Probably - the CoG is messed up due to now much heavier nose and no turbo behing the pilot.
OTOH - design the P-51 around the 1-stage R-2800 from the get go...
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Okay, let's put a single stage R-2800 into a P-43 in 1940 and rip out the turbo. That should give us a low level hotrod to defeat the enemy everywhere, although maybe only the Russians would take it.
Actually all Bearcats had single stage engines and had combat ceilings (Navy minimum 500fpm climb) of 35000' and service ceilings over 40000'. Excellent high altitude performance. Resulted from weighing 10000# instead of 13500#.
Your time machine would have to have a Merlin engine and 20mm cannon or it would be uselessP-47 could have been what the F8F was if we rev up the good old time machine and deliver the R-2800 "C" engine to the Republic design team in 1940, and build the factory to make the R-2800 "C" (it used a few techniques that did not exist in 1940) AND if we deliver large quantities of 115/145 fuel to run the R-2800C engine on instead of the 100/100 the 1940 R-2800 was designed to run on.
Time machine is going to need an overhaul after all those runs.
Maybe even the P-53/60?Probably - the CoG is messed up due to now much heavier nose and no turbo behing the pilot.
OTOH - design the P-51 around the 1-stage R-2800 from the get go...
Maybe even the P-53/60?
Actually all Bearcats had single stage engines and had combat ceilings (Navy minimum 500fpm climb) of 35000' and service ceilings over 40000'. Excellent high altitude performance. Resulted from weighing 10000# instead of 13500#.
Resp:P47 for high altitude performance (for which it was designed).
P47 for fighter bomber role.
F6F for low and middle altitudes (for which it was designed).
P47 had the payload, range and speed. F6F had the handling and low altitude performance.
When you think of it though, they're two different fighters for two totally different roles. Its hard to compare the two without having to factor in what the mission requirements were.
Resp:Gentlemen,
This is a tough call as both were war winning aircraft! The P-47 does not get it due for its early escort work in Europe as it is a fact that most of the skilled German pilots were killed by P-47s(and P-38s) before the Mustang came on the scene as the lead escort and air superiority aircraft. The P-51s faced a less well trained German pilot many of which were easy kills. The Jug was the ultimate fighter bomber and could take hits that a Mustang would have crumbled under. If the P-47 M and N had been introduced in Europe in the same quantity as the Mustang the results would have been the same. As for the F6F it won the war in the Pacific after the line was held by the F4F and P40. It was the top scorer period and that speaks for itself. Comparing the P-47 and F6F is like comparing two different types of Apples. Both were sturdy, powerful, well armed, and could climb and dive very well. Both represented what was best in US WW2 aviation design. The P-47 was better at high altitude and the F6F at lower. I have to give the edge to the P-47 simply because it was an excellent fighter like the Hellcat but had the edge as a multirole fighter bomber. Neither of these aircraft get their true due as the P-51 and Corsair were sexier and were later developments. The P-47 and F6F won the war and set the stage for the others to be successful. The
P-47N was the ultimate US Fighter of WW2 if both air superiority and ground attack roles are considered.
XP-53 indeed.
The P-60 was too late, better have the Curtiss make P-47s in quantity instead, and per contract they had and managed to botch up.
Resp:I would not only agree, but add that an 'army' version would not require folding wings or arframe structure/weight to mount arresting gear. The F6F-5 'Army should be nearly 6% lighter with attendent boost in climb and acceleration and range.
The 9th AF could have easily substituted the F6F-5 for P-47D with zero loss in mission flexibilty...
Considering that only half the P-40's were operated by the USAAF, does that take the P-40 into 3rd place?Bill's figures speak for themselves--thanks, BTW.
I've seen self-styled Experts who insist that either the 38 or 47 destroyed more yadda-yadda. Here's the world-wide box score, compiled from Frank Olynyk's encyclopedic self-published volumes.
US SERVICE ONLY
P-51 etc 5,940
F6F 5,188+
P-38 3,785
P-47 3,624
P-40 2,256
F4U 2,140
F4F/FM 1,514
Nothing else over 300.
BTW: I've waged a broad-front campaign for years to get the FM-2 the recognition it deserves. "The Wilder Wildcat" had by far-far & away the highest kill-loss ratio: over 30-1. That's undoubtedly the worldwide piston record and probably stood until the F-15!
That's something that never occurred to me before but the total victories by P40s of all allied nations has to be astronomical.Considering that only half the P-40's were operated by the USAAF, does that take the P-40 into 3rd place?
That's something that never occurred to me before but the total victories by P40s of all allied nations has to be astronomical.
The British Commonwealth took 25% of production, and their victories will take you past the 3000 mark.Not if the other nations were claiming in the hundreds, rather than the thousands.
Add in the Russians and you've got to be in the mid 3000s if not close to 4000. Add in everyone else that used p40s and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think you might be well over 4000. Would be interesting to know the total of p40 victories for the war.The British Commonwealth took 25% of production, and their victories will take you past the 3000 mark.
Add in the Russians and you've got to be in the mid 3000s if not close to 4000. Add in everyone else that used p40s and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think you might be well over 4000. Would be interesting to know the total of p40 victories for the war.
........I think I just thought of a new research project.