Hawker Tempest V vs. P-47D-27

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

Concerning the Rolls-Royce Crecy:

Only six complete examples were built when the research was terminated in December 1945. An additional eight vee twins were built. Serial numbers were even, Rolls-Royce practice being to have even numbers for clock-wise rotating engines when viewed from the front. Crecy number 10 achieved 2500 hp on 21 December 1944. Subsequently single cylinder tests achieved the equivalent of 5000 bhp for the complete engine.
 
True, jets were the way forward.

Its not just the power of the Crecy which is impressive, the 2-stroke exhaust also gives considerable thrust - especially at high altitudes. Can't get that with a turbocharger. The exhaust thrust from the Merlin contributed about 30mph to the top speed iirc, with the addition of individual ejector stubs increasing this. You can also deafen your opponents, the Crecy is one of the loudest engines ever produced.
 
I'll take Clostermanns views with a grain of salt just like his kill totals.

the Tempest under his butt and his squadron was a great machine, though against the Dora 9 from II./Jg 301 flown by Rudi Würff he just about got killed, Clostis wingman was vapourized and Clostis Tempest was dug into the ground like a wet sieve. another occassion he attributes his wingmans demise, the Tempest literally was blown into nothing as well as Clostis Tempest was torn to shreds in May of 45, the Frenchman consdered it to be ground 2cm fla, in reality it was 2 Me 262A-1a's of NJG 11 ............. it will be covered in our book.

sorry a bit off topic of sorts
 
Probably depending on the mission, but i"d still favor the P-47.
It had better range and could go much higher than the Tempest, which later in the war would've been advantageous.
Pluss, side by side, the P-47 looks like a tough piece of machinery, while it dwarfs the Tempest, making it look like a coffin with wings.
Depsite the Tempest speed, their thin wings and light airframe would've been easy pickins, when contrasted to the P-47 airframe, which could also get going pretty fast with the right maneuvers.

any info on roll rate comparisons??
P-47D-27 vs Tempest V II
 
The Tempest and P-47 are very similar aircraft built for low altitude and high altitude respectively so are difficult to compare. If its at low altitude, the Tempest wins. At high altitude, the P-47.

Below 20,000ft the Tempest has a large advantage in rate of climb and speed. Roll rate seems to favour the P-47 at low speed but the Tempest at high speed. The Tempest accelerates very well given the large amount of power and high engine rpms. It also dives and zoom climbs extremely well. Far from being a coffin with wings, its more like a flying tank. Its heavily built like the P-47 and able to withstand a lot of damage.

In late 1944/45 when the problems with the Sabre are fixed, the Tempest V is probably the best fighter at low level, and the II is even better.
 

I have to challenge your notion that the Tempest was built like a tank. Most of the weight was in the engine. The wings were kept thinner and the fuselage much thinner and lighter than the P-47s. Maybe the Typhoon shared some similar qualities, but no other fighter plane came close to the P-47s ruggedness. And i say "coffins" to refer to their limited performance above 20K, where most dog fights occurred at the time the Tempest first flew. Germans may have been reluctant to fly low enough to fight these planes, but some of the literature suggests that Tempests were very vulnerable when caught from above.

It was a dominate low level fighter and served its purpose well.


I was wanting actual numbers on roll rates. I know the P-47 was actually a very proficient roller above 250IAS, as was the Tempest above 350IAS.
 
"Maybe the Typhoon shared some similar qualities, but no other fighter plane came close to the P-47s ruggedness."

I would assume that the Hellcat could suffer similar damage and bring its pilot home.

 
The fastest Hawker piston fighter was a single prototype of the Hawker Fury, LA610, which achieved 485mph in level flight when fitted with the Napier Sabre VII in a very neat close cowl which made easily the best looking Fury model too, No Tempest reached that speed. Also the ruggedness of the Tempest is not just Red Admirals notion, the Tempest was the biggest and heaviest single piston engined fighter ever produced in the UK, the thinness of its wings is relative and came about as a way to give good high altitude performance, which the Typhoon always lacked, there seems to be some misunderstanding of the Tempest, such was the size of the Tempest that the Fury began life as the 'Tempest Light Fighter' to meet the RAF's demand to reverse the upward trend in fighter size and weight. The description 'light airframe' could definitely not be applied to this aircraft.
 
No amount of "ruggedness" will save an aircraft hit squarely by the 4 x 2cm cannon of a flakvierling or Fw-190. You need to protect the pilot, oil cooler and engine cooling system. Beyond that the best defense is superior aircraft performance.
 
davebender said:
No amount of "ruggedness" will save an aircraft hit squarely by the 4 x 2cm cannon of a flakvierling or Fw-190. You need to protect the pilot, oil cooler and engine cooling system. Beyond that the best defense is superior aircraft performance.
Click to expand...

i would agree....not getting shot was the idea.lol No pilot was flying around in a plane so tough it couldn't be shot down.
The point made, was that the P-47 was a tougher plane and could handle quite a bit more damage than the Tempest V. The Tempest was probably an easier plane to get away in below its altitude threshold, but 109s could still out turn and out accelerate it. It had to dive, "hit the deck" to get away. when they got caught from above, they were toast. Shredded, exploded, poof....gonner. Vaporized.
There are still claims that it was the most successful interceptor, but hard to prove because the way numbers and credit was given to keep morale high.
there are some interesting reads on the topic....just use google books.
 
Hi billswagger,
How does one measure the toughness of the P47 compared to the Tempest?
P47 weighed about 10,000 lbs empty, Tempest weighed 9275 empty. Only 725 lbs difference. P47 was 3 feet longer, but wing area and wingspan were nearly identical. Basically, either plane had plenty of mass to absorb damage. Keep in mind that the Tempest was basically a thin winged Typhoon, and the Typhoon was one of the most successful ground attack aircraft of WWII, a job which required a very tough plane.
The radial engine in the P47 give it an edge in surviving combat damage, but that's about it as far as I can see.

Any fighter caught from above was "toast, shredded, poof, gonner".

The 109 would have had an initial acceleration advantage over the Tempest, but combat reports indicate very similar turn capabilities.

I don't agree with your thought about Tempest interceptor claims being innaccurate because of numbers and credit being 'adjusted' to keep morale high. (my interpretation, not trying to put words in your mouth. ) At the time the Tempest was introduced into service, morale for the allies was very high, they knew they were going to win the war, success rates were high against increasingly inexperienced Luftwaffe pilots, and Tempest pilots were flying what they considered to be the hottest plane on the planet. I don't believe Tempest over-claims were any higher than other allied planes.
 
The radial engine in the P47 give it an edge in surviving combat damage, but that's about it as far as I can see.

If we were to assume just about equal survivability with respect to everything other than the engines, what kind of a margin of superiority, if any, would you assign to the R2800?
 
claidemore said:
I don't agree with your thought about Tempest interceptor claims being innaccurate because of numbers and credit being 'adjusted' to keep morale high. (my interpretation, not trying to put words in your mouth. )
Click to expand...
What i meant by that, was that a pilot who single handedly shot down a bomber in a Tempest V, might get 1/4 credit for the kill, while the other three wingman, also get a 1/4 credit for the kill. This wasn't always the case, but you could see how, kill numbers can be flawed.
 
these are interesting figures.
I've read the bulk of the weight of a tempest is its engine. How much does the engine and cooling system weigh???
I'll try to look it up, assuming you described the Hawker Tempest V, but i'll also see if i can find the V type II.

The P-47D-25, was closer to 11,000 pounds empty.
I'll have to look to see how much weight its engine was.


mass vs mass, is one thing, but the very description "thinner wings" should stimulate some thought. My previous post admittedly compared the Typhoon as tough or nearly as tough as the P-47.
 
beaupower32 said:
I looked around and I see that the two engines are very simular in weight while sitting dry.
Click to expand...

If you rely on what Wiki says...lol

I had to know more...

Google Image Result for http://fastjeff57.tripod.com/napiersabre.jpg

This article shows the PW-2800 weighing 2350lbs
Napier Sabre II weighing in at 2500lbs.
There are various articles that put the weight of the engine in terms of percentage, (40% of 7200lb) for example...equating to about 2800lbs.
but i could not find specifics on percentage of weight fir the Tempest V

I would also offer looking at cutaways of the aircraft, to see the disbursement of mass.


finally,
in my search for weight information, I found this article expressing the vulnerability of the engine.
napier sabre | 1944 | 0765 | Flight Archive
 
Lots of evidence in this regard is anecdotal yet I have never seen the Tempest being regarded as anything but rugged. Same for the Sabre, maintenance and reliability problems when first introduced, but no problems with vulnerability. That contributors opinion in Flight is only an opinion, not reality.

A lot of the Tempest airframe is made up of engine weight, but so is the P-47, especially if you include the weight of the turbo and ducting as well. Without the engine they're be very little left of the P-47.

Thinner wings doesn't mean more vulnerable. They were thinner to reduce drag and increase critical mach number.

The Tempest is better at low altitude, the P-47 at high altitude. At 20,000ft there isn't much to choose between them but I'd prefer the Tempest for better acceleration, zoom climb, dive and armament.
 
Thats a bit of a 20/20 hindsight, the Typhoon and Tempest were originally concieved for the role of an interceptor fighter, armed with four cannons.

It was following problems with the Typhoon airframe and the Sabre engine, coupled with the fact that there was not much - apart from the occasional FW 190 Jabo raids - to intercept anyway was the type pressed into a fighter bomber role. But both of them were meant and were fighters, not fighter bombers - not anymore than any other fighter that got a bomb rack put on it!
 

If one a/c was shot down and four guys received 1/4 credit, their is only 1.0 awarded. No over claim for your example.
 
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
26
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
0
Views
65
Aeroweanie
S
D-13 vs. Tempest
Replies
12
Views
2K
Vincenzo
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
4K
Bretoal2
B
Menu
Log in
Register