Do you think the P-47's low altitude air-to-air performance was superior to the A-1? I am curious why you think the P-47 would be better in contested airspace.
That is an interesting question, I wonder if an unladen A-1 wouldn't be a better air-to-air fighter at low altitude
Fair question. Take P-47D-16 and newer (1944 vintage which supplied 9th and 12th AF and Allied/Commonwealth CAS). R-2800-63 2800+HP 70" WEP, Full internal combat GW = 13200 lb, 2 wing racks. W/L=44, Hp/wt = 0.22, Max V@SL= 331mph, Max V@18K=420mph
Apologies for Wiki but couldn't find spitfireperformance quality data. AD-6/A-1H 2700Hp at WEP for 3360-26WA.Full internal combat weight =18,106lb, 15 racks. W/L = 46, Hp/wt = 0.198. Max V @SL= unk but probably under 300mph, Max V = 322 @18K, Cruise = 198mph (alt unk - probably 10K)
Key indicators: The P-47D was a lot faster at all altitudes and accelerated faster. The ROC was higher at all altitudes but the AD was close at SL. Despite the greater wing area for the AD, the W/L was 5% higher at full internal combat weight. A subtle difference in wing design is that the P-47 Induced drag was very low pointing to semi elliptical planform versus trapezoid for AD but the low cruise speed for AD also confirms a lower L/D.
So, next the wing racks - very high drag items and the AD carried 15 non eject able wing racks to 3 for P-47.
Net, the P-47 was more maneuverable and faster at all altitudes. Armament and survivability goes to the AD but it should very much need that as it should be in front of the P-47 in a very short time in either horizontal or vertical plane.
The P-47D-16+ and Fw 190A-7 were roughly equal at low altitude with advantage going to Fw 190, but the 190 kept losing maneuvering and low altitude WEP advantage as altitude increased. Ditto for 109G