P-47 Dogfighting tactics.

[GrauGeist]

The P-39Q was 6,516 lbs empty; 7,570 loaded; and 8,400 gross.

The Fw 190 A-8 was 7,060 empty; 9,735 loaded; and 10,000 gross.

They aren't even close in weight. The P-39Q routinely operated over a ton lighter than the Fw 190 A-8. You could put a pilot and 300 pounds of ammo in a P-39Q and still be lighter than an empty Fw 190 A-8. With the the horsepower these planes had, a ton extra won't help sparkling performance, and the P-39 needed less weight to have low-level performance, which it had. It just faded at the mid-teens in altitude (feet).

It might have been interesting to see a 2-stage Merlin P-39 and see how it could do up high, but that's another discussion entirely and unrelated here.

So 500 pounds isn't close?

 

[GregP]

It's semi-close in empty weight. None actually flew empty ... until they ran out of ammo, altutide, gasoline, and ideas ... some all at the very same time.

Nothing to spark about here, Graugeist. A 30%+ weight difference is significant in aircraft of the same size. If it's a 15% change, then maybe we're in the ballpark. In the end, it's nothing to disagree over. If you think a ton difference is minor, then is IS to you, and WWII is over. We already know what happened and I'd much rather tip a cold brew than argue.

One passenger means a lot to a 2,200 pound, 180 HP aircraft, perhaps not to a 6,500 pound, 1325 HP aircraft. I've never flown one myself.

Though a ton of weight is significant to me in a 6,500 pound airplane, it really doesn't matter. I've only seen ONE P-39 fly and ONE replica Fw 190 A-8 at the museum. The 190 has a P&W R-2800 in it and might not notice the difference anyway ... I think in WWII combat, it made a difference with 300+ less HP for an additional 2,000+ more pounds of weight, but perhaps not. If I had a choice, I'd take a lighter aircraft. If I didn't, I suppose I'd fly it anyway, particularly if I were in the Luftwaffe in WWII. In either case, I'd take an Fw 190 over a P-39 every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Not doing so probably meant a nocturnal visit from the Gestapo, somewhat to your detriment, as well as lower performance.

 

[GrauGeist]

Just a quick bit of perspective, Greg.

My uncle flew the P-36 up until Pearl Harbor and shortly after, was transitioned to the P-39. He was horrified and hated every single minute that he spend aloft in it.

His sentiments regarding the P-39 was that his life wasn't worth a plugged nickel in or out of combat with that "steaming pile of sh!t cleverly disguised as an aircraft".

When he transitioned into the P-38, things were looking up as far as he was concerned.

Although, to his last days, he lamented the day they took his beloved P-36 away.

The moral of the story here: weight (size) isn't everything

 

[GregP]

Then there are the Soviet pilots who shot down more than Dick Bong did while they were flying those same awful P-39s. It was also one of Chuck Yeager's favorite fighters at low to medium altitude. Go figure.

I suppose it depends on your perspective.

To me, lower wing loading combined with good coefficient of lift when combined with sufficient strength, a good pilot, a decent rate of roll, and some reasonable armament means everything in a dogfight ... which didn't happen ALL that often anyway.

The combination of variables makes evaluation somewhat like palm reading, predicting the next election, or wondering what John Travolta will embarrass himself with next time.

But I get your point. Cheers. No worries. I'd take the P-38, too ...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Then there are the Soviet pilots who shot down more than Dick Bong did while they were flying those same awful P-39s.

I count 4.

Soviet P-39 Aces

- keep in mind that Bong and McGuire had breaks in combat where the Soviets, like the Germans had little rest. Bong could have easily brought his score to well over 50 if given the chance.

It was also one of Chuck Yeager's favorite fighters at low to medium altitude. Go figure.

Very true, but at the same time he didn't have to fly it in combat.

Many comparisons are made with the Soviets flying P-39s. Many forget that the Soviet P-39 was a different animal when compared to the P-39s operated in the southwest Pacific during 1942. Additionally they utilized the aircraft where it performed best - at low and medium altitudes.

 

[tomo pauk]

Many comparisons are made with the Soviets flying P-39s. Many forget that the Soviet P-39 was a different animal when compared to the P-39s operated in the southwest Pacific during 1942. Additionally they utilized the aircraft where it performed best - at low and medium altitudes.

Very true.

The Soviets quickly discarded with four .30s and accompanying 4000 (!) rds of ammo - weight equivalent of the 'lethality pack' the Hurricane and Spitfire carried during the BoB. Some of USA-specific parts of radio gear were also removed - up to three (!) radio sets were sometimes carried in USAF's P-39s. From spring of 1943 also the improved engine was in service, improving the capabilities above 12000 ft; IIRC the USAF never got that. P-39 was also far better built than Soviet-made fighters, each was with radio that really worked - no wonder that VVS Stalin clamored for more.
The early P-39s were lousy above 12000 ft, rate of climb was especially apalling, and could not help much with IJA/IJN bombing runs detected flying above 15000 ft. The internal fuel was insufficient for operations in Asia/Pacific.

 

[GregP]

Likely those same Soviet pilots were also flying in a "target rich environment," to steal a quote from Top Gun, especially when compared with flying U.S. P-39s over long water distances and not seeing anyone most of the time. In contrast, the Soviets were probably no more than minutes from the front line, and were probably too close for comfort at ALL times, perhaps too close to the GRU as well.

 

[tomo pauk]

Tomo,
I didn't compare the Fw 190 to a P-51; you compared it to a P-39.

Not sure what's the fuss about. We're comparing fighters, as we allways do .

The Fw 190 is way heavier than a P-39 with a similar wingspan and only a very small bit shorter ... which can probably be accounted for by it's having a radial up front. The P-36 was shorter than a P-40, too.

The BMW 801D was one heavy engine, the whole powerplant (engine, cowling, oil system, prop) was only 10-12% lighter than the two stage R-2800 powerplant found in Corsairs and Hellcats.

You can't keep the pilot where he is in the P-47 if you put the turbo up front. That would mean moving the gas tanks and that would be fine when they are full, but you'd be out of CG forward when they are empty. That's probably why there are ZERO aircraft with fuel tanks in the tail cone ... unless you're talking ultralights with the pilot sitting on the point of the nose.

Nobody will shift around the turbo in the historical P-47, but will make the closely-coupled turbo installation from a clean sheet of paper. With such layout of powerplant, plenty of fuel will be stuffed in the big, 300 sq ft wing from the get go, plus what can be put under the pilot, as historically.

 

[GregP]

Actually, Tomo, I'd vote for anything to make the P-47 smaller and lighter. I was just thinking that if the P-047 airframe remained the same, and if you shifted everything forward to put the turbo in front of the pilot, with all the associated weight, that the fuel would HAVE to stay near the CG, leaving the pilot / cockpit as the only movable ballast.

It could be you are right and the entire cockpit might easily compensate. But, having sat in a the P-47 cockpit (during annual), I certainly wouldn't want to be any farther back towards the rear of the fuselage. The visibility wasn't all that great forward to start with. Then again, the only radial fighter I have ever been able to see out the front of when in it is a Hellcat.

Can't see forward out of a Corsair, a P-47, an Fw 190 A-8, a D4Y Judy, or a Skyraider ... though it isn't bad, comparatively. I see a pattern here ...

 

[pbehn]

Can't see forward out of a Corsair, a P-47, an Fw 190 A-8, a D4Y Judy, or a Skyraider ... though it isn't bad, comparatively. I see a pattern here ...

I always thought the Dewotine 520 was about as bad as it got.

 

[GrauGeist]

I always thought the Dewotine 520 was about as bad as it got.

Aparently, because of the sheer size of the engine and cowling along with the stance of the maingear to provide clearance for the massive props, the F4U and P-47 were among the worst for forward vis with T/O-landing as well as forward vis in a fight.

 

[tomo pauk]

Both F4U and P-47 have had a fuel tank between pilot and engine, thus the view over nose will be lousy. Spitfire and D.520 were also with fuel tank(s) in such a position, neither is regarded as good in visibility over nose.
Too bad the F4U didn't received the fuel tank under the pilot (in manner of Fw 190) when change was made from XF4U-1. The Sea Fury got a bit elevated pilot's compartment to help out with visibility for TO and landing.

 

[GregP]

Just goes to show that you don't really have to see much to shoot something down!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Both F4U and P-47 have had a fuel tank between pilot and engine, thus the view over nose will be lousy.

There are few tail draggers, regardless of pedigree where the visibility over the nose is "good".

 

[GregP]

Maybe they'd do better if they flew armed crop dusters! You can see over the noses of THEM!

Doesn't seem to stop 'em from having collisions with the ground, though. Maybe visibility is just overrated ... they shoot down enemy aircraft without being able to see them and then hit the ground when they can see it clearly and nobody is shooting at them!

 

[bobbysocks]

Likely those same Soviet pilots were also flying in a "target rich environment," to steal a quote from Top Gun, especially when compared with flying U.S. P-39s over long water distances and not seeing anyone most of the time. In contrast, the Soviets were probably no more than minutes from the front line, and were probably too close for comfort at ALL times, perhaps too close to the GRU as well.

and more than likely those soviet pilots flew for a longer tours than US pilots. the us limited tours to a certain number of missions then the guys got to go home.. german and soviet pilots would fly several sorties a day and have more opportunity to see and be in combat...whereas the escort pilot would fly 5+ hours, on one mission a day and maybe or maybe not see combat.

 

[VBF-13]

Who says that the P-47 lacked performance?

It's R-2800 radial was producing 2,600 hp (1,938kw) and allowed it exceptional performance, especially at high altitude. It had a good rate of climb: 3,180 feet per minute (16.15 mps), nothing could out-dive it and with a good pilot in the office, it could turn with the best of the enemy. In the end, the P-47 even claimed 20 Me262s and intercepted 4 Ar234s.

Sure, the razorbacks had some problems, but those were ironed out with the introduction of the D. It was a beast and could take terrible punishment and remain airborne and anything that was downrange of it's 8 .50s was ripped to shreds.

I just love this plane. And I agree with all this. From the looks of it, it's a bomber, not a fighter. But it's going to stay in the fight, and it's going to come back in one piece, when a P-51, for example, is all but a goner. I'll just add, they extended its range, too, over time.

 

[drgondog]

I just love this plane. And I agree with all this. From the looks of it, it's a bomber, not a fighter. But it's going to stay in the fight, and it's going to come back in one piece, when a P-51, for example, is all but a goner. I'll just add, they extended its range, too, over time.

The P-51 had about the same loss rate per 1000 sorties as the F4U in a very lethal environment in Korea.

The challenge to the WWII P-47 legacy in Europe is that it often could not Get in the fight from Big Week forward when the 8th and 15th went deep.

 

[Greyman]

There are few tail draggers, regardless of pedigree where the visibility over the nose is "good".

The figures I've collected over the years don't deal with the general over-nose visibility but the 'fighting view' (in British parlance); the view over the nose as it relates to the gunsight/deflection shooting.

In that case the best single engine is the Fulmar at 10 degrees. Worst is the Allison Mustang at 22​/3​ degrees.

Thunderbolt is 31​/4​ degrees.

These are approximate figures of course since things change slightly with speed and altitude.

 

[pbehn]

The P-51 had about the same loss rate per 1000 sorties as the F4U in a very lethal environment in Korea.

The challenge to the WWII P-47 legacy in Europe is that it often could not Get in the fight from Big Week forward when the 8th and 15th went deep.

Surely a matter of perception of legacy, I am sure the US pilots engaged in ground support after D-Day would not have changed mounts for a P 51. Both jobs needed doing.