Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The first delivery of the P-47N was September, 1944
It seems that 47M was grounded twice, a couple days in late Feb and from 16th to 24th March 45.
Somewhere between the G-6 and K, 800 lbs was lost.
How did you get the numbers?
As mentioned, I've read that the Thunderbolt was suprisingly agile and nimble for such a huge fighter in the thin air @ 30+K. But i'm wonder how much more agile it really is. I understand you to say that two planes turning in the same way are identical. The assertation is that one plane can turn/roll more sharply than the other at x speed.
Using standard airspeed formulation and converting the numbers from True airspeed back to Equivalent airspeed.
Equivalent airspeed is what is used to compare aircraft performance from one type to another. True Airspeed is not used for comparison purposes.
Yes agility is very important. The differences in any aircraft sustained turning envelope is a very tiny percentage of the total maneuvering envelope.
An aircraft like the P47 which did have a good roll rate AFAIK, would be a formidable opponent. He can establish a turn faster than a less agile opponent and can use that agility to change the orientation of his vector of lift.
ok. In this case:
440mph / 1.4678<SMOE FL24> = 299 mph EAS
467mph / 1.71295<SMOE FL325 = 272mph EAS
How did you calculate the 1.4678 and 1.71295. Thats where i was going "huh?"
How did you calculate the 1.4678 and 1.71295. Thats where i was going "huh?"
All that you wrote not withstanding, I'm still finding myself looking for a more definitive answer. (apologies) Was the P-47 more manueverable at high alt than the 109 in terms of roll/turning rate? equal? inferior? Thats the question i keep asking and that the texts....online and book source don't clearly answer. They say it was "formidable", "agile", "nimble" but its hard to put it into context in the face of simplistic comparisons like the one i posted.
Well, for what it's worth, this website author would appear to agree with Crump's assertation regarding the hotrod versions of the P-47
The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt
If the above has a fair degree of accuracy, I'd say it's probably more fair to rate the worked up P-47M/N series against the TA-152H which was Germany's next generation answer to the high alt fighter. The 109K varient I still consider somewhat of an interim fix using an aging airframe passing into obsolecense. They did a decent job considering but ultimately it was falling behind the curve of the newer airframes like the 47.
Republic rushed vice-president Hart Miller to England to aid in the problem-solving but this soon grew to nightmare proportions when it became obvious that every P-47M operated by the 56th was stricken with some form of problem. Since this was a major problem, the USAAF and P&W assigned their best maintenance crews. Ignition leads were suspect and they were replaced with a different type but the problem would not go away and it seemed that the -57 powerplant was an engine fated not to run.
Using the WEP setting meant that P-47M pilots would be able to pass the fastest Mustangs at altitude but it would be at a distinct price since the engine at that setting would be consuming an astonishing 330 gallons per hour! The late D Model Thunderbolts could carry 370 gallons of fuel internally so it did not take a genius to figure out the range.
Airflow to the cylinders was modified so that the heads could heat to the most efficient temperatures. It was discovered that the sensitive engine/turbosuper-- charger controls were not being correctly operated, so additional training for pilots was required along with some modifications. Considerable minor modifications and fine-tuning meant that the engine gradually gained a degree of reliability but, eventually plagued by just too many problems, the engines of every operational M were changed in an attempt to gain combat readiness.
As the war in Europe fought to a close, the P-47M was finally operationally deployed during April 1945
AFAIK the first P-47M's arrived in Europe on 04 Mar 1945
Don't confuse operational trials with operational service, however.
Good luck in your quest. My answer would be "It depends." The largest influence on performance being the man at the controls.
All the best,
Crumpp
I disagree. The N, and most likely the M, certainly was produced before the Bf-109k and was no more complex than the mod of the Bf-109k only the k had a more mature engine design. Of course we don't know if the k had any engine problems. Again, had the need existed, both aircraft could have met the k within a month or two in spite of some engine corrections.
That comes off a standard atmospheric table.
Nikademus,
I don't know that I am up to teaching an aerodynamics course in this thread.
My suggestion is that you all attend a college class at your local community college. You will certainly enjoy it and learn quite a bit.
Crumpp
Several designs experienced this over their lifecycle. Look at the La series in service with the VVS. It does not mean they are "stripped down". Many times just changing a designs dimpling can have a large benefit in weight savings.
Be careful when reading specific engine charts if you do not understand what you are doing. Just warming up, the R-2800 requires 45 gallons of fuel and the P47 has 33 gallons of unusable fuel on board. Some range estimates do not include a reserve while others list a radius.
Make sure too that the engine is capable of operating at its maximum range settings at the altitude under discussion.
Range data is also listed for a specific altitude in many cases. The range will change based on altitude!
I don't care to argue with game sim fans about when or where their favorite aircraft came into service or how much better it was than all the other game shapes. It's not my cup of tea.
All the best,
Crumpp
Equivalent airspeed is what is used to compare aircraft performance from one type to another. True Airspeed is not used for comparison purposes.
Crumpp
I beg your pardon!
I don't understand this comment.
Could you explain the importance of EAS to aircraft performance comparison in more detail?
Can one find a table on the Internet?
Nice of you to ignore the fact the P-47Ms arrived in GB in early Jan 1945.
That is one heck of an operational trial flying a 5.5hr mission deep into enemy territory (Berlin) on Feb 3 1945.
Erprobungskommando 262
Bf-109G-6 empty weight – approx 6000 lbs (multiple sources)
Bf-109K-6 empty weight – 5161 lbs (similar to the G-10)
Somewhere between the G-6 and K, 800 lbs was lost.
Leer-/ Abluggewichts (empty/takeoff weights) of G-6 through K-4, as per primary German datasheets from the war :
G-6 : 2268 kg / 3100 kg
G-10 : 2318 kg /3297 kg
K-4 : 2346 kg / 3362 kg
Wikipediastates that the Bf 109G-6 has a range, with drop tank, of 1000 km (621 miles), 528 mile without. My other sources do not support your statement either, for the F (440 miles) or G (450 miles).
Your figures are simply unreliable, again, my figures are based on primary German sources, and are reliable.
Maximum range of the 109F/G/K series was appx 1600 km (slight differences between variants), with a 300 liter droptank; 1000 km without; and economic cruise of ca 410-430 km/h; at maximum speed cruise, which means a rather high travel speed from 580 to as high as 645 km/h (K) yielded ca. 1000 km with a droptank. Now 400mph is a rather high speed, especially for cruising, some fighters in 1944 could hardly even hit it.
The 109K also had the possibility to use it`s rear fuselage tank as a rear aux fuel tank of 115 l capacity, ie. ca 25% greater internal fuel, but that ruled out MW 50 use.
Actually, I got the wrong P-47 for Europe. The M was the one that the Bf 109K could have met. And while the Bf-109K would have been superior below 25k ft, the advantage would have shifted at 25k and above. For example, at 25k ft, the Bf 109K max airspeed is 444 mph, climb rate 2700 ft/min, the M's is 453 mph and 2700-3000 ft/min, at 28k ft, the K can do 441 mph and climb at 2220 ft/min, the M can co 463 mph and climb at 2700 ft/min. It gets worse at 30k ft. where the K does 438 mph and climbs at 1900 ft/min, while the M can make over 460 mph and climb at 2200 ft/min.
In other words, the differences are not particularly considerable; not even at altitudes where air combat is rather rare to happen, and here we are comparing low-production run stripped, hotrod P-47 sporting only six .50 guns IIRC. It`s a nice and faster aircraft than the rest at altitude, but it`s performance profile is somewhat hard to take advantage of, isn`t it? OTOH, I am not at all convinced of it`s manouveribility at high altitude. The P-47 is a very high wingloading aircraft, and figures I have for early models display the worst turn times of all WW2 fighters I`ve seen.
I am not an armament guy but I suspect there are those that would argue that two 50 cals and a 30 mm does not exhibit better firepower than eight 50 cals. Especially for a fighter.
Depends on what your target is - for heavy bombers, the 30mm armament is more appropriate. Interceptors are meant against bombers first and foremost.
I disagree with these comments. The first delivery of the Bf 109k was in October, 1944. The first delivery of the P-47N was September, 1944, one month earlier. I could not get a delivery start date for the P-47, but considering that in December, 1944, 130 P-47M were delivered and only 24 "N"s, it is reasonable to assume that delivery of the first P-47Ms was in the September, or before, time frame. This does not justify the statement that the P-47M or N was not a contemporary of the Bf-109K. Maintenance problems appear to be minor from a mechanical standpoints (there were some deaths) since the initial problems occurred in March and the P-47Ms were operational in April. I am sure that the reason that the P-47M was not introduce until early '45, was because the Allies were not as hard pressed to introduce new technology as were the Germans.
It seems to me the facts point to that the 109K was ready for operational service by October 1944, whereas the P-47M`s operational service was delayed by mechanical troubles, serious enough to call for grounding the fleet.
I am sure that the Bf 109K did not go through as rigorous testing as Allied aircraft nor did the pilots go through as intensive checkout as the Allied pilots. It probably took the US four to six months to get a new aircraft, once delivered into the fighting squadron, how long do you think it took the Germans to fly the first operational mission after the Bf 109K was delivered? Probably days.
Depends. The 109K had lenghty development, spanning over a year. When the 109K was introduced, it took a couple of weeks for the units to get them into combat after they`ve received it, but it appears to have coincided with a general rest&refit as the units were pulled from active duties in the period, so it doesn`t tell the full story. Otherwise, they just jumped in the seat and flew it like any other 109 - after all, it was just another 109, even if the latest, best, shiny and all that.
I am also sure that had the Allies been threatened in early to mid '44 by the Luftwaffe retaking control of the skies over Germany, you would have seen the P-47M and N, and probably P-51H fully operational in the fall of '44.
I am sure that the Germans would have been able to push 'fully operational' the 109K by early 1944, which they have been developing from early 1943, if they would have been in deep **** by that time. BUT wait a minute, they were...
That`s too much of an assumption, as it ignores the simple fact that technical difficulties need time to be overcome, and this time won`t be any shorter if the troops are in a world of **** on the front.
The P-47M (wasn`t it stripped down to catch German jets and buzzbombs, ie. DS situation as above?), and for that matter, the P-80 prototypes were rushed into service, but rushing just doesn`t magically solves technical problems, on the contrary, it aggrevates them.