P-47 vs Fw-190,Spitfire,P-38,P-51
- Thread starter Micdrow
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Th!rdeye
Airman
Thanks a bunch! I'm enjoying reading all these articles and improving my IL-2 flying by using them. 
I am suprised that the Mustang and P-47 turn about the same. And they say
"The Thunder can only evade the FW190 successfully by diving; it is out-classed in the climb and general manoeuvrability,...." (no surprise there)
But then it says
"......with the possible exception of combats at ground level."
That has to be wrong the Jug is a brick at low alts from everything i heard. But i also see in alot of guncams a p-47 shooting and taking down 190s towards the deck.
I am suprised that the Mustang and P-47 turn about the same. And they say
"The Thunder can only evade the FW190 successfully by diving; it is out-classed in the climb and general manoeuvrability,...." (no surprise there)
But then it says
"......with the possible exception of combats at ground level."
That has to be wrong the Jug is a brick at low alts from everything i heard. But i also see in alot of guncams a p-47 shooting and taking down 190s towards the deck.
drgondog
Major
Thanks a bunch! I'm enjoying reading all these articles and improving my IL-2 flying by using them.
I am suprised that the Mustang and P-47 turn about the same. And they say
"The Thunder can only evade the FW190 successfully by diving; it is out-classed in the climb and general manoeuvrability,...." (no surprise there)
But then it says
"......with the possible exception of combats at ground level."
That has to be wrong the Jug is a brick at low alts from everything i heard. But i also see in alot of guncams a p-47 shooting and taking down 190s towards the deck.
Couple of points - these tests were conducted before the upgraded P-47D-10 was in theatre in Jan 1944 with increased Hp and Paddle blade props.
The Mustang was the P-51A with Allison engine - a far underperforming version to P-51B
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Good catch on the Mustang 51A Bill...
Putting aside technical flight performance specs, Id thought I'd just reply by stating how the performance of each aircraft enabled it to succeed in its role. With a little personal opinion of course = )The P-51 is well known for being the aircraft that took the fight to the Luftwaffe on its own doorstep and destroying it as a fighting force. The P-47 is well known for being the aircraft that took the first American pilots into battle with the USAAF, doing a great job breaking the German's back, but having even more fame with the 9th AF in the Fighter-Bomber role. To compare the P-51 to the P-47 in the escort role, the P-51 with its longer range had the advantage, and performed beautifully from 1944 onwards. However you have to take into effect many things. In 1944 the Lufwaffe was a dying force, being pushed from both Western and Eastern Europe, and having lost many of its best pilots. This is when the USAAF P-51s really shined, but I'm not saying it was easy for the Mustang by any means It was a great fighter. In 1943 when the P-47 was the USAAF fighter of choice, Germany still ruled Europe's Skies. Therefore even though the Range of the Thunderbolt only allowed patrols into northern or western Germany for short periods, it still took a heavy toll on the Luftwaffe and showed that the Germans were not going to win easy, and slowly destroyed not only Me-109's, Fw-190's Me-410's etc. but German Morale as well. Now when talking about the two aircraft in the Fighter Bomber role, The P-47 wins in all categories. More firepower, heavier weapons load, and rugged as a tank. The P-51 did perform fighter bomber missions as well with great success, but in terms of its contribution in this role it was nothing like the Jug's. Also the ruggedness of the P-51 was like a peice of paper when compared to the P-47. Overall I do have to prefer the Thunderbolt over the Mustang, it flew over 500,000 missions and suffered the lowest losses per sortie of any allied airplane. It's toll on vehicles and personnel was unbeatable. And it did all this while also destroying 4,000 enamy aircraft in air to air combat.
Last edited:
Good point, with all the improvements given to the P-47 and P-51, such as the P-47M and P-51k its difficult to fairly compare each airplane side by side in all categories of performance.
The report refers to the Mustang X which is to my knowledge the british prototype for the installation of the Merlin engine - so nearly comparable with a P51B in performance.
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
To address the P-47 and its capabilities against the 190: In my reading and study the 190 could out turn the Jug in a flat turn however the P-47D had a stronger zoom climb capability than whats portraid in this test of the C. It was possible for the Jug to evade in a turn by diving into the turn and climbing out. I find a lot of such turn data to be of very little relevance because most combat situations do not involve making flat turns, and generally the pilot will operate his plane at speeds and heights to maximize turn performance.
Tactically speaking the Jug was superior to most German fighters for the simple fact its turbo system allowed for a power output of over 2000hp up to and exceeding 32k ft. Considering the power to weight of most fighters, they were more evenly matched below 20kft, and the Jug was probably the worst of the lot under 10,000ft in power to weight. However, power to weight is not a conclusive factor to performance. Instead, i take it to mean that more power was available at lower altitudes for most planes, where Jugs had access to that same power output at 30,000ft. So while other planes are sucking air the engine of the Jug is still using the same air capacity as it did at sea level.
The Jug also has this reputation as being a slow climber, which initially it was, but it also contrasted heavily with the Spitfire when it was first introduced. There is Jug climb data that rates best climb above 3200ft per.min from 10,000-20,000ft,
Now whats fascinating to me is that the limit in climb rate was because of excessive heat not because of its inablility to climb.
Tactically, climbing with WEP was very wasteful of fuel, but the performance was there if needed.
The P-47D-30 was the most widely produced variant while previous variants recieved retrofitted upgrades. There are tests where the D variant exceeds 440mph top speed, Hg 70" WEP, at 23kft by mid 1944.
Tactically speaking the Jug was superior to most German fighters for the simple fact its turbo system allowed for a power output of over 2000hp up to and exceeding 32k ft. Considering the power to weight of most fighters, they were more evenly matched below 20kft, and the Jug was probably the worst of the lot under 10,000ft in power to weight. However, power to weight is not a conclusive factor to performance. Instead, i take it to mean that more power was available at lower altitudes for most planes, where Jugs had access to that same power output at 30,000ft. So while other planes are sucking air the engine of the Jug is still using the same air capacity as it did at sea level.
The Jug also has this reputation as being a slow climber, which initially it was, but it also contrasted heavily with the Spitfire when it was first introduced. There is Jug climb data that rates best climb above 3200ft per.min from 10,000-20,000ft,
Now whats fascinating to me is that the limit in climb rate was because of excessive heat not because of its inablility to climb.
Tactically, climbing with WEP was very wasteful of fuel, but the performance was there if needed.
The P-47D-30 was the most widely produced variant while previous variants recieved retrofitted upgrades. There are tests where the D variant exceeds 440mph top speed, Hg 70" WEP, at 23kft by mid 1944.
It does not say what version of Fw190. (may have missed it) The A-8 and A-9 got wider props and 2000hp engines.
The Mustang was not a allison engined it's a Mustang X, experimental with RR merlin
The P-51A wasn't as bad as folks might like to believe. At low altitude (under about 12,000 feet), it was faster than the later Merlin Mustangs at about 410 mph and was a couple hundred pounds lighter as well because of the weight difference of the engines.
- Ivan.
- Ivan.
Thanks a bunch! I'm enjoying reading all these articles and improving my IL-2 flying by using them.
I am suprised that the Mustang and P-47 turn about the same. And they say
"The Thunder can only evade the FW190 successfully by diving; it is out-classed in the climb and general manoeuvrability,...." (no surprise there)
But then it says
"......with the possible exception of combats at ground level."
That has to be wrong the Jug is a brick at low alts from everything i heard. But i also see in alot of guncams a p-47 shooting and taking down 190s towards the deck.
The worsening FW-190A sustained turn performance on the deck is due to its much increased engine power there, IF kept at full power... Also the P-47D should out-sustain turns with the Merlin P-51 in its sleep: It vastly out-turned the Me-109G ("The captured (needleprop) P-47 out-turns our Bf-109G", On Special missions, KG 200), though as always downthrottling, or needle tip props, or generally less power applied offset above the wings can help sustain as fast or faster turn rates, despite what post-war jet theories say...
A downthrottled FW-190A should out-sustain in low-speed low-altitude flat turns against all of them, and this should marginally include all marks of the Spitfire, especially with a dowthrottled FW-190A-8 with spacer-enhanced stall-catching ailerons and broad wood prop...
It is sad that our knowledge of these aircrafts is so poor even something as basic as their 6G "Corner speed" is terra incognita... (320 MPH in 1989 "Society of Experimental Test Pilot" test vs 250 MPH in math theory...)
Gaston
Interesting..
Espically this part..
Even more so when you consider they said the 190 was cutting out at this altitude
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Who's they???
Hi all,
in document from Micdraw is error. RAF send this report to Australia and someone make a mistake, because original document says -
Tactical
7 . When at 26,000 feet, the Thunderbolt, if jumped by the FW.190 was unable to evade effectively except by diving away.
Version of Fw 190 in this test - Fw 190A-3.
Version of P-47 in this test - P-47C-2.
The P-47 Versus Fw-190 at Low Altitude, see attachments.
Version of Fw 190 in this test - probably Fw 190A-5/U8 without racks.
Version of P-47 - P-47D-4-RA with Water Injection.
in document from Micdraw is error. RAF send this report to Australia and someone make a mistake, because original document says -
Tactical
7 . When at 26,000 feet, the Thunderbolt, if jumped by the FW.190 was unable to evade effectively except by diving away.
Version of Fw 190 in this test - Fw 190A-3.
Version of P-47 in this test - P-47C-2.
The P-47 Versus Fw-190 at Low Altitude, see attachments.
Version of Fw 190 in this test - probably Fw 190A-5/U8 without racks.
Version of P-47 - P-47D-4-RA with Water Injection.
Attachments
check this link, the opinion of a WW2 fighter pilot who flew both the P47 and the P51:
P-47 THUNDERBOLT
P-47 THUNDERBOLT
