F6F Hellcat vs. P-47 Thunderbolt

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

When it came to air to air fighting at middle and low altitudes, the Hellcat was supreme.

But fighter bomber and high altitude work, the P47 was best.

Pick your mission and then choose which one of these planes is better.
 

Oh. Quite correct on all accounts, there.

I wonder what the climb rate with the new propeller was. Apperently better then the F6F, at any rate.

Clay_Allision said:
No, I'm confused. How did the P-40 make it into this thread?
Click to expand...

I accidentally typed "P-40" instead of "P-47."

A combination of the long P-40 thread I've been mostly posting in, and the dire consequences of working the third shift.
 
The P-47 is the superior fighter, even at lower altitudes. IMO.
Although it was designed to fly at 30K+, its that altitude that gave it a superior punch at lower altitudes, many times leveling out at speeds well above what the hellcat could dream of.
I would give the hellcat marks for better turn rate, however, the P-47 would pounce on the enemy so quickly, there was no need to turn fight.

The P-47 took some time to learn what it was proficient at, and many pilots quickly learned to take advantage of its dive from high above.

It was never known for its climb rate, however upgrades and WEP gave it no trouble hanging with its contemporaries.
Over a long stretch, say 10-15+ minutes of climb, the lack of efficient climb rate was more noticeable. When it had the momentum of a dive behind it, it had no problem getting back up to altitude and beyond. Pilots like "Gabby" could
"...dive from 25K down to 20K....and be able to zoom up to 30K in a matter of seconds, ready to meet 109s."
 

Two source for the 9,000+ figure, air plus ground for the Mustang, is Gruenhagen's Mustang and Wagner's Mustang Designer.

From page 133 of Mustang Designer;
In Europe, "The P-51 accounted for 4950 air and 4131 ground in 213,873 sorties for a total loss for all causes in all theatres of 2,520 Mustangs. Thunderbolts flew 423,435 sorties, lost 3,077 for all causes - destroyed 3,082 air and 1,771 ground" - further referenced Evolution of the American Strategic Fighter in Europe "Journal of Strategic Studies, June 1987, p 192 by Stephen Mc Farland.

I believe Wagner should have said combat results for ALL theatres - not just Europe - but I am still researching that issue.

Here is a link to stuff I posted last year as adjunct to my latest book research

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/marshall/SUMMARY_OF_COMBAT_OPERATIONS.pdf

My own research for 8th AF FC 1942-1945 resulted in the following, extracted from USAF 85 for official AWARDS of air scores and 8th AF Victory Credits Board for ground awards plus details on the actual German aircraft claimed/awarded.

P-51 3328 air plus 3212 ground for losses of 326 air and 570 strafing
P-47 1550.5 air plus 739 ground for losses of 214 air and 200 strafing
P-38 278.5 air plus 161.5 ground for losses of 101 air and 109 strafing

The Mustang accounted for 70% of all Claims/awards issued by USAF 85 for 8th AF Fighter Command,

2308 Fighters (Spit, Jug, Mustang, Lightning) lost in 8th AF to all causes including Mechanical, Fuel, Weather, Accidents. This is my area of focus now - to dive down to the breakout of loss type to fighter type in the Mech, Fuel, Weather, Accident categories.

I am still fine tuning the air scores (by type a/c destroyed) and losses (type of loss by fighter type) but here is a link to my results so far.
 
billswagger said:
"Despite being the sole remaining P-47 group in the 8th Air Force, the 56th FG remained its(The Air Force) top-scoring group in aerial victories throughout the war."
Click to expand...

true - the 56th FG was top 8th AF air to air scoring group. Notable is that it started in ops on April 8 1943.

The 354th FG (9th AF Pioneer Mustangs) started ops 8 months later in December 1943 and destroyed 701 air to air (37 more than 56th), the 357th FG which started ops 10 months later in Feb 1944 only destroyed 70 fewer than the 56th ( 595 air to air)...despite the 56th flying 135+ combat missions before the 35th flew its first one!

In terms of most destroyed Air/Ground the 4th was highest (huge majority of Mustang/some Jug scores), then the 56th, then the 355th (huge majority of Mustang scores), then 352nd (dominant Mustang), 357th (all Mustang).

If you insert the 354FG, which got most of it's air scores attached to 8th AF, then they fit after the 355th and above the 352nd.
 
marshall said:
Could you give the source of this quote?
Click to expand...

simMarket: A2A SIMULATIONS - WINGS OF POWER P47 THUNDERBOLT

First paragraph under history.

I miss quoted a bit..

"This zoom-climb was used to good advantage; it was said that if a P-47 pilot met an enemy Focke-Wulf at 25,000 feet and wanted to out-climb him to 30,000 feet, the P-47 could dive to 20,000, zoom to 30,000, and be waiting for the enemy."




M.http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...e52-taic38.pdf
this is from a post on another thread, which also seems to suggest the superiority of the P-47 Zoom dive/climb capabilities. It also sheds some light on the tactics used in combat against Japanese planes of the pacific.
 
OK, its bad enough when people cite to Wikimoron but a website for a flight sim?

One thing we need to be mindful of here is regurgitating unsubstantiated garbage on websites. With all due respect, that citation for the asserted fact has no value. An assertion is not to be accorded validity just by virtue of its having been reduced to print and broadcast on a website. Moreover, facts are not subject to a vote meaning the more people that parrot an unsubstantiated claim does not cloak it in truth.
 
I think it is a great source, considering the validity, detail, depth, realism, and the research done in the making of the flight sim.
I've also included that report demonstrating superior zoom stats of the P-47.
Unless you can cite something to the contrary, it is good enough for me.
You can't just say, that source is no good, although it is your choice on what to believe.

I do agree that Wiki has some short comings, but its still a pretty accurate source for general discussions. In most cases, i wouldn't use it as a source to quote from, unless I'm in a hurry.
 
I think it is a great source, considering the validity, detail, depth, realism, and the research done in the making of the flight sim.

No, that was a lousy source.
 
Magister said:
I think it is a great source, considering the validity, detail, depth, realism, and the research done in the making of the flight sim.

No, that was a lousy source.
Click to expand...

The quote was provided under a section titled "History," according to Magister, which meant it was being presented as background historical research, not data on how the P-47 was modeled in some video game.

As for Wikipedia, it's easy to see at a glance what is well-cited and sourced, and what is insufficiently detailed. Take Wikipedia for what it is- a quick reference for basic information, and a starting point for further research.
 
The quote was provided under a section titled "History," according to Magister, which meant it was being presented as background historical research, not data on how the P-47 was modeled in some video game.

According to me? I did not provide the quote; billswagger did. And again, the source, a flight sim website, is a lousy one.

The "quote" was offered by billswagger as evidence of the zoom climb ability. Forgive me if I discount that source for this evidence.
 
well apples to apples,

i posted a couple more sources that verify the P-47s ability in a zoom climb, which was probably a surprise to most pilots who, like myself, assumed such a heavy bird was incapable of being an adequate climber.
Perhaps the speeds it gained in the dive, combined with the WEP horse power, allowed it to prevail over it contemporaries (mid war, 1943-44).

The lighter planes couldn't dive as fast, so possibly they couldn't keep up with the bird in any case, zoom dive/climb, included.
 
Thed P-47, after receiving the paddle blade and new fuel, was in impressive climber indeed (considering its heavy weight). With the new fuel, she was cleared for 2,600 hp.

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.

P 47D Performance Test

Remember, that's 10,000ft and not at SL and that's at 65" and not 70" which the Thunderbolt was actually cleared for with the new fuel.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/24june44-progress-report.pdf
 
I put together a couple of charts showing the performance of the F6F-5, P-47D-25, and F4U-1D. Data is from Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand". This does not necessarily correspond with my data base that also uses flight test data, but it does represent a single reputable source. As can be seen, the P-47 has the advantage over the F6F in airspeed from SL up with increasing advantage as altitude increases. Also, the P-47 has the advantage in climb, from barely better at sea level but increasing greatly as altitude increases. Throw in a better roll rate (per Dean) and better dive, and it is apparent that the P-47 has considerable advantages over the F6F-5. Note also, that the F4U has the advantage over the P-47 up to about 20k ft and then the P-47 is superior.
 

Attachments

  • F6F_5 comparison1.pdf
    17.5 KB · Views: 93
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
spicmart
S
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
6
Views
506
SaparotRob
J
P-47D Thunderbolt, 'The Madam', 387th FS, 365th FG
Replies
2
Views
712
JulianHale
J
T
P-47 roll rate - a bit of new (to me) info
Replies
1
Views
629
Shortround6
S
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
Menu
Log in
Register