Hurricane IIc vs. B-17s B-24s

[pinsog]

TIMSHATZ, got a good laugh at your buck fever tale. I hadn't had it in years until last year when I saw a HUGE buck in Kansas while rifle hunting, I started shaking so bad I couldn't have shot my own foot! Felt good after it was over. And to think, we were in no danger at all. Imagine some poor fighter pilot with barely enough training to fly the bucket he's in, probably already puked a time or two that morning, running into a flight of enemy aircraft flown by veterans.
It's a wonder
1. they could get anyone to do it
2. anyone would try again after the 1st time
3. anybody ever actually got shot down
I bet alot of those "dogfights" looked like those toughman competitions where both fighters are so afraid of getting hit that they dont get close enough to ever connect with a punch, they just stand out there out of range and punch each others gloves.
Then of course you get the 1% that are professionals and they are the ones that end up with all those kids painted on the side of there cockpits.

 

[timshatz]

Yeah Pin, that probably happened a lot more than people think. Two sides show up, one side really doesn't want to bother with a brawl (for whatever reason) and nothing happens. Thinking situations like that probably were more common during the British offensive into France in 1941/42 where the Luftwaffe didn't HAVE to fight. Could pick it's place and time to go at it.

I remember reading "No Parachute" by A.G. Lee. It was a WW1 fighter book but he talks about the same thing happening. A bunch of Albatross show up, both they (in Sopwith Pups) and the Albatross manuver to get in the best position but neither likes the spot there are in versus the other side. Finally, one side (usually the Germans as they had fewer aircraft and had to pick their fights better) would turn around and dive for home leaving the other side stoodging around with nobody to play with.

I guess it wasn't all blood and guts all the time.

 

[renrich]

One man's account of P47 prowess in ACM and this was undoubtedly not at the P47s best altitude. Ralph Linnekin, "80 knots To Mach 2" " That useful altitude reference is in honor of the P47, which is difficult to categorise. The N version is credited with something on the order of 469 mph, but at 32000 feet. What reciprocating engine airplanes actually fought at 32000 feet? It may be useful to fly that high, but at what cost. The P47 was a very good airplane with a fine combat record. It was not, however lauded as a sterling performer. I contrast that high-altitude performance with contemporary reports that some versions of the P47 were dogs below 10000 feet. The airplane had a huge turbo supercharger that, by a combination of drag and mechanical power bleed off must have caused a substantial performance degradation at other than optimum altitudes. I know a couple of people in a Bearcat squadron who had an inadvertant encounter with four late model P47s one day in 1947. ( Inadvertant, hell. The Bearcats jumped them. What did you expect. The P47s were there.) It was no contest- partly because the Bearcat, below 10000 feet, could do absolutely everything better than anything else with a propeller and at low altitudes could out accelerate most contemporary jets. Nonetheless, our guys said that AD Skyraiders and even SB2C Helldivers flown aggressively had at other times given them as much trouble as the P47s."

 

[Nikademus]

The N version is credited with something on the order of 469 mph, but at 32000 feet. What reciprocating engine airplanes actually fought at 32000 feet? It may be useful to fly that high, but at what cost. "

A good point.

 

[Timppa]

Nearly true Timppa. Both the 51B/C and D with 1650-7 outclimbed the P-47D-10 and subsequent variants of the D up to ~ 30,000 feet - and combat between German fighters and most USAAF fighters was from 25,000 feet to the deck.. where the P-47 increasingly was at a disadvantage in both the horizontal and vertical with the contemporary German fighters as the altitude decreased after the initial contact.. as well as the P-51B/C and D.

P-47 Performance Tests
P-51 Mustang Performance

Nearly true drgondog
I think the above sources you gave show that P-47D beats P-51D (V-1650-7) above 25,000ft.
I even checked a couple of sim charts. Any difference between P-47D (again w/ high activity prop and ADI) and German fighters was not big even at lower altitudes. (considering models Bf109-G6 and Fw190A-5/8, early 1944 timeframe).
Gabreski gave one account where he outclimbed 190's from practically stall speed.

 

[T Bolt]

One man's account of P47 prowess in ACM and this was undoubtedly not at the P47s best altitude. Ralph Linnekin, "80 knots To Mach 2" " That useful altitude reference is in honor of the P47, which is difficult to categorise. The N version is credited with something on the order of 469 mph, but at 32000 feet. What reciprocating engine airplanes actually fought at 32000 feet? It may be useful to fly that high, but at what cost. The P47 was a very good airplane with a fine combat record. It was not, however lauded as a sterling performer. I contrast that high-altitude performance with contemporary reports that some versions of the P47 were dogs below 10000 feet. The airplane had a huge turbo supercharger that, by a combination of drag and mechanical power bleed off must have caused a substantial performance degradation at other than optimum altitudes. I know a couple of people in a Bearcat squadron who had an inadvertant encounter with four late model P47s one day in 1947. ( Inadvertant, hell. The Bearcats jumped them. What did you expect. The P47s were there.) It was no contest- partly because the Bearcat, below 10000 feet, could do absolutely everything better than anything else with a propeller and at low altitudes could out accelerate most contemporary jets. Nonetheless, our guys said that AD Skyraiders and even SB2C Helldivers flown aggressively had at other times given them as much trouble as the P47s."

I don't think it's fair to compare the P-47 to the F8F. The Thunderbolt was a very large high altitude turbo supercharged fighter which first flew in 1940. The Bearcat was a small fighter –the size of a Wildcat- with the same engine as the Thunderbolt. Of course it would out fly a Thunder bolt at low altitude. The P-47 was out of its element and the Bearcat was in its, as a sprinter meant to catch and shoot down Kamikazes. The F8F didn't see service until 1945. It was part of that next generation of piston engine fighters that were made essentially useless when still new due to the advent of jets.

 

[drgondog]

Nearly true drgondog
I think the above sources you gave show that P-47D beats P-51D (V-1650-7) above 25,000ft.
I even checked a couple of sim charts. Any difference between P-47D (again w/ high activity prop and ADI) and German fighters was not big even at lower altitudes. (considering models Bf109-G6 and Fw190A-5/8, early 1944 timeframe).
Gabreski gave one account where he outclimbed 190's from practically stall speed.

P 51D Performance Test
Table C. gives 30,000 ROC for P-51D-15 = 1700fpm, 2400fpm @ 25K using regular 130 octane.
3000 RPM at 67"

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-climb.jpg for July 1944 tests w/44-1 fuel
Table 7. ROC for P47D-10 = 1650fpm @ 30K, 2360fpm @ 25K using 44-1 fuel
2700 RPM at 70"

I haven't been able to dig up comparable 51D performance for 3000 RPM and 72" boost but it will clearly show better performance than the above P-47D w/150 octane.

I'll have to look at Gabby's anecdote fro context - outclimbing a 190 at 25K is different from 10K

 

[tomo pauk]

...
The airplane [P-47]had a huge turbo supercharger that, by a combination of drag and mechanical power bleed off must have caused a substantial performance degradation at other than optimum altitudes.
...

(Sorry for P-47-ing the thread, again)

Hi, ren,
Would you please further elaborate the excerpt?

 

[Colin1]

A good point

Why?
Paradoxically, in-theatre commanders would much rather their fighters didn't have to fight, it's just that that's invariably what happened. They'd have been quite happy not to have seen a single enemy fighter on the way in and out. Air forces exist to destroy enemy assets at minimum cost to themselves, not (necessarily) to engage other's air forces in a silly war of attacking each other's products.

There is of course a case for drawing an enemy air force directly into confrontation in order to wear him down but such a strategy is normally cognisant of the home team's advantage in numbers, technical superiority or scales of production. Or all three.

32,000ft is so many more thousands of feet that the enemy have to attain before he can consider intercepting you and so many more miles of penetration into his territory before he does. 32,000ft, like any altitude advantage, is a great perch for 'boom and zoom' despatching interceptors on their way up to do just that. What is the difference between turbocharged P-47s boom'n'zooming Ta152s on their way up to 32,000ft and what supercharged P-51s did to Fw190Ds on their way up to 25,000ft?

WWII was a fierce technology race and altitude performance was one of the markers underpinning that race, the ability to jab your enemy while staying out of reach of his jabs.

If the war had continued there is little doubt (in my opinion) that it would have been pushed higher, the war would have reached 32,000ft eventually; P-47Ns escorting B-32s in the ETO being intercepted by Ta152s at those altitudes is not an unrealistic scenario.

 

[renrich]

TP, this quote came from a chapter in the book devoted to the Hellcat, which Linnekin flew early in his career. In this chapter Linnekin devotes a number of paragraphs to what he calls the myth that the Pacific War was fought mainly by aircraft that would not have been effective in the ETO. He makes the statement that "there were not that many legitimate 400 mph plus airplanes around, and it is questionable whether top speed, as such, ever got utilized in a fight. Certainly the ability to accelerate, as opposed to simply go fast, either to catch somebody or to escape, is valuable." He goes on to say that "The Corsair, at most "useful" altitudes was as fast as any and had substantial range and substantial load carrying ability. If you could figure some measurement scale that people would agree to, you could find support for the idea that the Corsair may have been the best/most effective fighter in all of WW2-until you factored in how many Corsairs were wrecked operationally by their own pilots. Oh well, nobody's perfect!"

From there he segues into the part about the P47 and it's performance at very high altitudes. Linnekin's book, IMO, is a gem. He began his career training in the Stearman and wound up flying high performance airplains like the F4 and he devotes chapters to how all the various planes he flew, actually flew. He is a graduate of the Naval Academy and the Navy Test Pilots school and is a aeronautical engineer and flew combat in Korea. At the end, he has a chapter about the "Little Guys" Mooneys, Citabrias, Pipers, etc.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

"If you could figure some measurement scale that people would agree to, you could find support for the idea that the Corsair may have been the best/most effective fighter in all of WW2-until you factored in how many Corsairs were wrecked operationally by their own pilots. Oh well, nobody's perfect!"

As long as the measurement scale doesn't include how they fared in the role of fighter-bomber / fighter-ground attack that all fighters were pressed into. In mid 1946, with the benefit of hindsight through examining data from more than 22,000 sorties, the USN found that Corsairs were about 60% more likely to be lost from anti-aircraft fire than Hellcats when actually hit by anti-aircraft fire during the same time period, flying from the same carriers against the same targets on missions under the "same conditions" in "comparable operations" where the two aircraft received "about the same number of hits per sortie."

The Navy report stated, "The F6F appears to have had considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same conditions." Elsewhere in the report it tentatively stated the conclusion that, "The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage."

On another note, I don't think the P-47D had a climb advantage over the P-51D at 25,000 feet and 30,000 feet. It's performance was close enough though to prohibit the claim that it was an inferior mount though. (Speed, climb, dive, zoom climb and roll were all excellent.) At the Joint Fighter Conference in mid 1944, the voting evaluators (weighted 5:3 Navy pilots over Army pilots) voted the P-47D the best fighter over 25,000ft edging out the P-51D by 6 votes and the F4U-1D by 38 votes.

Below 25,000ft the P-47D didn't even register a single vote with the order going F8F, P-51D, F4U-1D all relatively close within 3 votes of each other. (As with the P-47D below 25,000ft, the F8F did not register a single vote for best fighter above 25,000ft.)

 

[Shortround6]

The airplane had a huge turbo supercharger that, by a combination of drag and mechanical power bleed off must have caused a substantial performance degradation at other than optimum altitudes. I know a couple of people in a Bearcat squadron who had an inadvertant encounter with four late model P47s one day in 1947. ( Inadvertant, hell. The Bearcats jumped them. What did you expect. The P47s were there.) It was no contest- partly because the Bearcat, below 10000 feet, could do absolutely everything better than anything else with a propeller and at low altitudes could out accelerate most contemporary jets.

Kind of comparing Apples to Oranges here aren't we?

And I would like to know just what "mechanical power bleed off" you are referring to for the P-47.

That was the whole point of the turbo charger, use the power of the exhaust to run the supercharger rather than powering the the first stage of the supercharger using crankshaft power.

F8F also carried a bit less internal fuel than the P-47. One source giving 185 US gallons vs 370 gallons for most of the P-47Ds let alone the tankage in a "N". Cutting the guns from 8 to four didn't hurt and dropping over 50 sq ft of wing didn't hurt either.

Trying the combat at even 20,000-25,000 ft might have given rather different results also.

One reason the F8F was so small was that they "lost" the two stage mechanical supercharger of the F6F and F4U with its associated inter-cooler and were fitted with either a mechanical 2 speed drive on the F8F-1 or a variable speed hydraulic drive on the F8F-2 for the single stage supercharger.

While all the R-2800s in the P-47, F4U, and the F6F were rated at either 2000 or 2100hp for take-off (by the factory and without water injection) the altitudes at which they would maintain "military power" are rather informative.
The 2000hp engine of the P-47Ds was good for 2000hp military power to 25,000ft
The 2100hp engine of the P-47Ns was good for 2100hp military power to 28,500ft.
The 2000hp engine of the F6F and F4U was good for 1800hp at 15,500ft and 1650hp at 22,000ft.
Later F4U engines could do better
The 2100hp engine in the F8F-1s was good for 1700hp at 16,000ft.
The 2250hp engine in the F8F-2s was good for 1600hp at 22,000ft but the first F8F-2 with this engine wasn't delivered until 1947.

The Non-turbo engines will, of course, have some measure of exhaust thrust to add to their mechanical HP but their longer exhaust passages compared to the V-12 engines cuts that a bit and since exhaust thrust works better the higher you go it may not have been a really big difference below 10,000ft although helping to even things up at higher altitudes. Exhaust thrust is also highly speed dependentant so that while it helps a lot in a high speed dash it doesn't work so well for climb performance.

It is amazing what 2-3 years of aeronautical knowledge would buy you in the WW II era let alone what 3-5 years would buy in engine and supercharger design. The -30 engines used in the F8F-2s were almost identical to the -32 engines used in the F4U-5 Corsairs except for the deletion of the sidewinder 1st stage superchargers and the intercooler setup.

 

[T Bolt]

double post

 

[T Bolt]

I totally agree with Shortround's above post.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

"[T]he altitudes at which they would maintain "military power" are rather informative."

The late war P-47D could pull its maximum 2,600hp in WEP up to close to 26,000ft.


* EDITED to correct from 24,000ft to 26,000ft

 

[Shortround6]

The late war P-47D could pull its maximum 2,600hp in WEP up to close to 24,000ft. Does someone know the WEP ratings for the other aircraft at that altitude?

I was trying to show a basis for comparison

once you get into which planes had water injection and when or try to use WEP both with and without water injection things get real complicated real quick.

The navy planes are going to be 350hp or more behind the P-47 from about 22,000ft on up even with water injection and the higher you go the worse it is going to get. In fact the Navy planes aren't going to get much benefit from water injection once they go over the critical altitude because the supercharger just doesn't have any excess capacity.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

"I was trying to show a basis for comparison"

I know. I'm interested in figuring out the maximum HP of the other types at WEP regardless of whether they have water injection.

"The navy planes are going to be 350hp or more behind the P-47 from about 22,000ft on up even with water injection"

The August 1945 Final Report - Evaluation of Maximum Practical Combat Power Rating For The F4U-1 Airplane indicates 1,650hp at 23,500ft. That's with water injection.

I have data for the Hellcat but it is an early model. I don't have anything for the Bearcat.

 

[tomo pauk]

Kind of comparing Apples to Oranges here aren't we?

And I would like to know just what "mechanical power bleed off" you are referring to for the P-47.

That was the whole point of the turbo charger, use the power of the exhaust to run the supercharger rather than powering the the first stage of the supercharger using crankshaft power.

....

That's why I've asked about turbo allegedly 'stealing' the power from engine - not true, as we know it

 

[Nikademus]

Why?

Because highlighting a plane's alleged performance advantage at a height where very little actual combat took place while either downplaying or not mentioning at all those lower altitudes where combat did take place tends to give a skewed picture. Same goes for situations where a plane subtype that saw little or no combat gets used in place of a more common sub-model.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

* CORRECTION *

I think I was mistaken in asserting that the late war P-47D could hold it's power up to about 24,000ft. I believe it is actually about 26,000ft.