GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
So 500 pounds isn't close?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So 500 pounds isn't close?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.
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.
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,
I didn't compare the Fw 190 to a P-51; you compared it to a P-39.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.I always thought the Dewotine 520 was about as bad as it got.
Both F4U and P-47 have had a fuel tank between pilot and engine, thus the view over nose will be lousy.
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.
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.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.
There are few tail draggers, regardless of pedigree where the visibility over the nose is "good".
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.