P-47D "Jug" Thunderbolt vs Spitfire(any variations)

[DerGiLLster]

Hello,

Have been reading about the P-47 Thunderbolt and amazed to hear what kind of damage it could sustain. There is an even a recorded claim of a pilot flying into a factory with its wings snagged off and walking away alive.

I was just curious to wonder how useful it could be in a dog fight scenario. Let us say there are two equally matched pilots one in a P-47D Thunderbolt and the other in a Spitfire.

For those wondering why I chose a specific model for the Jug and not for the Spitfire, I wanted to see which variant of the Spitfire would do well against the Jug and vice versa. I understand the Griffin powered variants were some impressive performers and were able to out turn the Jugs after a few times. How about the pre-Griffin variants? How would those stack up? IIRC the Griffin variants were introduced in mid-1942.

The Spitfire seems to have had equal speed to the Jug and greater turn rate made it harder to aim, yet the Jug was able to sustain hits from hundreds of rounds, sometimes from 20 and 30 mm German cannons.

I just want to see which plane would be survive first. Would it be the Spitfire having superior maneuverability, or the Jug with its powerful armor? Any other factors I should add to help narrow more conclusive results for the discussion?

 

[wuzak]

The Spitfire XII entered service in early 1943, but did not have the performance to match the P-47D at mid-to-high altitude. At low altitude the XII could have held its own.

The Spitfire XIV entered service in early 1944. It could match or exceed the altitude performance of the P-47D. Except when the P-47D was fitted with later R-2800 with ADI and high altitude supercharger (not sure if or when that happened, certainly the P-47M and N received improved R-2800s).

The main advantages for the P-47D over the Spitfire XIV were roll rate at high speeds (Spitfire was equal or better at 200-300mph IAS), dive and zoom climb.

The Spitfire could turn tighter and climb faster. In terms of turning, all Spitfires would be able to turn inside a P-47.

Acceleration wise I am not sure, but I think this would be in the Spitfire's favour at lower altitudes, and the P-47D's at high altitudes.

Armament wise, the Spitfire's 2 x 20mm and 2 x 0.50" is probably a match for the P-47D's 8 x 0.50" in terms of power, but not in firing time. The earlier Spitfire XIV armamen of 2 x 20mm + 4 x 0.303" is slightly less powerful.

P-47s were not invulnerable, and I doubt many were hit with 30mm rounds and survived. As for 20mm cannon, I believe that the Hispano was superior to most German 20mm cannon. Certainly the MG FF, probably the 151/20.

The Spitfire IX had the same strengths as the XIV, compared to the XIV, but could not match the speed, particularly at altitude, of the P-47.

 

[Shortround6]

P-47s were not invulnerable, and I doubt many were hit with 30mm rounds and survived. As for 20mm cannon, I believe that the Hispano was superior to most German 20mm cannon. Certainly the MG FF, probably the 151/20.

I am sure one or more were hit by 30mm and survived. More than one was hit by 37MM AA and survived. In fact at least one was hit by multiple 37mm and survived.

However surviving does not mean the P-47 is invulnerable.

for more background on this see; Charlie Rife and Richard Kik

If it is an internet hoax it is a pretty elaborate one

However the plane is obviously in no condition to keep fighting Unless piloted by the Black Knight from Monty Python and Holy Grail
And in fact much lesser damage can take a plane out of a dog fight even if it is less miraculous that it makes it home.

any fighter that suffered even a small percentage of such damage would be a serious disadvantage in continuing a fight, even if all controls still worked, which they often didn't.

A lot fewer planes with one or more controls shot away (or cables/rods severed) never made it home to have pictures taken.

Since 20mm guns often fired mixed belts of ammo not all hits caused the same damage.
Somewhere there is a photo of a pilot holding the base of a German 20mm projectile (not a mine shell) that hit his plane in the aileron or outer flap. Not all 20mm hits were German Mine shells and the Hispano was just as destructive, just in a bit different way.

However 90-100 .50 cal bullets per second can also cause a lot of damage. Either the P-47 or the late model Spitfire can do an awful lot of damage with a similar length burst on target.

 

[michael rauls]

At the risk of stateing the obvious these two planes are very different approaches to fighter design. I think which would win would depend on the peramiters of the fight.
High altitude high speed clash I would say the P47 would have an advantage. Lower to mid altitude turning fight my money is definitely on the Spitfire.

 

[michael rauls]

I am sure one or more were hit by 30mm and survived. More than one was hit by 37MM AA and survived. In fact at least one was hit by multiple 37mm and survived.

However surviving does not mean the P-47 is invulnerable.
View attachment 537874
View attachment 537875

for more background on this see; Charlie Rife and Richard Kik

If it is an internet hoax it is a pretty elaborate one

However the plane is obviously in no condition to keep fighting Unless piloted by the Black Knight from Monty Python and Holy Grail
And in fact much lesser damage can take a plane out of a dog fight even if it is less miraculous that it makes it home.

any fighter that suffered even a small percentage of such damage would be a serious disadvantage in continuing a fight, even if all controls still worked, which they often didn't.

A lot fewer planes with one or more controls shot away (or cables/rods severed) never made it home to have pictures taken.

Since 20mm guns often fired mixed belts of ammo not all hits caused the same damage.
Somewhere there is a photo of a pilot holding the base of a German 20mm projectile (not a mine shell) that hit his plane in the aileron or outer flap. Not all 20mm hits were German Mine shells and the Hispano was just as destructive, just in a bit different way.

However 90-100 .50 cal bullets per second can also cause a lot of damage. Either the P-47 or the late model Spitfire can do an awful lot of damage with a similar length burst on target.

If I could I'd give your post a double like for the Black Night of the Holy Grail reference. One of the great bits of all time.

 

[GrauGeist]

You have to take into consideration that the P-47 could fly through an Olive grove and still fly 120 miles back to it's base...

 

[fliger747]

I worked with an explosives guy years ago and he had been a Thunderbolt pilot in Europe. He got hit in the engine by a 37mm round strafing a train. When he got back to base he mentioned to the crew chief "she was missing". Crew chief came back later... "yep, missing a jug".

 

[Glider]

Generally speaking, I would go for the Spitfire. It had the agility, climb and was a match for speed at most altitudes, in particular the XIV. The P47 could of course escape quite quickly by diving and if GA was a factor the P47 has a clear advantage

 

[wuzak]

I was reading about the P-47 in America's Hundred Thousand, where it stated that the P-47's roll rate was poor. That may be another area where the Spitfire was ahead.

AHT also said there were issues with high speed dives in the P-47, namely that the nose would tuck under, and some control reversal could be experienced. But, as I have said before, what made a good diver was not the terminal speed, but the acceleration in a dive, which the P-47 did very well.

 

[wuzak]

Generally speaking, I would go for the Spitfire. It had the agility, climb and was a match for speed at most altitudes, in particular the XIV. The P47 could of course escape quite quickly by diving and if GA was a factor the P47 has a clear advantage

I think the P-47 could escape from a XIV, but may struggle to get in a position of advantage.

The XIV was as fast as, or faster than, the P-47D over almost all altitudes, even up to 40,000ft.

In ground attack the P-47 has 2 advantages - ruggedness/armour and number of guns. I'm not sure if 20mm cannon were better than 0.50" hmgs for hitting light or moderately armoured ground targets, but 8 guns certainly beats 4 or 6 guns for softer targets.

 

[Stig1207]

There is an even a recorded claim of a pilot flying into a factory with its wings snagged off and walking away alive.

Helmut Lipfert flew into a house in his 109 early in his career, and survived uninjured ; luck is also a factor.

 

[MycroftHolmes]

I guess that the best Spitfire to compare with the P47D would be the HFVIII, since they were both high-altitude fighters. In summary:

Speed: The two aircraft were practically identical. With 150-octane the P47D reached 444 mph, the HFVIII did 445 mph (the 'Basta' modification).

Range: Again, the two aircraft were very close. We know that by the first half of 1944, Spitfires based at Culmhead were flying sweeps as far as the Swiss border - a combat radius of 500 miles - and these were MkVII's and MkXIV's, which had less range than the MkVIII.

Firepower: Practically identical

Climb: Spitfire much superior

Turn: Spitfire much superior

Roll: Spitfire has a slight edge

Dive: P47 has the edge

The Spitfire's superiority becomes more marked above 30,000 ft due to its low wing-loading and high power/weight ratio.

With regard to battle-damage it's often a case of comparing apples with oranges: the P47 was doubtless a robust aircraft by American standards but that doesn't mean that it was particularly robust by British standards. There was a lengthy discussion on the (apparently defunct) Great Planes forum after someone pointed out that the Typhoon had a significantly lower loss-rate than the P47 in similar operations over Normandy, despite its alleged mechanical and structural issues, and its use of a liquid-cooled engine. Similarly, if you look at the losses for American-flown planes you find that the Spitfire and P47 had exactly the same rate - 0.7%.

 

[wuzak]

You may have confused Spitfire marks.

According to Morgan and Shacklady the LF.VIII with Batsa modification had a top speed of 409mph @ 14,000ft. Not sure that the HF.VIII had the same boost allowance, and considering that the higher boost comes from a low altitude than the regular maximum boost I doubt the HF.VIII would be faster at high altitudes.

The VII wasn't built in large numbers, and I am not sure of its service history.

The majority of 2 stage fighter Spitfires in the ETO were IX variants.

The XIV did do 445mph+. Not sure abut a 500 mile operational radius.

Regarding power to weight, the Spitfire's dropped off more than the P-47 as the P-47 maintained power to 30-35,000ft, depending on the version and the turbo version fitted, whereas the Spitfire XIV had peak power in FS gear at around 25,500ft (+18psi boost). At 40,000ft the XIV had about half the power of the P-47.

 

[CORSNING]

I guess that the best Spitfire to compare with the P47D would be the HFVIII, since they were both high-altitude fighters. In summary:

Speed: The two aircraft were practically identical. With 150-octane the P47D reached 444 mph, the HFVIII did 445 mph (the 'Basta' modification).

HFVIII with Basta modification?

Wuzak is right. The fastest Mk.VIII (production) I am aware of was capable of 416 mph/27,500 ft.
The Mk.XIV was capable of 448 mph./26,250 ft. using +18 lb. boost and 449 mph./24,000 ft. using
+21 lb. boost.

 

[michael rauls]

I was reading about the P-47 in America's Hundred Thousand, where it stated that the P-47's roll rate was poor. That may be another area where the Spitfire was ahead.

AHT also said there were issues with high speed dives in the P-47, namely that the nose would tuck under, and some control reversal could be experienced. But, as I have said before, what made a good diver was not the terminal speed, but the acceleration in a dive, which the P-47 did very well.

I read that( the roll rate being poor) in Americas Hundred Thousand also. I found this puzzling as every other source I have ever read or heard including pilots discribed the p47s role rate as superlative.
I generally regard Americas Hundred Thousand as being authoritative but no source is perfect( several of those more knowledgeable than myself on this site pointed out a mistake in the same book to me a while back) but when I read one thing from literally dozens of sources and something different from one, even if it's a good one, I tend to lean twards the dozens in agreement. However, I have no way of knowing for sure of course.
Also, If memory serves without dragging out the book right now wasn't that the opinion of just one or two individuals in the" quotes about the p47 section"?

 

[CORSNING]

Michael,
Always be open to those like Francis H. Dean, Peter Caygill, Eric M. Brown
and Erik Pilawskii (when he doesn't let his bias opinion take over). There
are several true historians out there that will not "go-with-the-flow", but
they will dig deeper to try to give you the whole truth.

An extreme example is the publishing of the North American P-51D 's
maximum speed of 437 mph./25,000 ft. The only official document that
I have seen that lists that figure as the P-51D's maximum speed is a
United Kingdom Data Card, and that lists that speed at 24,500 ft. A USAAF
test of aircraft No. 44-15342 being flown by Major E. W. Leach and Captain
D. Gentile produced a maximum velocity of a P-51D-15 as being 442 mph.
at 26,000 ft. using 67"Hg. boost at 3,000 rpm. with one bomb rack on each
wing. These wing racks were more streamline than those installed on earlier
model Mustangs, but when removed the P-51D still gained about 6 mph.

The P-51B,C&D/K were cleared for 72-75"Hg very soon after the introduction
of the P-51D/K in June 1944. This made all the Merlin Mustangs true 445-455
mph. vehicles at their full throttle height.

 

[CORSNING]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
The performance line on this graph is for a P-47C-1. I have not
seen a listing for later versions, but my best guess is they got
better with age. (Just like me)................................

Mr. Mike Williams and Mr. Neil Stirling will not let you down.

 

[michael rauls]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformanc.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

Very cool stuff.
I am cognizant of the fact that just because something is conventional wisdom and everyone repeats it doesn't make it true. I certainly have an open mind when it comes to the Thunderbolts rol rate or anything else for that matter. I do usually tend to believe majority hostorians opinion( with the knowledge that ocasionaly it's wrong) until I find out otherwise because, as fun as it is to find when its not,most of the time the consensus is correct or at least close.
With regard to the p47s roll rate in particular from what I've read, including a couple pilots interviewed( to be fair I think *I read one pilot that felt differently) the Thunderbolt seems to have quite the reputation as a fast roller. Would be odd for such a reputation to exist if the oposite were true but God knows it wouldn't be the first time a plane had a reputation for something that turned out to be incorrect.
As to Francis Dean probably the most accurate historian I'm familiar with near as I can figure out but that doesn't mean perfect as I mentioned previously there is at least one mistake in AHT I'm aware of.
So I guess that's a long way of saying, right now im leaning towards the notion that the p47 did indeed have a great roll rate but certainly opened minded to wiegh evidence to the contrary.

 

[michael rauls]

Just took another look at that graph( just glanced at it a few minutes ago as my wife had found something important for me to do). Didn't show what I expected to see. This may be one of those cases were a plane has a reputation for something that turned out not to be true. According to that graph I wouldn't call the Thunderbolts roll rate poor but certainly not outstanding either. The only thing that jumped out at me that might account for the discrepancy is the graph lists i believe it was 26 lbs stick force for all planes tested. Is it posible that the Jug could tolerate more stick force than other planes? Don't know I'm not a pilot but just a thought that might account for the discrepancy between that graph and the reputation the Jug seems to have.

 

[eagledad]

Jeff and Mike
I have also wondered about the P-47 roll rate, especially after reading Thunderbolt by Bob Johnson. If I understand the NCAA graph correctly, the roll rates shown are for 1G steady roll. In 1990, there was an informal test among a P-51D, a P-47D, a F6F-5, and a FG-1D. This test showed that the roll rates for these aircraft under 3G's the P-47D went from the slowest rolling aircraft at 1G to the fastest rolling aircraft at 3G.

I have attached the article from Sport Aviation so that you may draw your own conclusions.

Eagledad