Hawker Tempest V vs. P-47D-27

[Josh64]

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.

Great Points, I totally agree!
Just curious though, who has argued against Robert Johnson's story of his encounter that day?

 

[DAVIDICUS]

According to these two sources, the altitude performance of the Thunderbolt is already present at 15,000ft as far as climb goes. Are there other tests that indicate better for the Tempest? Both the below tests are mid 1944.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tp.htm

Tempest

S/L 4,380 ft/min and 376 mph

4,000 ft - 3,740 ft/min and 397 mph

15,000 ft - 2,785 ft/min and 421 mph @ 16,000ft

28,000 ft - 1,020 ft/min and 405 mph


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html

P-47

10,000ft - 3,260ft/min and 345 mph

15,000ft - 3,200ft/min and 416 mph

23,200ft - 2,680ft/min and 444mph

28,000ft - 2,175 ft/min and 427mph

 

[red admiral]

Are there other tests that indicate better for the Tempest?

Tempest V Performance

Plenty of performance tests from 1944 showing better results. Speed varying between ~370mph at sl up to ~435mph at 18000ft. I've seen better climb performance as well, around 4700fpm at sl and 2800fpm at 18000ft.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

The link you provided was the one I used for the data I listed for the Tempest. Did you mean to provide a different link?

 

[Vincenzo]

i think him talking on different performances with highest boost down in the page

 

[DAVIDICUS]

I'm not seeing the "4700fpm at sl" figure. I'm also not seeing the "2,800fpm at 18,000ft:" figure.

I don't have my glasses with me though.

 

[red admiral]

The spitfire performance and wiiaircraftperformance sites link into each other.

I said I've seen better performance figures elsewhere, probably with 11 and 13lb boost.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Yes, I'm talking about both links.

Tempest V Performance (the link you provided)

and the link inside the above

Tempest V Performance Data


Again, I'm not seeing the "around 4700fpm at sl and 2800fpm at 18000ft" in the link you provided in post #83. Perhaps it isn't there?

Maybe you can cut and paste the relevant excerpt and the link that supports it? I'm not challenging you, I just don't see it.

At any rate, I never said the Thunderbolt was competitive at S/L and 2,800fpm at 18,000ft is still 320fpm less than the 3,120fpm of the Thunderbolt at 18,000ft.

At 18,000ft, the Thunderbolt is showing 428mph. (not significantly different than ~435mph)

 

[red admiral]

Maybe you can cut and paste the relevant excerpt and the link that supports it? I'm not challenging you, I just don't see it

I've seen higher numbers on different sites and books. Flight archive is good for a few articles on the Tempest.

One I have quickly to hand is the following link; Aces High Fighter Comparison, where the data in compiled from various test reports and reconciled into an excel database to allow easy comparison.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

One I have quickly to hand is the following link; Aces High Fighter Comparison, where the data in compiled from various test reports and reconciled into an excel database to allow easy comparison.

With all due respect, I hope you will understand if I reject, outright, the "Aces High Fighter Comparison Chart" compiled from data submitted by players of the game "Aces High."

At any rate, to bring this discussion back on target, my only point is only that that the superiority of the Thunderbolt may manifest prior to 20,000ft - more like 15,000ft.

 

[billswagger]

Now that i think about it, these two planes do have similar mass.
The only thing that might've made the Tempest more vulnerable was the cooling system.
I'd still say the P-47 was in the same class of ruggedness as the Typhoon, and the Tempest would've been a lighter version of that if only for trimming down the wings some.
All three aircraft were probably structurally comparable.

Its been some time since id seen that mike williams post.
That document showing 443mph at 29,000ft for the P-47D
Incredible.


Bill

 

[davparlr]

Its been some time since id seen that mike williams post.
That document showing 443mph at 29,000ft for the P-47D
Incredible.


Bill

It has an incredible engine. Look at the hp rating for the N at the site listed. It shows 2800 hp flat rated up to 33,000 ft. I don't have the -25 engine power profile but I suspect it is similar with hp of 2600. I know of no other fighters that has that kind of power up that high except maybe a P-38 model. This is the main reason why the P-47 was selected as the best allied fighter above 25k by the joint fighter conference.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406-speed.jpg

 

[Trilisser]

Regarding the ruggedness of these two, the Tempest's ultimate load factor was 14.5 g, whereas that of the P-47 was 12 g, according to a British document provided by Neil Stirling (I have placed the copy somewhere safe for I could not find it right now...).

 

[Glider]

This is the main reason why the P-47 was selected as the best allied fighter above 25k by the joint fighter conference.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406-speed.jpg

Its worth remembering that at the time of the conference the P47N was brand new and not in service. The RAF aircraft that participated were well past it. It would have been interesting if the Hornet or Tempest II had been able to participate

 

[AlfaKiloSierra]

At any point a comparison between a dedicated low-altitude short-range fighter and a high-altitude interceptor/heavy fighter is completely pointless. Only an idiot will choose to fight against a Tempest in his P-47 below 5000ft, or fight against a P-47D in his Tempest at 35000ft. Here is a comparison between a Tempest II and a P-47 restricted to 58inHg of boost and 2700rpm (unfair, in comparison with a Tempest II there should be a P-47M with 76inHg and 2800rpm):

Tempest II Tactical Trials