# P-47D "Jug" Thunderbolt vs Spitfire(any variations)



## DerGiLLster (May 10, 2019)

Hello,

Have been reading about the P-47 Thunderbolt and amazed to hear what kind of damage it could sustain. There is an even a recorded claim of a pilot flying into a factory with its wings snagged off and walking away alive.

I was just curious to wonder how useful it could be in a dog fight scenario. Let us say there are two equally matched pilots one in a P-47D Thunderbolt and the other in a Spitfire.

For those wondering why I chose a specific model for the Jug and not for the Spitfire, I wanted to see which variant of the Spitfire would do well against the Jug and vice versa. I understand the Griffin powered variants were some impressive performers and were able to out turn the Jugs after a few times. How about the pre-Griffin variants? How would those stack up? IIRC the Griffin variants were introduced in mid-1942.

The Spitfire seems to have had equal speed to the Jug and greater turn rate made it harder to aim, yet the Jug was able to sustain hits from hundreds of rounds, sometimes from 20 and 30 mm German cannons.

I just want to see which plane would be survive first. Would it be the Spitfire having superior maneuverability, or the Jug with its powerful armor? Any other factors I should add to help narrow more conclusive results for the discussion?


----------



## wuzak (May 11, 2019)

The Spitfire XII entered service in early 1943, but did not have the performance to match the P-47D at mid-to-high altitude. At low altitude the XII could have held its own.

The Spitfire XIV entered service in early 1944. It could match or exceed the altitude performance of the P-47D. Except when the P-47D was fitted with later R-2800 with ADI and high altitude supercharger (not sure if or when that happened, certainly the P-47M and N received improved R-2800s).

The main advantages for the P-47D over the Spitfire XIV were roll rate at high speeds (Spitfire was equal or better at 200-300mph IAS), dive and zoom climb.

The Spitfire could turn tighter and climb faster. In terms of turning, all Spitfires would be able to turn inside a P-47.

Acceleration wise I am not sure, but I think this would be in the Spitfire's favour at lower altitudes, and the P-47D's at high altitudes.

Armament wise, the Spitfire's 2 x 20mm and 2 x 0.50" is probably a match for the P-47D's 8 x 0.50" in terms of power, but not in firing time. The earlier Spitfire XIV armamen of 2 x 20mm + 4 x 0.303" is slightly less powerful.

P-47s were not invulnerable, and I doubt many were hit with 30mm rounds and survived. As for 20mm cannon, I believe that the Hispano was superior to most German 20mm cannon. Certainly the MG FF, probably the 151/20.

The Spitfire IX had the same strengths as the XIV, compared to the XIV, but could not match the speed, particularly at altitude, of the P-47.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 11, 2019)

wuzak said:


> P-47s were not invulnerable, and I doubt many were hit with 30mm rounds and survived. As for 20mm cannon, I believe that the Hispano was superior to most German 20mm cannon. Certainly the MG FF, probably the 151/20.




I am sure one or more were hit by 30mm and survived. More than one was hit by 37MM AA and survived. In fact at least one was hit by multiple 37mm and _survived._

However surviving does not mean the P-47 is invulnerable.










for more background on this see; Charlie Rife and Richard Kik

If it is an internet hoax it is a pretty elaborate one 

However the plane is obviously in no condition to keep fighting Unless piloted by the Black Knight from Monty Python and Holy Grail 
And in fact much lesser damage can take a plane out of a dog fight even if it is less miraculous that it makes it home.

any fighter that suffered even a small percentage of such damage would be a serious disadvantage in continuing a fight, even if all controls still worked, which they often didn't.

A lot fewer planes with one or more controls shot away (or cables/rods severed) never made it home to have pictures taken.

Since 20mm guns often fired mixed belts of ammo not all hits caused the same damage.
Somewhere there is a photo of a pilot holding the base of a German 20mm projectile (not a mine shell) that hit his plane in the aileron or outer flap. Not all 20mm hits were German Mine shells and the Hispano was just as destructive, just in a bit different way.

However 90-100 .50 cal bullets per second can also cause a lot of damage. Either the P-47 or the late model Spitfire can do an awful lot of damage with a similar length burst *on target*.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (May 11, 2019)

At the risk of stateing the obvious these two planes are very different approaches to fighter design. I think which would win would depend on the peramiters of the fight.
High altitude high speed clash I would say the P47 would have an advantage. Lower to mid altitude turning fight my money is definitely on the Spitfire.


----------



## michael rauls (May 11, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I am sure one or more were hit by 30mm and survived. More than one was hit by 37MM AA and survived. In fact at least one was hit by multiple 37mm and _survived._
> 
> However surviving does not mean the P-47 is invulnerable.
> View attachment 537874
> ...


If I could I'd give your post a double like for the Black Night of the Holy Grail reference. One of the great bits of all time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 12, 2019)

You have to take into consideration that the P-47 could fly through an Olive grove and still fly 120 miles back to it's base...

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (May 12, 2019)

I worked with an explosives guy years ago and he had been a Thunderbolt pilot in Europe. He got hit in the engine by a 37mm round strafing a train. When he got back to base he mentioned to the crew chief "she was missing". Crew chief came back later... "yep, missing a jug".

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 12, 2019)

Generally speaking, I would go for the Spitfire. It had the agility, climb and was a match for speed at most altitudes, in particular the XIV. The P47 could of course escape quite quickly by diving and if GA was a factor the P47 has a clear advantage


----------



## wuzak (May 12, 2019)

I was reading about the P-47 in _America's Hundred Thousand_, where it stated that the P-47's roll rate was poor. That may be another area where the Spitfire was ahead.

AHT also said there were issues with high speed dives in the P-47, namely that the nose would tuck under, and some control reversal could be experienced. But, as I have said before, what made a good diver was not the terminal speed, but the acceleration in a dive, which the P-47 did very well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 12, 2019)

Glider said:


> Generally speaking, I would go for the Spitfire. It had the agility, climb and was a match for speed at most altitudes, in particular the XIV. The P47 could of course escape quite quickly by diving and if GA was a factor the P47 has a clear advantage



I think the P-47 could escape from a XIV, but may struggle to get in a position of advantage.

The XIV was as fast as, or faster than, the P-47D over almost all altitudes, even up to 40,000ft.

In ground attack the P-47 has 2 advantages - ruggedness/armour and number of guns. I'm not sure if 20mm cannon were better than 0.50" hmgs for hitting light or moderately armoured ground targets, but 8 guns certainly beats 4 or 6 guns for softer targets.


----------



## Stig1207 (May 12, 2019)

DerGiLLster said:


> There is an even a recorded claim of a pilot flying into a factory with its wings snagged off and walking away alive.



Helmut Lipfert flew into a house in his 109 early in his career, and survived uninjured ; luck is also a factor.


----------



## MycroftHolmes (May 12, 2019)

I guess that the best Spitfire to compare with the P47D would be the HFVIII, since they were both high-altitude fighters. In summary:

Speed: The two aircraft were practically identical. With 150-octane the P47D reached 444 mph, the HFVIII did 445 mph (the 'Basta' modification).

Range: Again, the two aircraft were very close. We know that by the first half of 1944, Spitfires based at Culmhead were flying sweeps as far as the Swiss border - a combat radius of 500 miles - and these were MkVII's and MkXIV's, which had less range than the MkVIII.

Firepower: Practically identical

Climb: Spitfire much superior

Turn: Spitfire much superior

Roll: Spitfire has a slight edge

Dive: P47 has the edge

The Spitfire's superiority becomes more marked above 30,000 ft due to its low wing-loading and high power/weight ratio.

With regard to battle-damage it's often a case of comparing apples with oranges: the P47 was doubtless a robust aircraft _by American standards_ but that doesn't mean that it was particularly robust by British standards. There was a lengthy discussion on the (apparently defunct) Great Planes forum after someone pointed out that the Typhoon had a significantly lower loss-rate than the P47 in similar operations over Normandy, despite its alleged mechanical and structural issues, and its use of a liquid-cooled engine. Similarly, if you look at the losses for American-flown planes you find that the Spitfire and P47 had exactly the same rate - 0.7%.


----------



## wuzak (May 12, 2019)

You may have confused Spitfire marks.

According to Morgan and Shacklady the LF.VIII with Batsa modification had a top speed of 409mph @ 14,000ft. Not sure that the HF.VIII had the same boost allowance, and considering that the higher boost comes from a low altitude than the regular maximum boost I doubt the HF.VIII would be faster at high altitudes.

The VII wasn't built in large numbers, and I am not sure of its service history.

The majority of 2 stage fighter Spitfires in the ETO were IX variants.

The XIV did do 445mph+. Not sure abut a 500 mile operational radius.

Regarding power to weight, the Spitfire's dropped off more than the P-47 as the P-47 maintained power to 30-35,000ft, depending on the version and the turbo version fitted, whereas the Spitfire XIV had peak power in FS gear at around 25,500ft (+18psi boost). At 40,000ft the XIV had about half the power of the P-47.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (May 12, 2019)

MycroftHolmes said:


> I guess that the best Spitfire to compare with the P47D would be the HFVIII, since they were both high-altitude fighters. In summary:
> 
> Speed: The two aircraft were practically identical. With 150-octane the P47D reached 444 mph, _the HFVIII did 445 mph (the 'Basta' modification)._
> 
> ...


----------



## michael rauls (May 12, 2019)

wuzak said:


> I was reading about the P-47 in _America's Hundred Thousand_, where it stated that the P-47's roll rate was poor. That may be another area where the Spitfire was ahead.
> 
> AHT also said there were issues with high speed dives in the P-47, namely that the nose would tuck under, and some control reversal could be experienced. But, as I have said before, what made a good diver was not the terminal speed, but the acceleration in a dive, which the P-47 did very well.


I read that( the roll rate being poor) in Americas Hundred Thousand also. I found this puzzling as every other source I have ever read or heard including pilots discribed the p47s role rate as superlative.
I generally regard Americas Hundred Thousand as being authoritative but no source is perfect( several of those more knowledgeable than myself on this site pointed out a mistake in the same book to me a while back) but when I read one thing from literally dozens of sources and something different from one, even if it's a good one, I tend to lean twards the dozens in agreement. However, I have no way of knowing for sure of course.
Also, If memory serves without dragging out the book right now wasn't that the opinion of just one or two individuals in the" quotes about the p47 section"?


----------



## CORSNING (May 12, 2019)

Michael,
Always be open to those like Francis H. Dean, Peter Caygill, Eric M. Brown
and Erik Pilawskii (when he doesn't let his bias opinion take over). There
are several true historians out there that will not "go-with-the-flow", but
they will dig deeper to try to give you the whole truth.

An extreme example is the publishing of the North American P-51D 's
maximum speed of 437 mph./25,000 ft. The only official document that
I have seen that lists that figure as the P-51D's maximum speed is a
United Kingdom Data Card, and that lists that speed at 24,500 ft. A USAAF
test of aircraft No. 44-15342 being flown by Major E. W. Leach and Captain
D. Gentile produced a maximum velocity of a P-51D-15 as being 442 mph.
at 26,000 ft. using 67"Hg. boost at 3,000 rpm. with one bomb rack on each
wing. These wing racks were more streamline than those installed on earlier
model Mustangs, but when removed the P-51D still gained about 6 mph.

The P-51B,C&D/K were cleared for 72-75"Hg very soon after the introduction
of the P-51D/K in June 1944. This made all the Merlin Mustangs true 445-455
mph. vehicles at their full throttle height.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (May 12, 2019)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
The performance line on this graph is for a P-47C-1. I have not
seen a listing for later versions, but my best guess is they got
better with age. (Just like me)................................

Mr. Mike Williams and Mr. Neil Stirling will not let you down.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (May 12, 2019)

CORSNING said:


> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformanc.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg


Very cool stuff.
I am cognizant of the fact that just because something is conventional wisdom and everyone repeats it doesn't make it true. I certainly have an open mind when it comes to the Thunderbolts rol rate or anything else for that matter. I do usually tend to believe majority hostorians opinion( with the knowledge that ocasionaly it's wrong) until I find out otherwise because, as fun as it is to find when its not,most of the time the consensus is correct or at least close.
With regard to the p47s roll rate in particular from what I've read, including a couple pilots interviewed( to be fair I think *I read one pilot that felt differently) the Thunderbolt seems to have quite the reputation as a fast roller. Would be odd for such a reputation to exist if the oposite were true but God knows it wouldn't be the first time a plane had a reputation for something that turned out to be incorrect.
As to Francis Dean probably the most accurate historian I'm familiar with near as I can figure out but that doesn't mean perfect as I mentioned previously there is at least one mistake in AHT I'm aware of.
So I guess that's a long way of saying, right now im leaning towards the notion that the p47 did indeed have a great roll rate but certainly opened minded to wiegh evidence to the contrary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (May 12, 2019)

Just took another look at that graph( just glanced at it a few minutes ago as my wife had found something important for me to do). Didn't show what I expected to see. This may be one of those cases were a plane has a reputation for something that turned out not to be true. According to that graph I wouldn't call the Thunderbolts roll rate poor but certainly not outstanding either. The only thing that jumped out at me that might account for the discrepancy is the graph lists i believe it was 26 lbs stick force for all planes tested. Is it posible that the Jug could tolerate more stick force than other planes? Don't know I'm not a pilot but just a thought that might account for the discrepancy between that graph and the reputation the Jug seems to have.


----------



## eagledad (May 12, 2019)

Jeff and Mike
I have also wondered about the P-47 roll rate, especially after reading Thunderbolt by Bob Johnson. If I understand the NCAA graph correctly, the roll rates shown are for 1G steady roll. In 1990, there was an informal test among a P-51D, a P-47D, a F6F-5, and a FG-1D. This test showed that the roll rates for these aircraft under 3G's the P-47D went from the slowest rolling aircraft at 1G to the fastest rolling aircraft at 3G.

I have attached the article from Sport Aviation so that you may draw your own conclusions.

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (May 12, 2019)

wuzak said:


> I was reading about the P-47 in _America's Hundred Thousand_, where it stated that the P-47's roll rate was poor. That may be another area where the Spitfire was ahead..



Possibly depends on which versions, I suspect the thread title is so broad to make discussion difficult.

AFDU report #66 (23rd March 1943) on IX vs P47 states that roll rates basically so similar that the difference in real terms is inconsequential. It said in turning it took four
circles for the IX to get onto the 47`s tail, and that in level flight acelleration in the IX was better, but in diving the 47 was superior in acelleration. Max speeds
basically the same up to 28,000ft above which the IX superior. Sadly the test was only done to 30,000..... I guess as they thought that was about
the likely limit to which any actual dogfights might occur - but that wasnt explicitly stated and is my assumption.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 12, 2019)

We know that the turning radius and roll rate for the XIV were the same as for the IX.

We also know that the XIV had higher performance than the IX, particularly at high altitude.

If the IX could match the P-47 to 30,000ft, the XIV must be significantly ahead?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 12, 2019)

Well, the report seems to say P-47*C*, so while useful doesn't really address the P-47D with paddle blade prop and water injection? (another 300-500hp?)


----------



## wuzak (May 12, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, the report seems to say P-47*C*, so while useful doesn't really address the P-47D with paddle blade prop and water injection? (another 300-500hp?)



True.


----------



## CORSNING (May 13, 2019)

The P-51B,C&D/K were cleared for 72-75"Hg very soon after the introduction
of the P-51D/K in June 1944. This made all the Merlin Mustangs true 445-455
mph. vehicles at their full throttle height.[/QUOTE]

I just realized this statement is misleading and somewhat inaccurate. The increase
in boosting 72-75"Hg of the V-1650-7 engine did not necessarily increase the
absolute maximum speed of the aircraft, what the added boost did do was to
lower the full throttle height and allow the maximum speed to continue over
a greater range. At 67" the maximum speed in high supercharger was 24,500 ft. to
26,000 ft. At 72-75" the FTH height dropped to around 21,000-22,000 ft. and when
the British tested the Mustang at+25 lb. (80.1") the FTH dropped to 17,000-18,000 ft.

, Jeff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 13, 2019)

Would be interesting to see how the P-47N stacks up against the Spit, as it had several upgrades including clipped wings, which did improve it's roll-rate.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerGiLLster (May 14, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Would be interesting to see how the P-47N stacks up against the Spit, as it had several upgrades including clipped wings, which did improve it's roll-rate.



Hey I was thinking of that as well! I know the Focke Wulf 190 dominated against the Spitfie Mk Vb when it came out. 

This thread also talks of how the P-47N would dominate the FW190D:
Which is better: P-47 or Fw-190?

Link to the dead, archived site:
Seversky Aircraft and Republic Aviation

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 14, 2019)

The interesting thing about the Fw190D, was that the Ta152 was an improved version of that type.
So then we're left to wonder how the P-47N would have performed against the Ta152, since they never (to the best of my knowledge) engaged one another.


----------



## DerGiLLster (May 14, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The interesting thing about the Fw190D, was that the Ta152 was an improved version of that type.
> So then we're left to wonder how the P-47N would have performed against the Ta152, since they never (to the best of my knowledge) engaged one another.



The P-47N would probably have knocked it out. Sorry for not having a source on the Ta 152, but IIRC the max speed of the Ta-152 being 472 mph was only attainable with methanol boost, while its regular top speed was around 440 mph. In the link I posted, the P-47 could top at 470 mph, without any boost at all.

Also, would anyone happen to know why none of the P-47 models ever had a single .50 cal in the nose? Figured it would help for accuracy and power.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 14, 2019)

DerGiLLster said:


> Also, would anyone happen to know why none of the P-47 models ever had a single .50 cal in the nose? Figured it would help for accuracy and power.




Where would you put it?





Behind the firewall and in front of the cockpit is a 205 gal fuel tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 14, 2019)

DerGiLLster said:


> Also, would anyone happen to know why none of the P-47 models ever had a single .50 cal in the nose? Figured it would help for accuracy and power.



Because of the big mutha engine?

And besides, aint 8 x 0.50" enough?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerGiLLster (May 14, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Because of the big mutha engine?
> 
> And besides, aint 8 x 0.50" enough?





Shortround6 said:


> Where would you put it?
> 
> Behind the firewall and in front of the cockpit is a 205 gal fuel tank.



Heh, thanks guys, didn't know about that. Now I know.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (May 14, 2019)

DerGiLLster said:


> the P-47 could top at 470 mph, without any boost at all



What do you consider "boost"?
A P-47 doing 470mph will be using water injection and boosted manifold pressure from the turbocharger. The Ta 152 doing 470mph would be using either water injection or nitrous oxide, plus boosted manifold pressure from the supercharger

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 14, 2019)

My belief is that the P-47N would be at a serious DISadvantage against a Ta 152 or a late FW 190D.
The reasons are the following:
The difference in firepower if there is one is really a preference thing. I don't believe in fighter versus fighter combat that either one is lacking.
The P-47N has the highest roll rate of any of the Thunderbolts but that doesn't put it anywhere near what the FW 190 in just about any model could do. I figure the FW 190D / Ta 152 would have about 50% higher roll rate.
The P-47N has a very high maximum speed but is quite heavy and acceleration is not particularly fast.
Note that when the early P-47M was introduced in Europe, one pilot (Wonderful Winnie?) would challenge P-51 Mustangs to races and win, but he would get left behind in the initial scramble because of slower acceleration.
The wing area is a bit larger than other Thunderbolts, but it is also a LOT heavier than other Thunderbolts which were not noted for particularly good turn performance while the FW 190D was noted as being better than the radial engine FW 190 versions.
Another thing worth remembering is that the P-47N actually LOST the dive recovery flaps that were introduced with the later P-47D, so it was probably no different from the early models in a high speed dive.

FWIW, The P-47D actually describes quite a large variation of aircraft. The early models were not great performers and not much different from a P-47C, but they got progressively better. The 205 Gallon Fuel Tank in front of the cockpit was only in the early models. Starting with the D-25, that tank was increased in size to 270 Gallons which was also installed in later models.

- Ivan.


----------



## ThomasP (May 14, 2019)

Hey guys,

If we are going to use the Ta 152 and P-47N maybe we should use the Spiteful?


----------



## GrauGeist (May 14, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> If we are going to use the Ta 152 and P-47N maybe we should use the Spiteful?


The most notable dogfight involving a Ta152H, was against a Tempest (which could be compared to the P-47) with less than a month remaining in the European war and the Spiteful (with less than 20 airframes manufactured) never entered combat.


----------



## ThomasP (May 15, 2019)

I know the Spiteful never entered combat, but it had about as much in common with the earlier late-Spitfire Mks as the Ta 152 had with the FW 190. The P-47N had more in common with earlier models (I think). And the title of this post says "(any variations)".


----------



## GrauGeist (May 15, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> I know the Spiteful never entered combat, but it had about as much in common with the earlier late-Spitfire Mks as the Ta 152 had with the FW 190. The P-47N had more in common with earlier models (I think). And the title of this post says "(any variations)".


Well, so far the discussion has been about types that actually saw combat, although the P-47D (as Ivan pointed out) had considerable changes under the "D" designation, going from a razor-back to a bubble-top during that type's production run.
But the Ta152 is actually a Fw190D evolution - it is literally the same airframe with several changes that entered combat (albeit late in the war) while the Spiteful, being an iteration of the Spitfire, did not.
You don't see anyone mentioning the P-47H or the P-47J variants, right?


----------



## ThomasP (May 15, 2019)

Hey GrauGeist'

Maybe read the original post again? The part where it says "For those wondering why I chose a specific model for the Jug and not for the Spitfire ....". It also does not specify that the spitfire variant had to have seen combat. Maybe you should tell DerGiLLster that he picked the wrong parameters?

Also, I am not eure what you are trying to say about the Ta 152/FW 190 lineage. Yes, the Ta 152 was descended from the FW 190, and the Spiteful was descended from the Spitfire, so .....???

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (May 15, 2019)

Just clearing up a misconception that I have seen posted here. The
following information comes from a report dated 17 September 1946
of P-47N No. 44-88406.

" The P-47N airplane has performance and handling characteristics very
similar to the early P-47 airplanes, but due to heavier weights caused by
greater fuel capacity, performance is lower when using equal power
settings. *The rate of roll is slower, due to the weight being farther from
the longitudinal axis of the airplane."*


*F-47N STANDARD AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS 17 May 1950
By authority of Commanding General Air Materiel Command,
U.S. Air Force:*
Just to clear up the discussion of climb rate of the P-47N it was CLASSED as
3680 fpm/S.L., 3700 fpm/10,000 ft., 3280fpm/25,000 ft. at a weight of 15,123 lb.

I'd go into greater detail but the title says P-47D.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 15, 2019)

CORSNING said:


> The rate of roll is slower, due to the weight being farther from
> the longitudinal axis of the airplane


That's what happens when you stick 90 gallons in each wing 

Wing tip may have been clipped but they added around 18" (?) to each wing in the wing root area so the wing area was bit bigger and the wing span almost the same.

Roll response with empty wing tanks might have been interesting. but the guns/ammo/landing gear were pushed further away from the fuselage.


----------



## michael rauls (May 15, 2019)

CORSNING said:


> Just clearing up a misconception that I have seen posted here. The
> following information comes from a report dated 17 September 1946
> of P-47N No. 44-88406.
> 
> ...


Verry cool info. That's pretty blistering climb for such a heavy plane or still good climb by any standards. Over the years I've seen the p47Ns climb listed as 1600.fpm on quite a few sites. Never made sense and I always figured it was one of those mistakes that someone prints then everyone just copies year after year.
Thanks for posting that and clearing that up.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (May 15, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> But the Ta152 is actually a Fw190D evolution


Splitting hairs and moving off topic, but wouldn't the Ta 152 be the natural evolution of the Fw 190A, with the Dora models just "stop-gap" fillers to hold the line until the Ta's were ready?


----------



## Bad-Karma (May 15, 2019)

Snowygrouch said:


> It said in turning it took four
> circles for the IX to get onto the 47`s tail



I'm actually a little surprised by this from the reputation of the P47's turn rate. This would seem to indicate it wasn't all that bad. 

Generally the Spitfire will have more advantages over the P47 in most levels of flight. That's not to say the P47 isn't competitive, especially in the opening aggressive stage of a fight with all that armor and firepower. The longer the fight goes on it's competitiveness goes down substantially.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 15, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Splitting hairs and moving off topic, but wouldn't the Ta 152 be the natural evolution of the Fw 190A, with the Dora models just "stop-gap" fillers to hold the line until the Ta's were ready?


The evolution of the Fw190 is really no different than other types, like the Spitfire and P-47.

The Fw190D's genesis actually started in 1941 to address the Fw190A's shortcomings at altitude with the first "Dora" prototype flying in 1942. The Ta152 was based on the Fw190C prototypes (also high-altitude) and evolved into the Ta152 by 1944.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 15, 2019)

As I see it, a late P-47D with a war emergency rating of around 2550 HP would not have been that far off of the P-47M/N. (Perhaps a bit over 200 HP down, but this level of power was available from D-25 onwards.) The P-47M without the extra fuel would have been the real hotrod of the bunch.

As for the original question for this thread, my vote is for the Spitfire with a Mk.XIV having the greatest advantage over the Thunderbolt except at very high altitudes.
The Mk.XIV would have a slight speed advantage, a huge roll rate and climb rate advantage and a significantly better turn radius. The biggest problem with the Spitfire in most versions IMO is the lack of sufficient ammunition load which is an issue that the Thunderbolts did not have.
I suspect that the test that gave the Spitfire only a slight turn advantage over the Thunderbolt may have been done at a higher than optimal speed for the Spitfire.

I don't believe the Spiteful / Seafang really qualifies as a Spitfire any more. The fuselage appears to be a lot smaller and the wing is non elliptical and laminar flow.
As for the Ta 152, it really was the FW 190D with a designation change as a courtesy to Kurt Tank, the designer. If the designation is that important, then going to something like the FW 190D-13 still leaves you with a pretty hot fighter.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (May 15, 2019)

Sticking to the title goes like this;

P-47D-5 thru P-47D-15 using 52"Hg (2,000 hp) vs. Spit Mk.IX with Merlin
63 & 66 at +18 lb. boost. The LF Mk.V using the Merlin 50M also falls in this
time period.

P-47D-20 with water injection (2,300 hp) vs. Spit F & LF Mk. VIII & IX with
Merlin 61, 63 & 66 at +18 boost.

P-47D-23 with water injection and paddle blade propeller vs. all the above
Spitfires plus the Mk. XIV Griffin at +18 boost.

P-47D-25 (bubble canopy) on using +64 to +70"Hg vs. Spit Mk.14 using
+18 and a few using +21 lb. boost.

P-47M (Europe)/P-47N (Pacific) using 72"Hg vs. all the above plus the 
Spitfire Mk.21 using +21 lb. boost.

It takes a considerable amount of time to put together a full work up of
fighter vs. fighter. What is your poison DerGiLLster?

, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I don't believe the Spiteful / Seafang really qualifies as a Spitfire any more. The fuselage appears to be a lot smaller and the wing is non elliptical and laminar flow.



The Spiteful XIV used the same fuselage as the Spitfire XIV, except for the larger rear fin and rudder. The Spiteful fin and rudder was used on the Spitfire 20-series.

The wing was different to other Spitfires, as was the wing on the 20-series Spitfires.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 15, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The Spitfire XII entered service in early 1943, but did not have the performance to match the P-47D at mid-to-high altitude. At low altitude the XII could have held its own.
> 
> The Spitfire XIV entered service in early 1944. It could match or exceed the altitude performance of the P-47D. Except when the P-47D was fitted with later R-2800 with ADI and high altitude supercharger (not sure if or when that happened, certainly the P-47M and N received improved R-2800s).


Interesting, I would have been inclined to use the VII/VIII/IX against the P-47D's. That said...


> The main advantages for the P-47D over the Spitfire XIV were ... dive and zoom climb.


That's an important thing to mention -- most people think of climb as being the steady-state climb figures, and think of dive-speed as the maximum mach number figures cited.

Dive speeds though are not just the maximum speed, but how fast you can get up to them, and the P-47 could get up there pretty fast. Mach number is also an issue more at high altitudes, as some airplanes are stressed to very high airspeeds, but not the highest mach numbers (the Spitfire was able to reach a placard limit of 0.85, dives were done to around 0.89 -- there was also one aircraft that did mach 0.96 in 1951-2, but they entered the dive at 51000 feet and hit 0.96 at 41000 feet -- maximum airspeed was around 450 mph, however).

Climb-speeds also include a steady-state/normal-climb which is based on the climb-rate at optimum airspeed at different altitudes. Zoom-climb is basically going well above that speed, then dumping speed for altitude. There are airplanes that don't have very impressive normal-climb figures, but they can zoom climb very well -- it seems the key to zoom-climb is speed and mass (low drag seems useful as well).


> The Spitfire could turn tighter and climb faster. In terms of turning, all Spitfires would be able to turn inside a P-47.


That seems about right (to be honest, I'm not sure if any of our aircraft could turn inside the Spitfire, and I mean either instantaneous or sustained turn).


> Armament wise, the Spitfire's 2 x 20mm and 2 x 0.50" is probably a match for the P-47D's 8 x 0.50" in terms of power, but not in firing time.


The 2 x 20mm + 2 x 0.50" are the E-winged aircraft. I'm not sure when that first appeared on the scene, but it was a different wing-design at the tip.


> AHT also said there were issues with high speed dives in the P-47, namely that the nose would tuck under, and some control reversal could be experienced.


From what I remember, the P-47C's could already reach Mach 0.745 placard limit, and reach Mach 0.78 at the very minimum.



MycroftHolmes said:


> I guess that the best Spitfire to compare with the P47D would be the HFVIII, since they were both high-altitude fighters. In summary:
> 
> Speed: The two aircraft were practically identical. With 150-octane the P47D reached 444 mph, the HFVIII did 445 mph (the 'Basta' modification).


Basta was the +25 boost right?


> Range: Again, the two aircraft were very close. We know that by the first half of 1944, Spitfires based at Culmhead were flying sweeps as far as the Swiss border - a combat radius of 500 miles - and these were MkVII's and MkXIV's, which had less range than the MkVIII.


These included drop-tanks or internal fuel?


> Firepower: Practically identical


The damage from the 20mm was about 3-4.6 times that of the .50 cal right?


> With regard to battle-damage it's often a case of comparing apples with oranges: the P47 was doubtless a robust aircraft _by American standards_ but that doesn't mean that it was particularly robust by British standards.


I'd have figured that with the exception of landing-gear, our airplanes would have usually come out on top. That said the Tempest was a monster (14g ultimate load).


> Similarly, if you look at the losses for American-flown planes you find that the Spitfire and P47 had exactly the same rate - 0.7%.


I think I know why, and it's not about robustness: It's about size and speed. The P-47 is bigger and can't fly as fast at low altitude...



Snowygrouch said:


> Possibly depends on which versions, I suspect the thread title is so broad to make discussion difficult.
> 
> AFDU report #66 (23rd March 1943) on IX vs P47 states that roll rates basically so similar that the difference in real terms is inconsequential.


Okay, so they were pretty similar for most purposes -- that's good to have clarified.


> It said in turning it took four circles for the IX to get onto the 47`s tail, and that in level flight acelleration in the IX was better, but in diving the 47 was superior in acelleration.


These turn figures: Are they at high altitudes? It seems odd that the P-47 would be able to stay with the Spitfire that long...


> Max speeds
> basically the same up to 28,000ft above which the IX superior. Sadly the test was only done to 30,000..... I guess as they thought that was about
> the likely limit to which any actual dogfights might occur - but that wasnt explicitly stated and is my assumption.


If I recall the critical altitude was around 29000 feet so, if it's gaining at 28000, it will probably gain to at least 29000 feet.

The P-47D's critical altitude seemed to vary from around 28000 feet to 32000 feet depending on regulator and power-settings. If 28000 feet is used, it has largely topped off, and the Spitfire will gain on it. The question after that is after both top off, who will fall off faster, and I'm not confident the Spitfire will. Ram compression figures were quite good with the Merlin's.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 15, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> The 2 x 20mm + 2 x 0.50" are the E-winged aircraft. I'm not sure when that first appeared on the scene, but it was a different wing-design at the tip.
> From what I remember, the P-47C's could already reach Mach 0.745 placard limit, and reach Mach 0.78 at the very minimum.
> 
> .


The E wing was the same wing as the C wing, in fact it could be converted. The revised wing was for the F.21 which had 4 x 20 mm cannon.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 15, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The Spiteful XIV used the same fuselage as the Spitfire XIV, except for the larger rear fin and rudder.



Not quite, the production Spiteful had a revise fuselage. The depth was increased at the cockpit to raise the pilots position for better view over the nose. If you look at the profile you will
notice that cowling in front of the cockpit of the Spitfire is horizontal, while in the Spiteful it rises from spinner to windscreen

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 15, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Just took another look at that graph( just glanced at it a few minutes ago as my wife had found something important for me to do). Didn't show what I expected to see. This may be one of those cases were a plane has a reputation for something that turned out not to be true. According to that graph I wouldn't call the Thunderbolts roll rate poor but certainly not outstanding either. The only thing that jumped out at me that might account for the discrepancy is the graph lists i believe it was 26 lbs stick force for all planes tested. Is it posible that the Jug could tolerate more stick force than other planes? Don't know I'm not a pilot but just a thought that might account for the discrepancy between that graph and the reputation the Jug seems to have.


The stick force is not an aircraft limitation but rather the limitations of the average pilot. The force a pilot could exert on a joystick was determined by a NACA study to be 30 lb. I posted the NACA paper sometime ago. This is why multi engine aircraft had wheels.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> The P-47D's critical altitude seemed to vary from around 28000 feet to 32000 feet depending on regulator and power-settings. If 28000 feet is used, it has largely topped off, and the Spitfire will gain on it. The question after that is after both top off, who will fall off faster, and I'm not confident the Spitfire will. Ram compression figures were quite good with the Merlin's.



The critical altitude varied with the supercharger model and boost levels.

As the supercharger improved, the critical altitude was raised. That was to do with the efficiency of the turbine and compressor, and the strength of the rotating assembly (which dictated rpm). This was achieved with detail design improvements and, possibly, material improvements.

As boost levels increased, the critical altitude was reduced.


----------



## wuzak (May 15, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The E wing was the same wing as the C wing, in fact it could be converted. The revised wing was for the F.21 which had 4 x 20 mm cannon.



The E-wing had the 0.303" ports blanked off?

In any case, the C wing could take 4 x 20mm or 2 x 20mm + 2 x 0.50" if so desired, though none (?) were configured with the 0.50s" and only a few with the 4 20mm.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 15, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> As for the Ta 152, it really was the FW 190D with a designation change as a courtesy to Kurt Tank, the designer. If the designation is that important, then going to something like the FW 190D-13 still leaves you with a pretty hot fighter.


Sorry, but no.

The Ta152 was a Fw190C - but we'll leave that for another discussion

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (May 16, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The stick force is not an aircraft limitation but rather the limitations of the average pilot. The force a pilot could exert on a joystick was determined by a NACA study to be 30 lb. I posted the NACA paper sometime ago. This is why multi engine aircraft had wheels.


I should have added tolerate more stick force AND stay controllable. Probably still not the case but at least my supposition/ question makes a little more sense in the context of the discrepancy between the data presented in the table and the reputation the p47 had.......I think.
Anyway from what a couple of the other posters said above sounds like as G forces increased the p47 went from being mediocre to one of the best at rolling.
I guess that must account for the the discrepancy?


----------



## Zipper730 (May 16, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The critical altitude varied with the supercharger model and boost levels.
> 
> As the supercharger improved, the critical altitude was raised. That was to do with the efficiency of the turbine and compressor, and the strength of the rotating assembly (which dictated rpm). This was achieved with detail design improvements and, possibly, material improvements.


Do you have any time-table and which P-47D sub-variants had what?



wuzak said:


> In any case, the C wing could take 4 x 20mm or 2 x 20mm + 2 x 0.50" if so desired, though none (?) were configured with the 0.50s" and only a few with the 4 20mm.


Didn't know that...


----------



## Spitlead (May 16, 2019)

Wuzak brings up excellent points in the comparison of flying characteristics but those are only a part of the equation. The outcome of any dogfight depends mainly on pilot skill. Look at how well the F-86 pilots did against the MiG-15 with the MiGs many performance advantages. Assuming the pilots in this scenario are equal, the next critical issue is the starting position at the beginning of the fight. If we were we to assume they are flying directly at each other at the same altitude with no advantage, as a Thunderbolt pilot I would take a snapshot during the head on pass and keep flying away and maybe climb. Stalemate. Not much the Spitfire pilot can do. I would in no way force a combat situation where I felt I was not at least on equal terms or better. If the combat was forced, I'd probably take the Mark Spitfire XIV.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (May 16, 2019)

Spitlead said:


> If we were we to assume they are flying directly at each other at the same altitude with no advantage, as a Thunderbolt pilot I would take a snapshot during the head on pass and keep flying away and maybe climb. Stalemate. Not much the Spitfire pilot can do.



A P-47's only real option in that situation would be to dive away, unless the combat was above 30000ft. The Spitfire, Mk.VIII and up, could quickly turn that into an advantage as it could out climb, and out accelerate the Thunderbolt


----------



## Glider (May 16, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The E wing was the same wing as the C wing, in fact it could be converted. The revised wing was for the F.21 which had 4 x 20 mm cannon.


I admit that I thought they were very different. I thought that on the E wing the 20mm is outside the 0.50 to improve the payload that could be carried.


----------



## Greyman (May 16, 2019)

On some stations Spitfire 'C' wings were converted to 'E' wings, but it required conversion sets from the manufacturing firms and was a lot more of a 'do' than swapping in/out weapons in the 'C' wing. The 'E' wing wasn't universal in that sense.

That said I haven't looked into it too deeply and am willing to be educated.


----------



## fliger747 (May 17, 2019)

Just fly around with the Jug till the spit gets low on fuel...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (May 17, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> Just fly around with the Jug till the spit gets low on fuel...



You do know that Spitfires flew over Berlin long before any Jug did.


----------



## chris mcmillin (May 17, 2019)

People underestimate the potential of the Thunderbolt because of some bias. It is a clean, powerful, fast, maneuverable airplane that has a tremendous amount of energy at combat speeds due to it's being able to maintain a tremendous amount of power at high altitude. It's 8 fifties were on par with the 4 cannon on the late Spitfires. It's high speed maneuverability is competitive with the Spitfire too.

When I read terms like ground attack, mediocre, slow roll rate, low climb rate, when the 'supercharger is engaged', boost, etc associated with it I feel too many posters just do not understand how airplanes and their engines operate and the evolution of performance enhancing technology that were applied in a short time period took place.

Most posters seem to grasp the airplane was a good performing fighter, on par with the, at each stage, excellent Spitfire. Good for you guys. It was a heavy airplane so needed to go fast so it had the biggest engine available (turbosupercharged, intercooled and aftercooled) and during combat they used a lot of power. It's like the F-105 or F-4, nobody says they were ground attack airplanes or had poor performance, (but heavy and needed to go fast to perform). It was just used for that and some Migs went faster or maneuvered tighter.

The amount of BS about the Thunderbolt is right up there with the Airacobra, written by guys writing the same bad info from those that wrote before them. Read Martin Caiden's "Thunderbolt!", essentially Robert S Johnson's war biography. It pretty much lays out the limitations and evolution of the airplane, and told of the crippling of it's mission effectiveness which in other tomes like Brodie's were explained to be just government restrictions to allowing range enhancing drop tanks. A late model D with Lockheed 150's on the wing pylons went just as far as a Mustang with 75's.

Chris...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## chris mcmillin (May 17, 2019)

Milosh said:


> You do know that Spitfires flew over Berlin long before any Jug did.


What, a PR? Did it do escort, engage fighters effectively and return? In large numbers. Please explain...
Chris...


----------



## Milosh (May 17, 2019)

Was said in jest chris.

Spec sheet on the Mk VIII, http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Spitfire_LF_VIII_Trop_Aircraft_Data_Performance.jpg


----------



## Kevin J (May 17, 2019)

Milosh said:


> Was said in jest chris.
> 
> Spec sheet on the Mk VIII, http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Spitfire_LF_VIII_Trop_Aircraft_Data_Performance.jpg


Let me guess a combat radius of 175 miles or less than a P-40N Warhawk which would be 200 miles.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 17, 2019)

Hmmm, Spit VIII is carrying 120IMP gallons internal which is equal to 144 US gallons. P-40N (with all three internal tanks) carried 159 US gallons? Early P40Ns held 122 US gallons.


----------



## Kevin J (May 17, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmm, Spit VIII is carrying 120IMP gallons internal which is equal to 144 US gallons. P-40N (with all three internal tanks) carried 159 US gallons? Early P40Ns held 122 US gallons.


No, 114 Imp gal in the Spitfire VIII. So you're looking at what, 137 vs 159 gals overall, so 1/8th less. 175 vs 200 miles combat radius. In the last year of the war in the Pacific the RAAF P-40N's scored more aerial victories than the Spitfire VIII's but then it had more range and their Beaufighters scored even more.


----------



## pbehn (May 17, 2019)

The two aircraft were entirely complimentary and on the same side. The RAF was always responsible for protecting the US airfields in UK. In an imaginary conflict, an intruding pilot going into UK airspace would count a Spitfire Mk XIV as the plane he would probably least like to be up against and most like to be protecting his home base.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (May 17, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The two aircraft were entirely complimentary and on the same side. The RAF was always responsible for protecting the US airfields in UK. In an imaginary conflict, an intruding pilot going into UK airspace would count a Spitfire Mk XIV as the plane he would probably least like to be up against and most like to be protecting his home base.


Don't understand your comment. Sorry about mine. Have edited it to correct.


----------



## CORSNING (May 17, 2019)

From recent comments, I believe the P-47D is just going to have
to take a seat and wait. The challenge seems to be the majority of
Spitfire Mk.XIVs using +18 lb/sq. in. boost vs. the P-47M. I apologize
ahead of time because I am working this weekend and have a tight
schedule. I will work on the performance workup and possibly be
able to post by next Tuesday or Wednesday if the interest is there.

I would be glad to use the Spitfire 21 instead. But it did not have the
control harmony or handling of the Mk.14 and was not liked by its
pilots as well.

Jeff


----------



## pbehn (May 17, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Don't understand your comment. Sorry about mine. Have edited it to correct.


It was a general comment on the original post not a response to your post. Since the two aircraft were on the same side they were never modified to counter each others strengths. From the little I have read Spitfire and Jug pilots in UK at the time had fun in mock combats, the planes were equally matched in some area of performance and mismatched in others.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2019)

chris mcmillin said:


> People underestimate the potential of the Thunderbolt because of some bias. It is a clean, powerful, fast, maneuverable airplane that has a tremendous amount of energy at combat speeds due to it's being able to maintain a tremendous amount of power at high altitude. It's 8 fifties were on par with the 4 cannon on the late Spitfires. It's high speed maneuverability is competitive with the Spitfire too.



I would grant that the P47 was a fast clean powerful airplane with a good roll rate, but, and its a big but, to claim it had the agility of the Spit is possibly stretching it. 

The following is a quote from the Williams web site regarding:-
FLIGHT TESTS ON THE REPUBLIC
P-47D AIRPLANE, AAF NO. 42-26167
USING 44-1 FUEL
_The airplane and engine handled well at all altitudes at the higher powers. At 70.0" Hg., water injection, a maximum speed of 444 MPH was obtained at 23,200 feet. At 65.0" Hg., with water a high speed of 439 MPH at 25,200 feet and a maximum rate of climb of 3260 ft/min. at 10,000 feet were obtained. _

These are good numbers granted, but the Spit XIV Griffon 65 at +18 boost at 23000ft seems to max at just under 440 mph and at its best height is about 450mph which is a precious little difference. However when comparing the climb the Spit is all over the P47 with a climb at 10,000ft of approx 4,500ft/min. It should be noted that the Spit sometimes operated at more than +18 boost.


----------



## wuzak (May 18, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> Just fly around with the Jug till the spit gets low on fuel...



Without external tanks the P-47D hasn't that much more endurance than an F.XIVE (142.5 UKG tankage) and about 30 minutes more than the the F,XIV (109.5 UKG).

If it has external tanks and keeps them on, then it would be a sitting duck against the XIV without external tanks.

In the scenario where the P-47D is flying over enemy airspace, which is defended by the Spitfire XIV, the P-47D cannot use its endurance advantage because a) it has to drop external tanks to fight/avoid fighting and b) most of the remaining fuel is required for the trip back to base. While the XIV's base is near by.

A P-47D could probably avoid combat with a IX or VIII by using its speed advantage, but it does not have the speed to run away from a XIV.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 18, 2019)

Greyman said:


> On some stations Spitfire 'C' wings were converted to 'E' wings, but it required conversion sets from the manufacturing firms and was a lot more of a 'do' than swapping in/out weapons in the 'C' wing. The 'E' wing wasn't universal in that sense.
> 
> That said I haven't looked into it too deeply and am willing to be educated.


Here is an excellent site describing the modifications required to convert a C wing to an E wing.
Sorting Out the “E” – American Armament for the Spitfire Mk. IX/XVI — Variants & Technology | Spitfire Mk. IX | Spitfire Mk. XVI
Note that moving the 20 mm to the outer bay allowed the 50 cal ammunition to pass under the 20 mm barrel minimizing the size of the blisters.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 18, 2019)

Again, which version of the P-47D?

There were quite a few changes between the P-47D-1-RE and the P-47D-40-RA, most notably the transition from the "Razorback" to the "bubble-top".
And amonsgst those changes came a considerable change in range and performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (May 18, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Here is an excellent site describing the modifications required to convert a C wing to an E wing.
> Sorting Out the “E” – American Armament for the Spitfire Mk. IX/XVI — Variants & Technology | Spitfire Mk. IX | Spitfire Mk. XVI
> Note that moving the 20 mm to the outer bay allowed the 50 cal ammunition to pass under the 20 mm barrel minimizing the size of the blisters.



If I may one-up you ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## windswords (May 21, 2019)

I don't know why but this topic seems to rear its head every few years or so on forums like this one. Maybe its because of the what if factor as the two never faced each other in combat and the relative merits of each plane against their real opponents - 109, 190, Zero, Tony, Oscar etc. are well known. Maybe because the two are so much different in philosophies. The Spitfire is like a rapier sword and the Thunderbolt is like a battle axe. Both are effective in their own ways. My take is the P-47 was so very good with its strengths and still good enough in other areas that it was overall more effective as a combat aircraft. Certainly, as an interceptor or classic dogfighter it was totally outclassed by the Spitfire. But interception and classic dogfighting is not how the majority of air combat occurred in the ETO or even the PTO and CBI for that matter.

Those who are perplexed about how the Thunderbolt (or the Corsair, Hellcat, Wildcat or even the P-40) could shoot down so many planes, most of which were more maneuverable and better climbing than they were, always forget this: In WWII (unlike WWI? I am not knowledgeable about that era), only a small percentage of air to air kills were from classic dogfights. Something like 80% are from the unobserved bounce. One pilot likened it to sneaking up on someone from behind and clubbing them in the head with a baseball bat.

The P-47 excelled at what actually became important in WWII aerial combat: Speed, dive, zoom, roll rate and (in later models) range. Fly far, fly fast, hit hard, then get out.

How well it could "dogfight" is very close to irrelevant. The Japanese employed fighters that could out turn and out climb anything that the Allies had, yet they were shot down in droves.
It is my belief that turn and climb rate are over rated as attributes for fighters in WWII while roll and dive rate are under rated. And range is the great multiplier.

Fighter design in WWII coalesced around two philosophies: "Turn and Burn" and "Boom and Zoom". For some reason we are still carrying on this argument today. It was settled in WWII. Boom and Zoom won, for the Americans at least. They were more than successful with it, as they achieved air supremacy over Germany and Japan.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 21, 2019)

windswords said:


> How well it could "dogfight" is very close to irrelevant. The Japanese employed fighters that could out turn and out climb anything that the Allies had, yet they were shot down in droves.
> It is my belief that turn and climb rate are over rated as sttributes for fighters in WWII while roll and dive rate are under rated. And range is the great multiplier.



Hello Windswords,
I believe that the difference in attributes of the fighter aircraft flown by the Japanese as compared to the Allies is much less important than other relative aspects of their air forces and infrastructure. The Japanese simply did not have the training programs, aircraft production, airfield construction, or anything else needed to sustain the kind of war they got into.

Results were pretty much the same in Europe where the Axis fighters had quite different characteristics.

While I am sure we have all read the story of Robert Johnson flying his Thunderbolt against the brand new Spitfire Mk.Ix, we should remember that Johnson was probably the best Thunderbolt pilot there ever was and the other guy was stupid enough to play a game to his own weaknesses. Think about what might have happened if the other pilot had been J.E.Johnson.
The Thunderbolt really didn't roll all that well but against a new Spitfire IX, it was just a little better.
The clipped wing Spitfires and later Spitfires were a LOT better.
As for diving performance, remember that the US chose to go with the Mustang in Europe because it had fewer problems with compressibility. Thunderbolts always had issues with compressibility in a dive; the wing would lose lift. The dive recovery flaps only helped to reduce speed and pitch the aircraft up and didn't come as factory installed equipment until the P-47D-40. (Many earlier aircraft were retrofitted.)

One interesting observation that can be made is that a pretty credible fighter force could be made up of nothing but Thunderbolts while a force of all Spitfires would have much less capability.



windswords said:


> Fighter design in WWII coalessed around two philosophies: "Turn and Burn" and "Boom and Zoom". For some reason we are still carrying on this argument today. It was settled in WWII. Boom and Zoom won, for the Americans at least. They were more than sucessful with it, as they achieved air supremacy over Germany and Japan.



I don't believe it is an either-or situation. It is really a relative performance thing. The Japanese A6M fighting in China against their obsolete aircraft was a BnZ aircraft. Against US types, it was TnB.
As for Americans versus the Germans in the ETO, how does one come to the conclusion that it was BnZ versus TnB?

I am also not so sure that this argument was ever really settled nor will it ever be settled. If BnZ was the best game, then why did we replace older fighters such as the F-4 Phantom with much more agile but slower fighters such as F-16 and F-18? From the fighter pilot interviews I have watched, the game gets a lot more complicated and often it is a matter of exploiting a particular performance advantage that really doesn't fall into either category. There are people in this forum with actual experience in this domain, so perhaps they can explain things better than I can.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (May 21, 2019)

windswords said:


> But interception and classic dogfighting is not how the majority of air combat occurred in the ETO or even the PTO and CBI for that matter.


Perhaps the Americans were not intercepting very much, but everyone they were fighting was. The vast majority of air combat over Europe initiated with somebody intercepting somebody else. The P-47 was never really used as a defensive fighter, and its combat record is all the better as a result.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (May 21, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Perhaps the Americans were not intercepting very much, but everyone they were fighting was. The vast majority of air combat over Europe initiated with somebody intercepting somebody else. The P-47 was never really used as a defensive fighter, and its combat record is all the better as a result.


The Russians used their Thunderbolts for air defence of strategic targets in their rear areas.


----------



## windswords (May 21, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I believe that the difference in attributes of the fighter aircraft flown by the Japanese as compared to the Allies is much less important than other relative aspects of their air forces and infrastructure. The Japanese simply did not have the training programs, aircraft production, airfield construction, or anything else needed to sustain the kind of war they got into.



Fairly early in the war, before the Americans (as well as the British/Australians) achieved numerical, logistical and training superiority over the Japanese they developed tactics to negate the superior turn and climb of Japanese fighters. For the Flying Tigers, they had this advantage in tactics right out of the box in the battles over Rangoon. For the rest of the USAAF and USN those tactics were paying dividends well before 1943 when the tide began to turn for the Allies in terms of those things you mentioned.



Ivan1GFP said:


> The Thunderbolt really didn't roll all that well but against a new Spitfire IX, it was just a little better.


On what do you base this on? "We were at 5,000 feet, the Spitfire skidding around hard and coming in on my tail. No use turning; he'd whip right inside me as if I were a truck loaded with cement, and snap out in firing position. Well, I had a few tricks, too. The P-47 was faster, and I threw the ship into a roll. Right here I had him. The Jug could out roll any plane in the air, bar none. With my speed, roll was my only advantage, and I made full use of the manner in which the Thunderbolt could whirl. I kicked the Jug into a wicked left roll, horizon spinning crazily, once, twice, into a third. As he turned to the left to follow, I tramped down on the right rudder, banged the stick over to the right. Around and around we went, left, right, left, right. I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire even completed his first. And this killed his ability to turn inside me. I just refused to turn. Every time he tried to follow me in a roll, I flashed away to the opposite side, opening the gap between our two planes". Robert S Johnson

I don't believe that somehow Johnson's piloting skills were the reason he could roll the Thunderbolt so well. Even an aviation cadet knows how to roll an airplane. Either the plane rolls well or it doesn't. Of course the pilot has to to have good reflexes - but he wouldn't be a fighter pilot if he didn't. You know what made Johnson one of the best? He knew how to hit his target. Robert Johnson would go on to shoot down 28 (revised down to 27 after the war) German fighters, with 6 probables and 4 more damaged. After the war, Luftwaffe records indicated that Johnson might have shot down as many as 32 German fighters. Johnson flew 91 combat missions. On those missions, he encountered German fighters 43 times. In 36 of the 43 encounters, Johnson fired his guns at the enemy. A result of those 36 instances where he fired on German aircraft, 37 of those aircraft were hit; with as few as 27 or as many as 32 going down.

The most important thing Johnson said about combat flying is this: "First rule in this kind of a fight: don't fight the way your opponent fights best".

The Luftwaffe pilots also had respect for the rolling abilities of the Thunderbolt:

"When I was transferred to a squadron for home defense against heavy four engined bombers with their fighter escorts, I finally met the P-47 and, later, the P-51. My recollections of these two aircraft are not happy ones. There were so many of them, it was hard to get at the bombers and during the last year of the war, American fighters were all around us. ...The P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and out climb it, *initially*. But that big American fighter could roll with deceiving speed and when it came down on you in a long dive, there was no way you could get away from it. It must have a huge brick into it, somewhere. In addition to inflicting tremendous punishment, it could absorb an incredible amount of firepower and still fly."

Walter Wolfrum

So yes the P-47 is not a "turn and burn" type of fighter. So don't use it that way. That's how the Americans turned the tables on the Japanese in the Pacific. And why the P-47 had so many aces in Europe.



Ivan1GFP said:


> As for diving performance, remember that the US chose to go with the Mustang in Europe because it had fewer problems with compressibility.


The 51s replaced the 47s (in the 8th and 15th Air Forces only) for 2 reasons: 1) Range - although later models with 3 drop tanks the 47 could go all the way to Berlin and back(and cover 80% of Germany), it took much less gas for a 51 to do the same and it could go further. 2) The 47s were shipped to the 9th and 12th Air Force for use as tactical aircraft since they were much better suited for that role than the Mustang or its predecessor the A-36 Apache. By the end of the war in the Pacific, P-47N's with wing tanks were escorting B-29 bombers all the way to Japan and back and still maintained their ground attack capabilities. The P-47N had a longer range than the P-51D. They were also equipped with some nice features for 8 hour long missions: auto pilot, arm rests and fold away rudder pedals so you coy could stretch your legs. After the P-51 was introduced to the 8th (and 15th) Air Force, production at Republic Aviation's plants in the US increased as they needed P-47's more than ever in the 9th and 12th Air Forces.

If I had to pick an airplane for point defense and interception I would not hesitate to take the Spitfire. It was the best interceptor of the war. For most other types of missions I would favor the P-47, including escort, if the target was in range.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## windswords (May 21, 2019)

A very excellent video on the P-47 is "*P-47 Thunderbolt Pt. 1 Design and Speed" *by the YouTube channel Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles. It is quite well done and informative.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 21, 2019)

windswords said:


> Fairly early in the war, before the Americans (as well as the British/Australians) achieved numerical, logistical and training superiority over the Japanese they developed tactics to negate the superior turn and climb of Japanese fighters. For the Flying Tigers, they had this advantage in tactics right out of the box in the battles over Rangoon. For the rest of the USAAF and USN those tactics were paying dividends well before 1943 when the tide began to turn for the Allies in terms of those things you mentioned.



Hello Windswords,
First of all, early in the war, the Japanese would have been flying the Ki 27, early Ki 43 and the A6M2. None of these has the greatly superior climb performance of later Japanese fighters. Initial impressions were that they had great climbing ability but much of that was a superior zoom climb (as in BnZ, at least in A6M2). Actual flight testing of the A6M2 captured in the Aleutians put the initial climb rate below 3000 Feet/minute. The test results are pretty well documented. I don't believe all of the results should be taken at face value, but they ate at least an indication of relative performance.
As for the Flying Tigers, most of the Japanese fighters they encountered were either Ki 27 or early Ki 43. Both are very slow aircraft.
As for the when the issues of replacements and such became an issue, I would say this became apparent much earlier than you may be thinking. Look at what happened after the Battle of Coral Sea. Look at which carriers were not available at Midway as a result.
Now one could say that the US repaired one more carrier because they made an extraordinary effort, but why were the Japanese down two carriers?

Why did the Japanese develop Floatplane Fighters such as A6M2-N and N1K? 
They knew their capability for building airfields was not so good. 
US never had a need for a Floatplane Fighter because of their ability to quickly construct a useable airfield if needed. 



windswords said:


> On what do you base this on? "We were at 5,000 feet, the Spitfire skidding around hard and coming in on my tail. No use turning; he'd whip right inside me as if I were a truck loaded with cement, and snap out in firing position. Well, I had a few tricks, too. The P-47 was faster, and I threw the ship into a roll. Right here I had him. The Jug could out roll any plane in the air, bar none. With my speed, roll was my only advantage, and I made full use of the manner in which the Thunderbolt could whirl. I kicked the Jug into a wicked left roll, horizon spinning crazily, once, twice, into a third. As he turned to the left to follow, I tramped down on the right rudder, banged the stick over to the right. Around and around we went, left, right, left, right. I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire even completed his first. And this killed his ability to turn inside me. I just refused to turn. Every time he tried to follow me in a roll, I flashed away to the opposite side, opening the gap between our two planes". Robert S Johnson



That really is a great story. Thanks for quoting it again. Pity you left out the ending.
I base the roll rate comparison on data from America's Hundred Thousand, NACA Report 868, and RAE 1231.
Now keep in mind that by the time the Thunderbolt was flying in Europe, the FW 190A was definitely in service and from this anecdote, we might be led to believe the Thunderbolt has a superior roll rate, but that would not be credible.
More in a bit.....



windswords said:


> I don't believe that somehow Johnson's piloting skills were the reason he could roll the Thunderbolt so well. Even an aviation cadet knows how to roll an airplane. Either the plane rolls well or it doesn't. Of course the pilot has to to have good reflexes - but he wouldn't be a fighter pilot if he didn't. You know what made Johnson one of the best? He knew how to hit his target. Robert Johnson would go on to shoot down 28 (revised down to 27 after the war) German fighters, with 6 probables and 4 more damaged. After the war, Luftwaffe records indicated that Johnson might have shot down as many as 32 German fighters. Johnson flew 91 combat missions. On those missions, he encountered German fighters 43 times. In 36 of the 43 encounters, Johnson fired his guns at the enemy. A result of those 36 instances where he fired on German aircraft, 37 of those aircraft were hit; with as few as 27 or as many as 32 going down.



Things are not quite so simple. First of all, one of the things that differs between pilots is muscular strength.
The testing that is typically done is done with a certain amount of control force applied to all the aircraft.
If Johnson happens to be a bit stronger than your average pilot, perhaps he could get some better results.
Another issue that I found in the book Warbird Buyer's Guide (and that someone also posted in this thread) is that the Thunderbolt doesn't lose as much of its rolling performance under G load as some other aircraft. 
There is also reaction time. If you are following someone, you need to SEE when your target has changed direction and then respond to it. Back in Physics class many years ago, I worked out an experiment to test reaction time without a stop watch. I would imagine that reflexes get a bit slower as the pilot is pulling G and on the edge of graying out.



windswords said:


> The most important thing Johnson said about combat flying is this: "First rule in this kind of a fight: don't fight the way your opponent fights best".



The Spitfire pilot was breaking this rule. Perhaps a smarter pilot would not have fought this way.



windswords said:


> The Luftwaffe pilots also had respect for the rolling abilities of the Thunderbolt:
> 
> "When I was transferred to a squadron for home defense against heavy four engined bombers with their fighter escorts, I finally met the P-47 and, later, the P-51. My recollections of these two aircraft are not happy ones. There were so many of them, it was hard to get at the bombers and during the last year of the war, American fighters were all around us. ...The P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and out climb it, *initially*. But that big American fighter could roll with deceiving speed and when it came down on you in a long dive, there was no way you could get away from it. It must have a huge brick into it, somewhere. In addition to inflicting tremendous punishment, it could absorb an incredible amount of firepower and still fly."
> 
> Walter Wolfrum



Some of this opinion might depend on what the German was flying and the tactical situation.
In the right hands, some of the late war German fighters were great performers, but there were not a lot of those "right hands" left alive by the time those planes came out.
Surprisingly, there isn't as much difference in maneuverability between Thunderbolt and Mustang as one might expect from the sizes of the aircraft.



windswords said:


> The 51s replaced the 47s (in the 8th and 15th Air Forces only) for 2 reasons: 1) Range - although later models with 3 drop tanks the 47 could go all the way to Berlin and back(and cover 80% of Germany), it took much less gas for a 51 to do the same and it could go further. 2) The 47s were shipped to the 9th and 12th Air Force for use as tactical aircraft since they were much better suited for that role than the Mustang or its predecessor the A-36 Apache.



There were more reasons than that according to what I have read.

- Ivan.


----------



## windswords (May 21, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Perhaps the Americans were not intercepting very much, but everyone they were fighting was. The vast majority of air combat over Europe initiated with somebody intercepting somebody else. The P-47 was never really used as a defensive fighter, and its combat record is all the better as a result.



I was not clear in my OP. When I mention intercepting it was in reference to being a defensive point interceptor, as in protecting a city or industrial target and scrambling and climbing to altitude to meet the enemy aircraft. Obviously P-47's intercepted German or Japanese fighters who were in many cases intercepting attacking bombers. But of course they were already at altitude. Sorry I was not clear.


----------



## windswords (May 21, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> First of all, early in the war, the Japanese would have been flying the Ki 27, early Ki 43 and the A6M2. None of these has the greatly superior climb performance of later Japanese fighters. Initial impressions were that they had great climbing ability but much of that was a superior zoom climb (as in BnZ, at least in A6M2). Actual flight testing of the A6M2 captured in the Aleutians put the initial climb rate below 3000 Feet/minute. The test results are pretty well documented. I don't believe all of the results should be taken at face value, but they ate at least an indication of relative performance.
> As for the Flying Tigers, most of the Japanese fighters they encountered were either Ki 27 or early Ki 43. Both are very slow aircraft.
> As for the when the issues of replacements and such became an issue, I would say this became apparent much earlier than you may be thinking. Look at what happened after the Battle of Coral Sea. Look at which carriers were not available at Midway as a result.
> Now one could say that the US repaired one more carrier because they made an extraordinary effort, but why were the Japanese down two carriers?



1) Doesn't matter what the Japanese had Ki-27, Ki-43 or the Zero (or even the A6M5 Claude which did take part in the early fighting even after Dec 7). ALL of these were better climbing and better turning fighters than anything the Americans, Dutch and British Commonwealth had. More importantly, they had range (Ki-43 and Zero). 
2) The fact that American aircraft then were better in a zoom climb is exactly what we are talking about here. Boom and ZOOM.
3) The fact that the Japanese aircraft you mentioned were slower (as was the Zero also) does not negate the fact that they were better at turn and climb. A turning dogfight almost always bleeds off energy and is not done at the aircraft best rated speed at altitude. 
4) Midway was 4 Japanese carriers against 3 American. It is certainly true that pilot attrition started even before the Battle of the Coral Sea, but it had not become severe yet. At one point AFTER Midway the Americans were down to one carrier in the Pacific, while the Japanese still had 3 or 4 available. The British "loaned" the HMS Victorious to the USN serving as USS _Robin_, in January 1943.



Ivan1GFP said:


> Why did the Japanese develop Floatplane Fighters such as A6M2-N and N1K? They knew their capability for building airfields was not so good.


Floatplane fighters were built because they needed planes to guard far flung islands that did not have airfields (they were not big enough, (such as the Aleutians) or the airfields were in the process of being built. That's why the number of floatplane fighters built were so low, just a few hundred - it was a specialized application for a narrowly defined mission - otherwise they would have built many more. Japans navy had a significant number of land based units that never flew from carriers, the most famous being the Tainan Kokutai of which Saburo Sakai and Hiroyoshi Nishizawa were members of. There were many other such units. Land based units like the Tainan Ku flew from air bases on larger islands in Solomons, Marianas, New Guinea, the Dutch East Indies, etc. To be sure those bases were not as big as the ones built by the Americans as their planes were bigger and heavier (especially the bombers) and needed larger bases. The Americans never needed floatplane fighters because after May 1942 they were on the offensive and didn't have to defend a large front that included those types of islands. The Americans often bypassed the smaller islands as they had no strategic value and took the ones that had enough land and the right location for air bases.



Ivan1GFP said:


> That really is a great story. Thanks for quoting it again. Pity you left out the ending.


The ending was Johnson went into a dive (after he picked up some distance rolling) and quickly converted to a zoom climb creating even more distance. Before the Spitfire could close the gap in a prolonged climb Johnson "hammered around" and dove on the other plane and for a few moments he had a firing solution, more than enough time for his 8 .50s to do their dirty work. I left that part out because the subject was roll. 



Ivan1GFP said:


> Now keep in mind that by the time the Thunderbolt was flying in Europe, the FW 190A was definitely in service and from this anecdote, we might be led to believe the Thunderbolt has a superior roll rate, but that would not be credible.


Not sure why Johnson out rolling the Spitfire would be lead one to believe that. The FW was one of the best if not the best rolling aircraft of the war. As for the FW 190A series There is an interesting test of a captured FW A4 or A5 and a P-47D that has some interesting results but It would be off topic to go into.



Ivan1GFP said:


> The Spitfire pilot was breaking this rule. Perhaps a smarter pilot would not have fought this way.


I don't know what the Spitfire did to break that rule. He was on the tail of the Thunderbolt, he tried to line up for a shot. In that post I did not mention Johnsons dive and zoom climb. Perhaps he should not have followed the Thunderbolt in the dive and the zoom climb? Maybe, but who can blame him? He believed his plane could out climb the P-47 - and it could quite easily - in a sustained climb.



Ivan1GFP said:


> Some of this opinion might depend on what the German was flying and the tactical situation.


You're grasping straws. He was a top pilot and I'm sure he flew some of the latest 109s or 190s that were available. The point of his quote was the Thunderbolt's excellent roll rate. 

Before I forget, I forgot to address your earlier statement:


Ivan1GFP said:


> I am also not so sure that this argument was ever really settled nor will it ever be settled. If BnZ was the best game, then why did we replace older fighters such as the F-4 Phantom with much more agile but slower fighters such as F-16 and F-18?


I was only talking about fighter design in WWII. Things were different 20-30 years later and today what with missiles, stealth etc. One can't fight yesterdays battles today. As for your statement that it is not an either-or situation but a relative performance thing, I completely agree. All fighters are made up of strengths and weakenesses and sometimes compromises (what do I give up to get more range? What do I give up to get better climb? I was trying to simplify things (it's really easy to get lost in the minutiae). No fighter is entirely a TnB or a BnZ (well, maybe the Ki-43 LOL).


----------



## Snowygrouch (May 21, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Surprisingly, there isn't as much difference in maneuverability between Thunderbolt and Mustang as one might expect from the sizes of the aircraft.



AFDU report #66, states that in fact the P47 roll-rate was considerably better than the Mustang, and that rate of turn was almost identical, although the Mustang
was considerably faster in level flight at all altitudes below 27,000ft (23rd march 1943)

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (May 21, 2019)

windswords said:


> I was not clear in my OP. When I mention intercepting it was in reference to being a defensive point interceptor, as in protecting a city or industrial target and scrambling and climbing to altitude to meet the enemy aircraft. Obviously P-47's intercepted German or Japanese fighters who were in many cases intercepting attacking bombers. But of course they were already at altitude. Sorry I was not clear.



I think you were clear in your original post, no need to apologize. I just pointed out that P-47's were not "Intercepting and dogfighting", but their opponents were. And their opponents were the other half of the total, so still quite important at that stage of the war. If the Luftwaffe had tried to use P-47's to counter strategic bombing raids, it would have been a challenge, to say the least. Not to say that the Thunderbolt wasn't an effective aircraft, it was, probably the best fighter of the war (arguably) above 30000ft. 
But they, and the P-51's, operated almost exclusively in an offensive manner, only because local air superiority over their home bases was provided by, you guessed it, Spitfires. 
To say that interceptors and dog fighters were a thing of the past is looking at the whole air situation with blinders on. What then was the impetus to develop the P-47M and P-51H? The USN also came to the conclusion that the Hellcat and Corsair, despite their many attributes, were lackluster as fleet defense fighters, and developed an interceptor/dogfighter as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## windswords (May 21, 2019)

Snowygrouch said:


> AFDU report #66, states that in fact the P47 roll-rate was considerably better than the Mustang, and that rate of turn was almost identical, although the Mustang was considerably faster in level flight at all altitudes below 27,000ft (23rd march 1943)



That would line up with what I have read in statements from pilots of both sides in regards to roll. I do find it hard to believe that the the turn rate was almost identical, I would think that the Mustang was better.

Witold "Lanny" Lanowski was a Polish fighter pilot and ace who flew both Spitfires and Thunderbolts said that the P-47 could hold a turn - temporarily with a 109 or 190: "The Thunderbolt could turn quite well at speed but it was not safe to try to turn too far with a 190 or 109. It was best to go only a half circle, shoot, and then pull out; or three-quarters of a circle at the most". He stated he was able to do this even at altitudes of 5 to 10,000 feet. Now, I don't know about turn data for a Mustang. Was the P-51 worse, as good as, or better than a 109 or 190?

Another interesting tidbit: According to "Report 107 on Tactical Trials conducted by the AFDU at RAF Wittering in March 1944" they compared the P-51B (Mustang III) to the Sptfire Mk IX, the Spitfire had a better roll rate at all speeds and altitudes than the Mustang III. 
But Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, tested the Mustang at RAE Farnborough in March 1944 (note the date is the same but the location is different than the test above) and noted of the Mustang, "... It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the pluses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate". So what was the difference in roll rate? Was it because it was a different Spitfire (not a Mk IX) or a different Mustang (not a P-51B) or both? Confusing for sure!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 21, 2019)

windswords said:


> 1) Doesn't matter what the Japanese had Ki-27, Ki-43 or the Zero (or even the *A6M5 Claude *which did take part in the early fighting even after Dec 7). ALL of these were better climbing and better turning fighters than anything the Americans, Dutch and British Commonwealth had. More importantly, they had range (Ki-43 and Zero).


I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be the *A5M4 Claude*


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 22, 2019)

windswords said:


> 1) Doesn't matter what the Japanese had Ki-27, Ki-43 or the Zero (or even the A6M5 Claude which did take part in the early fighting even after Dec 7). ALL of these were better climbing and better turning fighters than anything the Americans, Dutch and British Commonwealth had. More importantly, they had range (Ki-43 and Zero).
> 2) The fact that American aircraft then were better in a zoom climb is exactly what we are talking about here. Boom and ZOOM.
> 3) The fact that the Japanese aircraft you mentioned were slower (as was the Zero also) does not negate the fact that they were better at turn and climb. A turning dogfight almost always bleeds off energy and is not done at the aircraft best rated speed at altitude.
> 4) Midway was 4 Japanese carriers against 3 American. It is certainly true that pilot attrition started even before the Battle of the Coral Sea, but it had not become severe yet. At one point AFTER Midway the Americans were down to one carrier in the Pacific, while the Japanese still had 3 or 4 available. The British "loaned" the HMS Victorious to the USN serving as USS _Robin_, in January 1943.



Hello Windswords,
I think you got everything kinda backwards here:
1. MANY Allied fighters had a pretty comparable climb rate. At lower altitudes, a P-40E, P-39 in just about any model, F4F-3, Spitfire.... all would have been about the same.
2. The report states that the A6M2 had a very good zoom climb.
3. See Response #1. Note that not all aircraft bleed speed at the same rate while pulling the same G.
4. It should have been 5 or 6 Japanese carriers present at Midway instead of 4. Shokaku and Yorktown were both damaged at Coral Sea. Yorktown made it to Midway. Shokaku did not. 
Zuikaku suffered no damage but had significant losses in aircraft and aircrew which could not be replaced in time which was an early indication of a lack of depth. Shokaku's air group had actually suffered relatively few losses.



windswords said:


> Floatplane fighters were built because they needed planes to guard far flung islands that did not have airfields (they were not big enough, (such as the Aleutians) or the airfields were in the process of being built. That's why the number of floatplane fighters built were so low, just a few hundred - it was a specialized application for a narrowly defined mission - otherwise they would have built many more. Japans navy had a significant number of land based units that never flew from carriers, the most famous being the Tainan Kokutai of which Saburo Sakai and Hiroyoshi Nishizawa were members of. There were many other such units. Land based units like the Tainan Ku flew from air bases on larger islands in Solomons, Marianas, New Guinea, the Dutch East Indies, etc. To be sure those bases were not as big as the ones built by the Americans as their planes were bigger and heavier (especially the bombers) and needed larger bases. The Americans never needed floatplane fighters because after May 1942 they were on the offensive and didn't have to defend a large front that included those types of islands. The Americans often bypassed the smaller islands as they had no strategic value and took the ones that had enough land and the right location for air bases.



I believe your discussion supports the point I was making. "The airfields were in the process of being built" tended to be a rather long one for the Japanese. For Americans, it was a matter of landing CBs with a mess of bulldozers and then laying down a mess of PSP in a fairly short time. The Japanese didn't have the resources to do that kind of thing and knew it.
The actual production numbers of Floatplane Fighters is not really an indication of the importance of the concept.
Many very important Japanese aircraft only had a total production numbering in the hundreds which supports what I was stating earlier about a lack of production capacity.
Consider how much effort was spent on the N1K Kyofu and see if that matches up with the idea that a Floatplane Fighter was not important to them.




windswords said:


> Not sure why Johnson out rolling the Spitfire would be lead one to believe that. The FW was one of the best if not the best rolling aircraft of the war. As for the FW 190A series There is an interesting test of a captured FW A4 or A5 and a P-47D that has some interesting results but It would be off topic to go into.



Johnson stated, "The Jug could out-roll any plane in the air, bare none." This was obviously not a true statement when it was made.



windswords said:


> I don't know what the Spitfire did to break that rule. He was on the tail of the Thunderbolt, he tried to line up for a shot. In that post I did not mention Johnsons dive and zoom climb. Perhaps he should not have followed the Thunderbolt in the dive and the zoom climb? Maybe, but who can blame him? He believed his plane could out climb the P-47 - and it could quite easily - in a sustained climb.



After losing ground in trying to follow one series of rolls, the smart approach would be to break off and gain altitude to make high speed slashing passes at Thunderbolt. There was no way the Thunderbolt was going to gain altitude fast enough to follow the Spitfire up and if he tries, he makes a really nice target. Basically BnZ the Thunderbolt until he decides he wants to find someone else who wants to play. If Thunderbolt wants to leave, there isn't much you can do to stop him.




windswords said:


> You're grasping straws. He was a top pilot and I'm sure he flew some of the latest 109s or 190s that were available. The point of his quote was the Thunderbolt's excellent roll rate.



No need to grasp at straws. You are not actually even reading your own quote. He didn't really say "excellent roll rate", you did.
I suppose something may have been lost in translating from German? I would certainly agree with the original quote: "Deceivingly fast" considering how big it was.



windswords said:


> I was only talking about fighter design in WWII. Things were different 20-30 years later and today what with missiles, stealth etc. One can't fight yesterdays battles today. As for your statement that it is not an either-or situation but a relative performance thing, I completely agree. All fighters are made up of strengths and weakenesses and sometimes compromises (what do I give up to get more range? What do I give up to get better climb? I was trying to simplify things (it's really easy to get lost in the minutiae). No fighter is entirely a TnB or a BnZ (well, maybe the Ki-43 LOL).



Maybe we sort of agree here. I try to never make a statement that one aircraft is completely "better" than another. It may have certain characteristics that are better.
The problem with trying to simplify things is that way too much is lost without the details and often tactics may depend on some of those obscure details. Learning about them is what keeps things interesting.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 22, 2019)

Hello Windswords, Snowygrouch,
Perhaps the attached graphs might explain how folks can come to different conclusions with the same physical reality.
Note that at most practical speeds, the Thunderbolt is better than the Mustang but at high speeds, the Mustang beats a lot of other aircraft.

Spitfire versus Thunderbolt also makes for an interesting comparison.
It all depends on speed.

There is one curve on the NACA 868 graph that I find puzzling.
The roll rate for A6M is amazingly low but this doesn't match pilot reports and doesn't match videos I have timed with a stopwatch.

- Ivan.


----------



## Greyman (May 22, 2019)

The Zero's line is 'force limits unknown' so is pretty much useless.


----------



## CORSNING (May 22, 2019)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/RAAF_Hap_Trials.pdf

Roll graph on here, Jeff


----------



## ThomasP (May 23, 2019)

Hey windswords,

re: "Fighter design in WWII coalesced around two philosophies: "Turn and Burn" and "Boom and Zoom". For some reason we are still carrying on this argument today. It was settled in WWII. Boom and Zoom won, for the Americans at least. They were more than successful with it, as they achieved air supremacy over Germany and Japan."

Boom and Zoom only works great when you are in a position to Boom. Major problems affecting this were/are:

1. There was no way to ensure a Boom position prior to the advent of effective radar. The UK, US, Germany, and Japan, did studies/tests in the mid-late 1930s and all found that it was unlikely that CAP units (over land or sea) would intercept incoming attacks in time to stop a strike. And if the defending aircraft were not already airborne they would not normally have enough time to get into a position to Boom and Zoom. During most of the war the UK and US found that it was often not possible to intercept incoming aircraft even with radar. It was not until very late in the war that incoming attacks were able to be reliably intercepted, and it was as much due to relatively massive numbers of CAP aircraft as it was due to improved radar. Today of course you have to add in the effects of very sophisticated EW systems and stealth technology. When flying against a stealthy aircraft, if you do not have an IRST or similar system, it is quite possible that you will detect it with the naked eye before any electronic detection system.

2. If you are not able/willing to leave the area, you will not be able to ensure the use of Boom and Zoom more than once, and possibly not at all. When the USN was testing its prototype XF2A and XF4F against the likes of the F3F it was found that after the first pass there was no other option for survival than to "leave the area". The speed advantage of the F2A and F4F prototypes was not enough to ensure the disengagement part of the Boom and Zoom tactic.

3. If you are outnumbered by your enemy you will not be able to guarantee the use of Boom and Zoom. The simple numbers game will ensure that your enemy will often be in position to force you into a Turn and Burn fight.

4. The three factors listed above plus the morale factor basically demand that whatever airplane you supply your pilots with should have a balance of capabilities. The F4F had a better than 1:1 kill ratio even in the early part of the war, but the pilots were not happy (understandably) with a 2:1 kill ratio. The USN pilots were somewhat demoralized by the fact that if they got into a 1 on 1 maneuver fight with a Zero or Oscar they basically had no chance other than to escape. This was true of the USAF pilots also.

In the early part of the Vietnam war (a war where the US pretty much always outnumbered the enemy) the USN and USAF F4 Phantoms always had better than 1:1 kill ratios, but again the pilots (understandably) were not happy about the 2.5-3:1 ratio. The USN initiated the Top Gun program which was oriented toward learning how to fight using all methods, while also focusing on dissimilar aircraft engagements. The kill ratios went up significantly. The post-Vietnam F-14 Tomcat was a result of this change in perception of what was necessary in an air superiority fighter, an aircraft which could match or outperform pretty much any potential enemy aircraft of the time in any regime.

Despite all the romantic aspects of the idea that superior quality of aircraft and tactical concepts won the air war in WWII, in reality it was a war of attrition. The Allies defeated the Germans by out-numbering, out-producing, and thereby out-killing them. The Japanese were defeated primarily by destroying their supply chain (use of the A-bomb being a probably needless option). If we had not been able to outproduce and had not outnumbered the Axis countries, the war would have followed a very different path. Both the Germans and the Japanese understood the merits of Boom and Zoom as well as the Americans. The Allies defeated the Axis by attrition - not by out-Booming and Zooming them.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (May 23, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> The Allies defeated the Germans by out-numbering, out-producing, and thereby out-killing them. The Japanese were defeated primarily by destroying their supply chain



Your post is a good one, but I would propose a slight edit - which is that there was in fact very little wrong with German aircraft production figures, which proceeded to go up and up as the war progressed, in fact the out-numbering was really due to the "supply chain" being attacked, exactly as you describe in Japan.

Fuel shortages are what did for the Luftwaffe primarily, the lack of German aircraft aloft was not due to the fact that aircraft were not coming out the factories (before someone chimes in with pilot attrition, the fue shortage cut training hours so much that the new recruits had absolutely no chance whatsoever - again the visible "shortage" was really at its source a supply-chain problem, not a pure production issue).

One major reason for the intensive Allied study of the German aviation fuel industry and distribution system was that they (the allies) once they found out the figures, were amazed that Germany had even been able to have an air-force at all, given the astonishingly tiny anount of fuel they had to work with - especially C3.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (May 23, 2019)

Think you guys are both right here. It was ultimately a war of attrition but at least from what I've read B n Z types had more success than turn and burn.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (May 23, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Think you guys are both right here. It was ultimately a war of attrition but at least from what I've read B n Z types had more success than turn and burn.


Except in the BoB where the turn and burn beat off the boom and zoom.


----------



## michael rauls (May 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Except in the BoB where the turn and burn beat off the boom and zoom.


This may be controversial but here goes. I think even in the BOB BnZ proved to have greater efficacy. The Brits won the battle and thank God they did but just looking at the numbers both sides lost roughly the same number of aircraft( i think the Brits did come out slightly ahead).
But when you consider the fact that the Germans were fighting mostly a fighters while the British were fighting a mixed force of bombers and fighters yet the losses were close to equal that would seem to indicate that BnZ still comes out ahead in a vacuum of type effectiveness.


----------



## pbehn (May 23, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> This may be controversial but here goes. I think even in the BOB BnZ proved to have greater efficacy. The Brits won the battle and thank God they did but just looking at the numbers both sides lost roughly the same number of aircraft( i think the Brits did come out slightly ahead).
> But when you consider the fact that the Germans were fighting mostly a fighters while the British were fighting a mixed force of bombers and fighters yet the losses were close to equal that would seem to indicate that BnZ still comes out ahead in a vacuum of type effectiveness.


Over the course of the battle the most decisive engagement for either side was a "bounce", dogfights became less and less decisive as the numbers involved increased.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 23, 2019)

This may open yet another nasty can of worms, but I am not convinced that a superiority of fighter aircraft is the reason for the British victory in the Battle of Britain. The tactical situation, fighting at extreme limits of range, fighting over home turf, and of course having the ability to replace aircraft losses all had much greater effect.
I believe the differences between the Me 109E and Spitfire Mk.I/Mk.II were so small that one could have been swapped for the other without affecting results to any great extent.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 23, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> This may open yet another nasty can of worms, but I am not convinced that a superiority of fighter aircraft is the reason for the British victory in the Battle of Britain. The tactical situation, fighting at extreme limits of range, fighting over home turf, and of course having the ability to replace aircraft losses all had much greater effect.
> I believe the differences between the Me 109E and Spitfire Mk.I/Mk.II were so small that one could have been swapped for the other without affecting results to any great extent.
> 
> - Ivan.


Perfectly true, the biggest deciding factor was probably the Chain home radar and its use through the sector stations control system, but possibly also having Dowding and Park in charge.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (May 23, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> There was no way to ensure a Boom position prior to the advent of effective radar.


Unless you were strictly operating offensively, and entering the contested airspace with speed and altitude every time


----------



## Greyman (May 23, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I believe the differences between the Me 109E and Spitfire Mk.I/Mk.II were so small that one could have been swapped for the other without affecting results to any great extent.



Performance-wise I'd agree, and in fact I think each side from a performance and armament perspective would have been better off with each others' fighters (Spitfire/109).

That said, I think where the Spitfire made a material difference for the British during the battle was the ease with which it was flown. I don't think I've come across a pilot who thought the Spitfire wasn't the easier aircraft to fly and get a lot out of.

An important factor when you're throwing pilots into combat with the training that was available in 1940.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (May 23, 2019)

CORSNING said:


> Michael,
> Always be open to those like Francis H. Dean, Peter Caygill, Eric M. Brown
> and Erik Pilawskii (when he doesn't let his bias opinion take over). There
> are several true historians out there that will not "go-with-the-flow", but
> ...


Resp:
Whether intentional or as a result of leaving the exterior unpainted, ETO Mustangs gained a few MPH. Another reason ground crews waxed the aircraft prior to next day's mission was the belief that it would also gain a few additional MPH. Psychological or real?


----------



## Navalwarrior (May 23, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> At the risk of stateing the obvious these two planes are very different approaches to fighter design. I think which would win would depend on the peramiters of the fight.
> High altitude high speed clash I would say the P47 would have an advantage. Lower to mid altitude turning fight my money is definitely on the Spitfire.


Resp:
Francis Gabreski flew both the Spitfire and the P-47, and he preferred the P-47. Keep in mind that he only flew the Spitfire (and likely one, poss two Mks) for a relatively short time compared to the P-47. No kills in the Spit and 28 in the Thunderbolt might have something to do w it.


----------



## ThomasP (May 24, 2019)

Hey Snowygrouch,

re your post#97

While I agree with your assessment as to the cause of decrease in production, I disagree with the potential production ability even without the effects of the heavy loss of the supply chain.

Note that in terms of actual/potential production years I am using 4 years each for the US and SU (i.e. 1942-1945, and 7 years each for the UK and Germany (i.e. 1939-1945).

The combined population of the the 3 primary Allied countries was upwards of 350,000,000.
The combined access to natural resources of the 3 primary Allied countries was ~(something ridiculous)
The combined production of aircraft of the 3 primary Allied countries was upwards of 500,000 if you just count the number produced from the time they entered the war.

The German population was ~80,000,000(?) in 1939 including gains pre-war by invasion/annexation/recovery of lands.
The German access to natural resources at the height of its success was 25% (of the something ridiculous) of the Allies (per US assessment post-war).
The German wartime production of aircraft was ~120,000, but if the growth in production had not been affected by the Allies efforts, it would probably not have exceeded ~200,000 (if the increase had continued at the same ~rate).

I agree that the German industrial complex managed an amazing output under the circumstances (potentially ~33% more production per man-year than the Allies), but just based on the numbers above they never really had chance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (May 24, 2019)

Hey Clayton Magnet,

re your post#104: "Unless you were strictly operating offensively, and entering the contested airspace with speed and altitude every time"

I think I covered part of that in my post#96 under item#2, i.e. "If you are not able/willing to leave the area, you will not be able to ensure the use of Boom and Zoom more than once, and possibly not at all." But even if you start out as you state above you can not guarantee surprise, and without surprise you can not guarantee that the enemy aircraft will not be able to upset your Boom and Zoom tactic. If they see you soon enough they will turn into you for a head on shot, or generate enough angle off that if you want to get a reasonable shot you will have to maneuver some, and if you maneuver you lose speed.


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Whether intentional or as a result of leaving the exterior unpainted, ETO Mustangs gained a few MPH. Another reason ground crews waxed the aircraft prior to next day's mission was the belief that it would also gain a few additional MPH. Psychological or real?



Actually, both the Brits and NAA performed extensive testing to determine how much finishing wing surface of the Mustang 'as deleivered" in all versions with 400 grit sandpaper and wax - had zero to insignificant benefit. The primary reason is that the Mustang Wing production surface treatment of filling/sanding rivet and sheet join imperfections, then priming and painting rendered the wing to a better condition than say a production Spit as delivered - then waxed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BlackSheep (Apr 15, 2021)

fliger747 said:


> I worked with an explosives guy years ago and he had been a Thunderbolt pilot in Europe. He got hit in the engine by a 37mm round strafing a train. When he got back to base he mentioned to the crew chief "she was missing". Crew chief came back later... "yep, missing a jug".



Lmao, I can picture the mechanic rehearsing the coolest way to say that to the pilot... battle damage pics-wise so many similarities between the old and new Thunderbolts...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 15, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Because of the big mutha engine?
> 
> And besides, aint 8 x 0.50" enough?


While I'm not sure where DerGiLLster hails from, are you asking Americans if one can have enough guns? (No.)
Glad this thread was brought back!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

