Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What tactics did the pilots that flew the P-47 use to fight the Luftwaffe? I ask this question because the ideal fighter would have good maneuverability, tight turn, good acceleration and good rate of climb. But the P-47 had 0 of these attributes. The only advantages the P-47 had was sometimes top speed, dive and rate of roll. So why did the 56FG that only flew P-47s yield the greatest American aces in the European theater? How could a plane that was only really known for its ground attack capabilities proved to be such a great fight in the hands of the 56FG?
Thanks.
Most people don't realize why the fuselage is so large. The bottom 1/3 of the entire fuselage was nothing but ducting. Since the turbocharger was behind the pilot (for C.G. reasons), you had to get the fresh air back to the turbo from the cowling intake, the exhaust to the turbo, the compressed air to the intercooler, and the cooled compressed air back to the carburetor. There are two tunnels along the lower fuselage where the hot exhaust flows back that are Dzused on all along the side.
Once it got the paddle-blade prop, it would out-climb most Axis fighters except the Bf 109 at lower altitudes. And it got better the higher it went. At 30,000+ feet it was one of the best fighter aircraft of the war, and the ETO was generally a high-altitude theater, probably due to European weather. A LOT of the fall, winter and spring in the ETO area are IFR at lower altitudes in and around mountains. That likely accounts for the generally higher operations in the ETO, though there may be other factors in there, too.
the ideal fighter would have good maneuverability, tight turn, good acceleration and good rate of climb. But the P-47 had 0 of these attributes.
And what do you base that on?!?!?
you're right, so it probably can't!It doesnt look like it could.
There were quite a few Luftwaffe pilots that would tell you that looks can be deceiving...including this Me163 pilot.It doesnt look like it could.
you're right, so it probably can't!
In various "what if" threads questions abound differing acft and whether something else was needed.
"What if" P-47N was available Jan 1943... what other acft built would not be needed by allies?
Kind of a silly question when one considers the evolution of the R-2800 engine and the evolution in design approach based on an unknown requirement for very long range escort duties forcing a complete wing re-design. But assuming time travel and possessing all the knowledge gained, and the tooling is available from first flight in July 1944 and move it back to July 1943:
It would probably obviate the P-51D. The B was already flying with great promise and it would perform very well in parallel with a 'new P-47N' arriving in January 1944. However, based on ETO Ops requirements the first P-47Ns would be squeezed through Burtonwood BAD1 to receive communications, gear, armor plating, life raft provisioning, etc and would be only dribbling out in squadron level strength by say march/April when P-51Bs at that time had reached 600 in March, 1944.
If you want to eliminate P-51B and P-38L (logical replacements, the P-47N has to fly near the end of 1942 and be in full serial production replacing P-47D series completely. Meaning design work starts in 1941. You would have to break ground on the same scale as Lockheed and NAA Inglewood and Dallas to get the manufacturing volume also in 1941 - perhaps before Pearl harbor, in time to replace the P-38s, A-36, P-51A. To also replace P-40 you have to duplicate deliveries - ditto the P-39.
In keeping with the OP, would the P-47N change dogfighting tactics to an extent that it obviates other acft made?
Once it got the paddle-blade prop, it would out-climb most Axis fighters except the Bf 109 at lower altitudes. And it got better the higher it went. At 30,000+ feet it was one of the best fighter aircraft of the war, and the ETO was generally a high-altitude theater, probably due to European weather. A LOT of the fall, winter and spring in the ETO area are IFR at lower altitudes in and around mountains. That likely accounts for the generally higher operations in the ETO, though there may be other factors in there, too.
I agree with Greg. The P-47 was a superb high altitude fighter - arguably the best in the timescale. Republic took a while to get all the ducting sorted for the R2800, but it seemed to be a comparatively trouble free aircraft at high altitude in the ETO (appologies to P-38 fans) and did a great job.
In various "what if" threads questions abound differing acft and whether something else was needed.
"What if" P-47N was available Jan 1943... what other acft built would not be needed by allies?
In keeping with the OP, would the P-47N change dogfighting tactics to an extent that it obviates other acft made?