Hawker Tempest V vs. P-47D-27

[HoHun]

Hi Red Admiral,

>Probably better sticking with 0.50" or 20mm guns in the wings and having heavier weapons on underwing pods (like the 47mm fitted to a Tempest)

An interesting German development was an underbelly gun pod for the Me 109G, housing a MG 151/20 firing synchronizedly through the propeller disk.

I'm not sure which of the large cannon models were really suitable for synchronization, but for fitting a large-calibre cannon to a fighter, that could be an attractive option.

(On the Tempest V, the chin radiator might get in the way, though

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[wwii:)aircraft]

I think both fighters were in fact tied. The P-47 was faster at high altitudes, had a better dive, stronger armament, was more durable. On the other hand the Tempest was faster at medium and low altitudes, and was better at a climb. Still the P-47 durability could not compete with the Tempest's four 20mm cannons, and the Tempest also had a hell of a dive.
I can't really say the situations with maneuverability, but I think the p47 was more maneuverable at high altitudes.

I also think both were tied in the fighter-bomber/close-support role, it just depends what you want. If you wanted a fighter that could take a bunch of punishment from anti-aircraft and decimate the ground forces with a large amount of bombs and rockets, it would have to been the P-47. But if you wanted a fast fighter that could swoop in and quickly knock out the enemy with either bombs or rockets it would be the Tempest.

If I had to choose which one I would want to fly, it would be the Tempest. First of all, I am a great fan of the 4 x 20mms (some corsairs, late Japanese fighters, fw190). Secondly if I would want to be able to always outrun the enemy; something the Tempest could do with the 109 and 190. Lastly, I would choose rockets way over bombs in the ground attack role.

Respects to the P-47, but I would feel more comfortable in the Tempest.

 

[Josh64]

Both were great aircraft for what they did. But I would say the P-47, just because of its combat record, Tally, and of couse Ruggedness. The inline engine of a Tempest/Typhoon would die from a well placed pistol bullet. And thats why the RAF pilots in their Typhoons/Tempests suffered three times (I believe) the loss rate of the Thunderbolt Pilots. But I think just the tally the Jug chalked up in the Fighter Bomber Role settles the argument. And contrary to poular belief, it was an effective low altitude fighter.

 

[Josh64]

Still the P-47 durability could not compete with the Tempest's four 20mm cannons

Yes the Tempest had more firepower with its 20mm cannons. But when you say that the P-47's durability can't compete with them, do you mean that the P-47 couldn't withstand hits from 20mm guns? Because I think many P-47 pilots would disagree, just read Robert Johnson's (56th FG ace) story of his encounter with an Fw-190 in June 1943. If you google this statement you'll find many articles about it. If that's not what you meant though just disregard this message.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Yes the Tempest had more firepower with its 20mm cannons. But when you say that the P-47's durability can't compete with them, do you mean that the P-47 couldn't withstand hits from 20mm guns? Because I think many P-47 pilots would disagree, just read Robert Johnson's (56th FG ace) story of his encounter with an Fw-190 in June 1943. If you google this statement you'll find many articles about it. If that's not what you meant though just disregard this message.

RJ's account of that particular fight is disputed (by multiple first hand sources), so its not the best source to use.

Personally, I think the ruggedness of the P-47 is often OVERSTATED, not understated. Yet, it still had the lowest loss rate of the USAAF's single seat fighters in the ETO and MTO.

Yes, I agree that the Sabre V on the Tempest/Typhoon was more vulnerable to ground fire and other damage, but even the mighty R-2800 could be brought down by a single RC round in the right/wrong place.

The Sabre V was also more prone to mechanical failure than the R-2800, which I think is the major ace in the hole for the P-47.

It comes down to personal preference.

Above 20,000 ft there is no comparison, the P-47 is better on account of its turbocharger.

But, below 15,000 feet do you prefer the P-47 which is more rugged/survivable fighter against damage, particularly ground fire, but more vulnerable when it comes to combating enemy fighters? Or do you want the Tempest V, which is more competitive against enemy fighters at lower altitudes but more inclined to burst into flames if it runs into enemy fire or expire from its own engine troubles.

To me, it depends on the general combat situation you're in. If you're fighting for control of local airspace above the battle ground (al la MTO 1941-1944, CBI 1941-1945, Russia threater 1941-1945), I'd want a Tempest V.

If I was escorting bombers deep into enemy territory (ETO 1942-1945, PTO 1943-1945) I'd want a P-47.

My personal preference is for the Tempest V, I just like Hawker aircraft.

But, if you were a general conducting a war, think on this:

The P-47 can do all the jobs the Tempest V can do, and do them acceptably well. BUT, the Tempest V cannot do the long-range/high alt job that the P-47 could do.

 

[Watanbe]

RJ's account of that particular fight is disputed (by multiple first hand sources), so its not the best source to use.

Personally, I think the ruggedness of the P-47 is often OVERSTATED, not understated. Yet, it still had the lowest loss rate of the USAAF's single seat fighters in the ETO and MTO.

Yes, I agree that the Sabre V on the Tempest/Typhoon was more vulnerable to ground fire and other damage, but even the mighty R-2800 could be brought down by a single RC round in the right/wrong place.

The Sabre V was also more prone to mechanical failure than the R-2800, which I think is the major ace in the hole for the P-47.

It comes down to personal preference.

Above 20,000 ft there is no comparison, the P-47 is better on account of its turbocharger.

But, below 15,000 feet do you prefer the P-47 which is more rugged/survivable fighter against damage, particularly ground fire, but more vulnerable when it comes to combating enemy fighters? Or do you want the Tempest V, which is more competitive against enemy fighters at lower altitudes but more inclined to burst into flames if it runs into enemy fire or expire from its own engine troubles.

To me, it depends on the general combat situation you're in. If you're fighting for control of local airspace above the battle ground (al la MTO 1941-1944, CBI 1941-1945, Russia threater 1941-1945), I'd want a Tempest V.

If I was escorting bombers deep into enemy territory (ETO 1942-1945, PTO 1943-1945) I'd want a P-47.

My personal preference is for the Tempest V, I just like Hawker aircraft.

But, if you were a general conducting a war, think on this:

The P-47 can do all the jobs the Tempest V can do, and do them acceptably well. BUT, the Tempest V cannot do the long-range/high alt job that the P-47 could do.

What was the range of the Tempest, I remember it being quite good without being great. I have a figure in front of me saying the range of the P-47D was 1800 miles?

Does a figure of around 1000miles sound about right for the Tempest?


I also pick the Tempest V, the Tempest has always appealed to me. I like the idea that I can open the throttle and escape from danger and when i get into shooting range unleash some serious firepower.

 

[davebender]

Nor should anyone expect it to as the RAF bombed mostly at night. The Tempest and P-47 were equally useless for escorting British heavy bombers.

 

[claidemore]

Not exactly sure, but I think the range of the Tempest V with drop tanks was 1500 miles, and the P47 with drop tanks 1100-1250 miles. P47 did have an 1800 mile 'ferry' range, but that is a wee bit different.
Had they needed the Tempest for high alt work, (RAF had Spitfires for that role) they would have continued developement of the 3 speed 2 stage supercharger for the Napier Sabre engine. With the supercharger high alt performance of the Tempest should have been on par with the P47. Later variants of the Sabre engine (Mk VII for example with water methanol injection) had excellent alt performance.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Tempest V combat radius with no tanks was just 240 miles. This is including provisions for 5 min at take off power, 2 min at climb power, 15 minutes at fast cruise and 5 min at full combat. The balance was at economical cruise of 45 gal/hr. Fuel tank is 160 Imp gal.

With 2 x 45 Imp gal tanks it was 405 miles, with above caveats

With 2 x 90 Imp gal tanks it was approximately 620 miles, again with above allowances. This figure is my own calculation, based of the RAF's allowances for the 2 x 45 gal configuration. I don't think the RAF got the 2 x 90 gal configuration onto the Tempest until late 1944.

Theoretical still air cruising range (ferry flight) with no externals was about 680 miles. With 2 x 45 tanks it was about 1,200 miles. With 2 x 90 it was about 1,770 miles. This is with no combat or fast cruise, just take-off and climb allowances of 20 Imp gal.

The RAF credited the 'Thunderbolt II' (P-47-D bubbletop) with 445 mile combat radius on internal fuel (or 85% better than the Tempest V). Internal tank is 309 imp gal. Radius with 2 x 138 gal tanks was 795 miles, or about 30% better than the Tempest V with 2 x 90 gal tanks.

I've got no first hand sources on ferry range, but given RAF figures for the Tempest and Spitfire, these are typically 2.75-2.9 times combat radius. This translates to about 1,250 miles clean and 2,200 miles with tanks for the P-47.

I'd actually pull these down a little, probably to about 1,150 and 2,050 miles or even a little less, because the Sabre was relatively more efficient at economical cruise and relatively more thirsty opened up than the R-2800 (45 gal/hr vs 52 gal/hr at cruise, 220 gal/hr vs 215 gal/hr at full combat power of +11 lbs boost and 72" manifold, respectively).

The Thunderbolt also had better endurance, as it covered the longer range at lower speeds (about 25 mph slower when flying with external tanks). So, while a Tempest V might make its 620 mile combat mission in about 2.5-3 hours, the P-47 would take about 10% longer to do the same distance. This might only translate to another 15-20 minutes, but it all helps.

This is a good thing when escorting heavily laden bombers, or orbiting with weapons on pylons waiting for a ground target, by maybe not so good if your about to get jumped by fighters (speed = life and all that).

So, the P-47 can go 10% further on a combat mission on internal fuel than the Tempest V can with two 45 Imp gal external tanks. That's quite a feather in its cap. Although it does use about 25% more fuel doing so.

 

[Watanbe]

Thanks for that post, very informative

 

[Nikademus]

Bill, simply - the WWII fighter versus fighter engagements (in the range of 100,000+ ) took all forms based on the tactical situation.

agreed

 

[claidemore]

My sources ( ichecked four different ones) give a 'range' for the Mk V Tempest of 740 miles on internal fuel.
Range with drop tanks is given as 1530-1580 depending on source. The one source states that this 1530 mile range is with the two 45 gallon tanks, and that the 90 gallon tanks were generally used for ferryting.

The Hawker Tempest Page

At Mike Williams site there is a chart that gives both range and radius. Radius is listed as 239 w/o drop tanks and 404 with 45 gallon tanks. Range on that document is 593 w/o and 1011 with tanks.
On the Mk V data sheet at the same site, range at most economical cruise is listed as 1210 miles wth 45 gallon tanks, and 1770 with 90 gallon tanks. That chart indicates that 105 miles should be subtracted for 5 mins of combat.

Tactical radius of the P47C was estimated to be 240 miles.

P47M range at crusing speed is given as 785 miles (205 gallon internal fuel). With 110 gallon belly tank, tactical radius is 400 miles.

Basically:
---with 2 x 45 gallons of extra fuel, combat radius for the Tempest is 404 miles.
---with 110 gallon belly tank, combat radius for P47M is 400 miles.

Looks to me like there is little difference in range between these two aircraft if you don't compare apples to oranges.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

The P-47M has 370 gallons internal fuel capacity.

"---with 110 gallon belly tank, combat radius for P47M is 400 miles."

No.

 

[Watanbe]

The P-47M has 370 gallons internal fuel capacity.

"---with 110 gallon belly tank, combat radius for P47M is 400 miles."

No.

What do you think then?

 

[DAVIDICUS]

I consulted the Republic Aviation Specifications and Capacities for the P-47M. The internal fuel capacity is 370 gallons - same as the later model D.

Unfortunately I don't have time to dig out range data but with 370 gallons of internal fuel capacity and a 110 gallon belly tank, the radius would be more than 400 miles.

(Edit) I'm not sure about the 400 mile radius now that I think of it. I see on Spitfire Performance the following though:

REPUBLIC AVIATION
Corporation Report No. ES-300
Farmingdale, L. I., New York Model AP-16a

October 14, 1944

Model Specification for
Republic Model – AP-16a
Fighter Offensive

Air Corps Type Designation P-47M
...
Performance (With Design Useful Load)
(1). Guaranteed Performance
...
(m) Range at Cruising Speed with 205 gals. of fuel - 785 miles

 

[Jabberwocky]

My sources ( ichecked four different ones) give a 'range' for the Mk V Tempest of 740 miles on internal fuel.
Range with drop tanks is given as 1530-1580 depending on source. The one source states that this 1530 mile range is with the two 45 gallon tanks, and that the 90 gallon tanks were generally used for ferryting.

The Hawker Tempest Page

At Mike Williams site there is a chart that gives both range and radius. Radius is listed as 239 w/o drop tanks and 404 with 45 gallon tanks. Range on that document is 593 w/o and 1011 with tanks.
On the Mk V data sheet at the same site, range at most economical cruise is listed as 1210 miles wth 45 gallon tanks, and 1770 with 90 gallon tanks. That chart indicates that 105 miles should be subtracted for 5 mins of combat.

Tactical radius of the P47C was estimated to be 240 miles.

P47M range at crusing speed is given as 785 miles (205 gallon internal fuel). With 110 gallon belly tank, tactical radius is 400 miles.

Basically:
---with 2 x 45 gallons of extra fuel, combat radius for the Tempest is 404 miles.
---with 110 gallon belly tank, combat radius for P47M is 400 miles.

Looks to me like there is little difference in range between these two aircraft if you don't compare apples to oranges.

All the figures I'm using are from wartime planning docs or aircraft data sheet.

I looked up the USAAF P-47 tactical planning characteristics sheet

Long range cruise for a P-47D-26RE with 370 US gal (296 Imp gal) in clean config was 1030 miles in 5.3 hours. With 780 US Gal (620 Imp gal) was 2,100 miles, in 10.2 hours.

That's 2.78 air miles per gallon clean and 2.69 air miles per gallon with three external tanks.

Using the rough rule of thumb for combat radius of clean range divided by 2.8, then we get a 365 mile combat radius in clean config for a late P-47D.

Earlier P-47s obviously had worse range and they had much less internal fuel. The 47C and early D's had 305 US gal internal, which would give a range of about 800-835 miles (heavier Ds consuming more fuel per air mile), and a combat radius of about 300 miles.

These figures aren't quite up with the RAF's, being off by about 80 miles in radius for clean config (albeit with less internal fuel).

Still, its a SIGNIFICANT range advantage over the Tempest, with a clean combat radius of 240 miles (according to RAF planning figures). Clean combat radius is still better by more than 50%. Even the earlier C/D models have a better than 25% range advantage.

 

[claidemore]

I consulted the Republic Aviation Specifications and Capacities for the P-47M. The internal fuel capacity is 370 gallons - same as the later model D.

Unfortunately I don't have time to dig out range data but with 370 gallons of internal fuel capacity and a 110 gallon belly tank, the radius would be more than 400 miles.

(Edit) I'm not sure about the 400 mile radius now that I think of it. I see on Spitfire Performance the following though:

REPUBLIC AVIATION
Corporation Report No. ES-300
Farmingdale, L. I., New York Model AP-16a

October 14, 1944

Model Specification for
Republic Model – AP-16a
Fighter Offensive

Air Corps Type Designation P-47M
...
Performance (With Design Useful Load)
(1). Guaranteed Performance
...
(m) Range at Cruising Speed with 205 gals. of fuel - 785 miles

Below is from Spitfire Performance website as well: Oct 3 1943 doc.
Interesting that an accompanying doc shows radius for P47D as 600 miles, P47M/400 and P47N/1310.

 

[claidemore]

All the figures I'm using are from wartime planning docs or aircraft data sheet.

I looked up the USAAF P-47 tactical planning characteristics sheet

Long range cruise for a P-47D-26RE with 370 US gal (296 Imp gal) in clean config was 1030 miles in 5.3 hours. With 780 US Gal (620 Imp gal) was 2,100 miles, in 10.2 hours.

That's 2.78 air miles per gallon clean and 2.69 air miles per gallon with three external tanks.

By comparison, the Tempest Mk V with 20% reduction factored in, gets 3.2 air miles per gallon with two 45 gallon tanks, and 4.04 air miles per gallon at most economical cruise (without the 20% reduction).
That's considerably better fuel economy.

Basically the P47D is getting more range by carrying much more fuel. With the extra 30 gallon internal tank that was an option on the Mk V, and 180 gallons from the two 90 gallon drop tanks, we get a max cruising range of 1770 miles. That would seem to be adequate to the task in Northern Europe, I believe London to Berlin is 579 miles.
Of course there is still the lack of a high alt supercharger for any long range escort job.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

So you think that just with internal fuel of 370 gallons (no 110 gallon external tank), the combat radius would be significantly less than 400 miles?


Notice how the weight is significantly greater on the M than the D in your source? (This is where alarms should be going off).

I suspect that the listed "combat weight" of 13,262lbs for that 400 mile radius is without an additional 750lbs from the belly tank and 110 gallons of fuel.


Per Republic Aviation Specifications and Capacities, the "combat gross weight" of the P-47M (full internal fuel and full ammunition load) is 13,275lbs. That's without a 110 gallon belly tank and just happens to be a mere 13lbs off from the "combat weight" in the source you have cited.

Look at this link. (An accompanying document to the one you cited.) It also shows a 600 mile radius for the D with 330 gallons of external fuel. If that is the load out condition for the D as reflected in your cited source which also shows a 600 mile radius for the D, then the weight issue becomes even more problematic as the D is carrying an extra 1,500lbs of fuel more than the M (220 gallons more in two tanks instead of one) and yet the M is listed with a heavier weight.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-differences.jpg


I probably missed this but why are we talking about the P-47M again? P-47D-27 vs. Tempest V

 

[DAVIDICUS]

The first doc is a supplement to the second.