Only one fighter

[renrich]

733 P47Bs and Cs were ordered by the US Army in Sept. 1940, so the P47 was definitely in development in 1940. To say that the P47 could "easily be adapted for carrier use" is probably a huge stretch. To begin with the early P47s had problems with landing gear collapses. That is hardly a recipe for succesful carrier operations. Even more problematical was the fact that the P47 was always known as a ground lover. How a P47 could take off from a carrier would be a real question. At the joint fighter conference in 1944, the P47 was not even mentioned when it came to the category-"best overload take off from a small area." The P47 was a fine AC but the early versions were range limited, had poor climb and were not very good performers until they got really high. One of my uncles was a IP in P39s and P47s and he told me that when they encountered Corsairs in mock dogfights in their P47s, the F4Us made mincemeat out of them. I actually thought my first post was pretty clear but to say that development of the Wildcat would lead to the Hellcat is like saying development of the SBD would lead to the AD. In both cases they were completely different air craft. Even if the Hellcat was legitimate as a development of the Wildcat, the Corsair was superior to the Hellcat in most areas, particularly as a ground based fighter.

 

[renrich]

Interesting coincidence when it comes to shipboard fighters being considered as inferior to land based fighters. There were two fighters designed in the beginning as shipboard fighters that turned out to be very effective as fighters and fighter bombers, in land based versions as well as ship board versions. They were both in production for a long time, they were both bought and used by several foreign countries besides the US and they were used in numerous wars and foreign actions. They both had inverted gull wings(more or less) and they were both F4s. One was the F4U and the other was the F4H and in their day they were considered close to the epitome of fighter design.

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

If you think about it, performance-wise, a shipbourne a.c will be less agile than its exact frame in a land-based configuration (i.e. no folding wings, no hydraulics for the wings, no arrester gear etc.) Though I know what you mean. Hall and Vought pretty much disproved the common stereotype of a any naval design being worse than the land based design.

Britain, however, usually had inferior naval planes. But if Britain had been in the Naval war chaos which the US was experiencing, their Seafire probably would have been great by 1944. The Seafire XV was already a great plane... simply a cleaned-up naval version of the rag-tag, jerry-rigged but good Spitfire XII of early 1943.

 

[Elvis]

Renrich,

That's the first time I've ever heard of P-47's have landing gear issues.
Is there anything that you could link to that talks about that in any depth?



Elvis

 

[renrich]

I am more of a book guy than internet expert as I have accumulated a fairly large library of books. My preferred reference on US fighters WW2 is"America's Hundred Thousand' by Francis Dean. This tome has almost everything you would want to know about the roughly 100,000 fighters the US produced during WW2 including a chronology of their use. On page 287 the book mentions the gear collapses on the runway as one of the several teething problems of the early P47s. This was in March, 1943 and I don't know if this was a structural or hydraulic problem but I think the weight of the P47 and it's long takeoff run would be more significant in shipboard use. As far as the Spitfire- Seafire use on carriers is concerned, if the Spitfire had been modified enough to make it robust enough and truly suitable for anything but stopgap use on carrier duty, much of that sparkling performance would have been lost because of increased weight and then you would have had to deal with it's short range which was essentially insoluble. To me the salient point about the AC of the RN was that shortly after the end of WW1, there was a political battle in Britain about who was to have overall responsibility for the future of England's air arm, the RN or an entity which turned out to be the RAF. The RAF was the winner and that meant that the design, development and deployment of the AC in the Fleet Air Arm was controlled by the RAF. You can be assured that if the US Army had been detailed to determine what AC would serve in our Navy, few if any of the superb AC that fought for the USN in WW2 would have made it to our carriers. That is the main reason that the RN was stuck with inferior AC until they bought American.

 

[MacArther]

For the sake of laughs, I would have taken the P40, and jumped on Curtiss' back from the beggining to institute massive upgrades in each variant, instead of piecemeal ones. P40Q with bubble top, 2000 pound of bombs, and a capacity for 4 20mm guns doesnt look too bad.

Then again, this is all coming from someone who has a P40 in their signature.....

 

[drgondog]

Ok, before this turns into some kind of blood bath and I'm marked as some kind of "bad guy", let me apologize to renrich and drgndog if I offended them.

I'm OK - I've been called worse

I suppose, given the further expanation of the original statement, I would have to say that maybe its not one single design that would've been best, but maybe a marriage of the best points of several "more desireable" designs?

...or maybe not, since that may result in aircraft assembled by "comittee".

Of course renrich did mention that whatever aircraft was selected, did not neccessarily have to be the epitome of aricraft design of its day, since we're given the chance to work with the design and develop it into something all forces could use.

In my case, that may mean that, should the F4F be accepted, maybe the "development outcome" would've been the F6F, just sooner than it had actually happened (of course, without that crashed Zero to use as a test mule, a lot of developement would've been more "guesswork" than the actual flight characteristic data they did have to work with, resulting in an aircraft that may have been slightly inferior to the actual F6F).

I think Renrich had in mind limited airframe mods - same basic wing, engine type and engine evolution (i.e swap a Merlin for an Allison, etc. So the P-47J and the P-51H drop out of contention in that definition as a final evolutionary step.

On the other hand the F6F completely different airframe and wing from F6F and ditto for f8F


Given all of this, including the further qualifying of Renrich's question, it seems to me that maybe the "best" aricraft to pick may have been the P-47.
It had superior firepower and armour, was tougher than rawhide, could be easily adapated for carrier use, could carry a decent bomb load (when/if needed), could easily be adapted to a non-fighter role (such as an air ambulance - all you Vietnam era guys, think "Sandy") and was agile and fast.

Given all that, its a pretty hard design not to pick.


...and before you guys rag all over me, its not that I have anything against the F4U.




Elvis

No rag or gag - your opinion is fine. Where those of who favor the F4U over the P-47 is that it seems to combine all the attributes (positive) of the P-47 in context of bomb load and firepower (if you want the 4x 20MM version), better basic dogfighter performance in same context as P-51 and had significantly more intitial range than the Jug when it was needed the most in 1943.

It fell short below 30,000 feet but candidly that's all about engine and mission - there just wasn't any need for the F4U to tangle above 25,000 feet... but see no reason it doesn't get close to 51 and 47 with mod to engine/turbo combination.

As for comparing the P-47 as a VietNam Sandy, think A7D instead of the P-47 or A1E.

Regards,

Bill

 

[renrich]

Curtis tried to develop follow on models to the P40, namely the XP46 and XP60. Different varients of these models included Merlin engines, laminar flow wings, turbo charged Allisons and R2800s with 2 contra rotating props. None of them could exceed the performance of fighters already in production.

 

[renrich]

An interesting sidebar to the battle over who would control the British air arm post WW1 was that Admiral Beatty of Jutland and battle cruiser fame was the primary advocate of the RN having control of the air assets. He was the one who supposedly said, after watching another of his battle cruisers apparently blowing up(I think Princess Royal) "Something seems to be the matter with our bloody ships today. Steer two points closer to the enemy."

 

[davparlr]

One of my uncles was a IP in P39s and P47s and he told me that when they encountered Corsairs in mock dogfights in their P47s, the F4Us made mincemeat out of them.

Must have been below 25k as the Report of Joint Fighter Conference indicates that the P-47 was the best fighter above 25K. The F4U-1 came at third, quite a bit below the ratings of no. 2 P-51. Below 25K the F4U-1 again came in a third, but close, to the F8F and again right behind the P-51.

 

[Jank]

Interesting discussion.

Mock dogfights between friendlies are really just twisty turny games of tag / keep away and were not really indicative of the vast majority of actual combat which was fought utilizing boom and zoom tactics. Read encounter reports from Mustang and Bolt drivers for a plethora of illustrative examples.

Imagine if you will what conclusions one would draw had such contests been held between 109's/190's and P-47's. The P-47's would get waxed 95% of the time. And the 5% of the contests where the P-47's came out on top would be due to mismatched pilot skills. We know that the P-47 held its own quite effectively though in spite of performance that would have lead one to conclude that it was not fit for air to air combat.

Such contests also do not factor aircraft survivability. Just look at the huge disparity between Hellcats and Corsairs with respect to surviving AA hits. Corsairs were more than 50% more likely than Hellcats to leave their pilots in the soup, behind enemy lines or just plain dead after suffering AA hits. There is no reason to believe that the vulnerability of the Corsair's oil coolers was confined solely to AA hits either as hits from even small caliber rounds in the .30 caliber class were known to put a Corsair down in a matter of minutes. ( See pages 15 to conclusion in the thread "Hardest plane to take down in WW2?" http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hardest-plane-take-down-ww2-3114-15.html )

 

[The Basket]

To me the P-40 was a stopgap between biplanes and the P-51.

To remove the P-40 from production for a superfighter which may or may not be available would be silly.

If the only good thing about the P-40 was availability then so what...better something than nothing. You would have to keep it in production for numbers alone.

 

[CPWN]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRGYXMs9n1s

 

[renrich]

Dav, your report from the joint fighter conference must be different from mine because mine does not mention the F8F. Something else I noticed which seems screwy to me in the report is that the F4U4 is listed behind the F4U1D in both best fighter below and above 25000 feet. The F4U4 had substantially better performance than the F4U1D so that doesn't make sense to me. My guess is that ACM in WW2 took place largely below 25000 feet. As Bill has stated before if the Corsair had needed to have better performance up high, a supercharger modification could have provided it as in the F4U5. Since the oil cooler issue has been discovered on the F4U, one wonders how they shot down all those Japanese AC with the loss of only 189 Corsairs in ACM? No question however about the P47 being a formidable fighter and fighter bomber. Going back to the statistics business the P47s sorties/loss ratio in Europe was 138, the P51s was 85 and the P38s was 74. If someone asked me which one of those Ac I wanted to take into combat, I know which one I would take.

 

[davparlr]

Dav, your report from the joint fighter conference must be different from mine because mine does not mention the F8F.

Strange. My book, on page 319, under "Best All-Around Fighter below 25,000 Feet" shows F8F-30%, P-51-29%, F4U-1-27%

Something else I noticed which seems screwy to me in the report is that the F4U4 is listed behind the F4U1D in both best fighter below and above 25000 feet. The F4U4 had substantially better performance than the F4U1D so that doesn't make sense to me. My guess is that ACM in WW2 took place largely below 25000 feet.

Looked funny to me, too. Since the test was run in Oct. '44, early for an F4U-4, maybe they had a bad bird.

No question however about the P47 being a formidable fighter and fighter bomber. Going back to the statistics business the P47s sorties/loss ratio in Europe was 138, the P51s was 85 and the P38s was 74. If someone asked me which one of those Ac I wanted to take into combat, I know which one I would take.

Depends on the mission. Of those three, for a air-to-ground my selection would certainly be the P-47, air-to-air would be the P-51, for mixed, probably the P-47.

 

[renrich]

Dav, as you know the F8F never even saw service in WW2. My list does not give percentages but breaks out this way-Best fighter below 25000 ft: P51D, F4U1D, F6F5, F4U4 and best fighter above 25000 ft: P47D, P51D,F4U1D,F6F5, F4U4, P38L.

 

[drgondog]

Interesting discussion.

Mock dogfights between friendlies are really just twisty turny games of tag / keep away and were not really indicative of the vast majority of actual combat which was fought utilizing boom and zoom tactics. Read encounter reports from Mustang and Bolt drivers for a plethora of illustrative examples.

Jank - in the ETO that would be true primarily for the P-47. The Eighth Air Force put out a 60 page report compiled of various leaders and ace insights regarding tactics and attributes. Prominant in that report is Zemke's insight.

He emphasized the mandate to NEVER drop airspeed below 200 MPH indicated, attack from altitude advantage, never cut throttle to stay engaged with a 190 or 109 and, when in disadvantage, try to get the fight into a turning fight (at high altitude) because the T-Bolt could outclimb both the primary German fighters.

Further his recommended primary attack mode was a dive from higher altitude, level slightly below at a high rate of speed, shoot and climb steeply up and around to clear your tail.

These are not the typical (not saying non existant) attacks from Mustangs who WOULD throttle back and would stay in a turn (Frequently, not always) at medium to high altitudes.

In every dissertation in this document, the 'rules of thumb' were a.) don't intentionally seek a turning, rolling fight at low to medium level with an FW and .b) engage at will at high altitude because the acceleration and climb and speed and turn was favored to the Mustang. Most of the leaders and aces in this document were guys like Preddy, Zemke, Stewart, Beeson who had experience and scores in both the 51 and the 47.

These tactics discussed became training doctrine for all pilots coming into the ETO

Imagine if you will what conclusions one would draw had such contests been held between 109's/190's and P-47's. The P-47's would get waxed 95% of the time. And the 5% of the contests where the P-47's came out on top would be due to mismatched pilot skills. We know that the P-47 held its own quite effectively though in spite of performance that would have lead one to conclude that it was not fit for air to air combat.

As you know it was 'fit' - lol. However if one chose to fight at low altitude where the only escape was to somehow get an advantage in altitude to maximize P-47 capabilities - the guy was in trouble. Despite the paddle blade improvements, acceleration was slow from level steady flight, initial climbe and acceleration was below a 109 and FW on the deck and the FW was flat out faster (model to model likely to engage at that time)

Such contests also do not factor aircraft survivability. Just look at the huge disparity between Hellcats and Corsairs with respect to surviving AA hits. Corsairs were more than 50% more likely than Hellcats to leave their pilots in the soup, behind enemy lines or just plain dead after suffering AA hits. There is no reason to believe that the vulnerability of the Corsair's oil coolers was confined solely to AA hits either as hits from even small caliber rounds in the .30 caliber class were known to put a Corsair down in a matter of minutes. ( See pages 15 to conclusion in the thread "Hardest plane to take down in WW2?" http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hardest-plane-take-down-ww2-3114-15.html )

On the latter point, all those points are important - but not necessarily conclusive depending on the Primary Mission. If air superiority, a selector might pick the 51 over the P-47 (and did) or the F4U over the F6F (and did).

At the end of the day I would have picked and F4U over F6F simply because I believe I would have a better chance of escaping an air to air hit - no matter how vulnerable to a 30 caliber round. Same attitude most Mustang pilots had when comparing their experiences in both a/c (air to air).

The AAF, then USAF picked the 51 over the 47 and 38 on the judgement that in the nuclear age, escort (not ground support) was the Primary mission for the last piston engine fighters. Korea made that a bad decision but the 51 was deemed the best choice for Strategic doctrine.

If I had been fully knowledgeable about the issues we would encounter over Europe I would have picked the F4U over the P-47 (and P-51) simply because the a/c was as good or better than both in about 75% of the air to air criteria up to 25,000 feet (where ETO was fought) and superior on the deck - plus as good air to ground as P-47 with added advantage of being a better defensive fighter on the deck.

My love is the Mustang for all around but my head is on the Corsair.

In ETO, the only group that did exceptionally well air to air against the Luftwaffe throughout the campaigns in P-47s was the 56th (in context of air to air ratios achieved by Mustangs). The 51s had far better success against the Luftwaffe but I believe the Corsair would have done as well and far better air to ground.

 

[davparlr]

Interesting coincidence when it comes to shipboard fighters being considered as inferior to land based fighters.

In general, land base aircraft design have a large advantage over shipboard aircraft design. Also, It is inherently easier to reduce weight for less stess than it is to beef up an aircraft for higher stress. An example of this is the YF-17/F-18. To make the YF-17 carrier compatable, much heavier landing gear and stronger airframe to handle the arrester gear and landing stress, had to be incorporated. Weight added is always a weight multiple. In order to maintain maneuver performance, wing area had to be increased. To maintain range, more fuel was required. To maintain thrust to weight, larger, thirstier engines were needed. To handle all this added structure and fuel, the fuselage had to be widened, compromising the clean YF-17 aerodynamic design and reducing top speed (lower Mach). All of this added about 7700 lbs (over 40% increase!) to the empty weight to the original YF-17. The YF-17 was a cleaner and better flying aircraft than the F-18. Through an odd series of events, Northrop generated a redesign of the F-18A for land operations called the F-18L. This was much easier. Lighter gear was added, arrester hook removed, etc. making a lighter aircraft. Unfornuately nothing could be done about the wide fuselage. Had the F-17 been the AF version, it would have been a significantly better performer than its seaborne brother, the F-18.

There were two fighters designed in the beginning as shipboard fighters that turned out to be very effective as fighters and fighter bombers, in land based versions as well as ship board versions. They were both in production for a long time, they were both bought and used by several foreign countries besides the US and they were used in numerous wars and foreign actions. They both had inverted gull wings(more or less) and they were both F4s. One was the F4U and the other was the F4H and in their day they were considered close to the epitome of fighter design.

There is a difference between the F4U and the F4H. The F4U was outstanding fighter and an outstanding ground attack aircraft. The F4Hs real claim to fame was versatility. It was not a great fighter nor a great ground attack aircraft but it was good at both and adaptable to various other missions. The AF designs were philosophy poor in that they were specifically designed for a war that never occurred and left them ill prepared for the type of war that was to be fought.

 

[Jank]

"Jank - in the ETO that would be true primarily for the P-47."

Agreed that it was a mandate for the P-47 but I believe it was nonetheless primarily true in the vast majority of Mustang encounters as well based on my reading of hundreds of encounter reports. Friendly games of tag / keep away where each are aware of the other's position at the start of the engagement and both start in relatively fair positioning vis a vis the other simply was not the order of the day in air combat and in that respect, such contests are not indicative of outcomes in actual air combat. (Again, consider my example of how indicative such contests would have been between 109's/190's and Thunderbolts.) Moreover, not to be nitpicky but such contests also did not factor relative differences in firepower. All things being equal, I'd rather be on the receiving end of six .50's than eight .50's. (I have no doubt that Macchi Mc.202's would have fared far better against Spitfires had their armament been greater than just two .50 cal. and two .30 cal. guns.)

What is the title of the 60 page report you referenced? I would like to obtain a copy.

I don't think I implied that survivability was necessarily conclusive overall but comes much closer to being so with respect to the air to ground role. I threw it out as an additional factor I thought is important. I don't really disagree with you except with your assertion that the F4U was "as good air to ground as P-47 ". The P-47 has 1/3 more gun firepower, a greater ammo capacity, is just as stable of a gun platform and is more survivable. As for ordinance load, the P-47D could have handled 4,000lb loads too. Just becauase it didn't doesn't mean it couldn't. At the point in time before F4U's carried such loads, it would have been an error to assert that it could not have been done because it had not been done. The weight differential between an empty and fully laden P-47D was about 7,000lbs.

Republic Aviation's own design specs for the P-47M, which had the exact same wing and fuselage structure with respect to load bearing, indicate a maximum bomb load of 4,200lbs The P-47N, which did often carry 3,900lbs of bombs and rockets actually had a maximum design bomb load that was somewhat less at 3,700lbs. I have never come across Republic Aviation's design specs for the P-47D but there is no reason to assume that they would be any different than those for the P-47M.

I can not stress enough that the fact that the F4U actually did carry 4,000lb ordinance loads and the P-47D didn't is not conclusive on the issue of whether the P-47D could have carried such loads. Moreover, the survivability advantage of the Thunderbolt in the air to ground role is a far greater determinative factor of superiority in that role. The difference in survivability between the Corsair and Hellcat was so striking that the US Navy itself concluded that, "The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage."

In short, the far and away superior performance of the Corsair could not overcome the effect of this inferior attribute.

 

[helmitsmit]

I take the point about the P40. No one actually tried mating the P40N to a merlin 61. The P40F only had a merlin 20. It might not have made it the best but it would have been a match for most of it's enemies. It was also in service before 1940 so design issue could have been ironed out.