in a USAFHRC document - I wrote them down in a logbook but I have to dig for the specific doc. What I recall was that these were just a segment of sortie loss study for US fighters through Vietnam (but no breakout for WWII)


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> The distance between Hiroshima and Seoul is certainly within range of the P-47N and the Corsair, including the F4U-4.



It is within th distance of the F4U if it is going slow-ish, that it can do for the good distance when flying over the water, while trading bombload for drop tanks. The P-47N has 2-3 times the combat radius of the F4U, due to more than twice the internal fuel. In practice, it means it can have 2x1000 lbs bombs and a drop tank, fly from Japan and actually loiter above any part of South Korea before delivering the bombs where needed. Or it can strike Notrth Korea proper.
For the F4U, it will be a 1000 lb bomb and a drop tank, while still not able to match endurance/radius of the P-47N.


----------

