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

[Shortround6]

The rate of roll is slower, due to the weight being farther from
the longitudinal axis of the airplane

That's what happens when you stick 90 gallons in each wing

Wing tip may have been clipped but they added around 18" (?) to each wing in the wing root area so the wing area was bit bigger and the wing span almost the same.

Roll response with empty wing tanks might have been interesting. but the guns/ammo/landing gear were pushed further away from the fuselage.

 

[michael rauls]

Just clearing up a misconception that I have seen posted here. The
following information comes from a report dated 17 September 1946
of P-47N No. 44-88406.

" The P-47N airplane has performance and handling characteristics very
similar to the early P-47 airplanes, but due to heavier weights caused by
greater fuel capacity, performance is lower when using equal power
settings. The rate of roll is slower, due to the weight being farther from
the longitudinal axis of the airplane."

P-47 Performance Tests

Just to clear up the discussion of climb rate of the P-47N it was tested as
3,700 fpm/S.L., 3,475 fpm/10,000 ft., 2,950 fpm/20,000 ft., 2,560 fpm/25,000 ft.
which it could reach in 7.8 minutes, all at a weight of 15,790 lb.

I'd go into greater detail but the title says P-47D.

Verry cool info. That's pretty blistering climb for such a heavy plane or still good climb by any standards. Over the years I've seen the p47Ns climb listed as 1600.fpm on quite a few sites. Never made sense and I always figured it was one of those mistakes that someone prints then everyone just copies year after year.
Thanks for posting that and clearing that up.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

But the Ta152 is actually a Fw190D evolution

Splitting hairs and moving off topic, but wouldn't the Ta 152 be the natural evolution of the Fw 190A, with the Dora models just "stop-gap" fillers to hold the line until the Ta's were ready?

 

[Bad-Karma]

It said in turning it took four
circles for the IX to get onto the 47`s tail

I'm actually a little surprised by this from the reputation of the P47's turn rate. This would seem to indicate it wasn't all that bad.

Generally the Spitfire will have more advantages over the P47 in most levels of flight. That's not to say the P47 isn't competitive, especially in the opening aggressive stage of a fight with all that armor and firepower. The longer the fight goes on it's competitiveness goes down substantially.

 

[GrauGeist]

Splitting hairs and moving off topic, but wouldn't the Ta 152 be the natural evolution of the Fw 190A, with the Dora models just "stop-gap" fillers to hold the line until the Ta's were ready?

The evolution of the Fw190 is really no different than other types, like the Spitfire and P-47.

The Fw190D's genesis actually started in 1941 to address the Fw190A's shortcomings at altitude with the first "Dora" prototype flying in 1942. The Ta152 was based on the Fw190C prototypes (also high-altitude) and evolved into the Ta152 by 1944.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

As I see it, a late P-47D with a war emergency rating of around 2550 HP would not have been that far off of the P-47M/N. (Perhaps a bit over 200 HP down, but this level of power was available from D-25 onwards.) The P-47M without the extra fuel would have been the real hotrod of the bunch.

As for the original question for this thread, my vote is for the Spitfire with a Mk.XIV having the greatest advantage over the Thunderbolt except at very high altitudes.
The Mk.XIV would have a slight speed advantage, a huge roll rate and climb rate advantage and a significantly better turn radius. The biggest problem with the Spitfire in most versions IMO is the lack of sufficient ammunition load which is an issue that the Thunderbolts did not have.
I suspect that the test that gave the Spitfire only a slight turn advantage over the Thunderbolt may have been done at a higher than optimal speed for the Spitfire.

I don't believe the Spiteful / Seafang really qualifies as a Spitfire any more. The fuselage appears to be a lot smaller and the wing is non elliptical and laminar flow.
As for the Ta 152, it really was the FW 190D with a designation change as a courtesy to Kurt Tank, the designer. If the designation is that important, then going to something like the FW 190D-13 still leaves you with a pretty hot fighter.

- Ivan.

 

[CORSNING]

Sticking to the title goes like this;

P-47D-5 thru P-47D-15 using 52"Hg (2,000 hp) vs. Spit Mk.IX with Merlin
63 & 66 at +18 lb. boost. The LF Mk.V using the Merlin 50M also falls in this
time period.

P-47D-20 with water injection (2,300 hp) vs. Spit F & LF Mk. VIII & IX with
Merlin 61, 63 & 66 at +18 boost.

P-47D-23 with water injection and paddle blade propeller vs. all the above
Spitfires plus the Mk. XIV Griffin at +18 boost.

P-47D-25 (bubble canopy) on using +64 to +70"Hg vs. Spit Mk.14 using
+18 and a few using +21 lb. boost.

P-47M (Europe)/P-47N (Pacific) using 72"Hg vs. all the above plus the
Spitfire Mk.21 using +21 lb. boost.

It takes a considerable amount of time to put together a full work up of
fighter vs. fighter. What is your poison DerGiLLster?

, Jeff

 

[wuzak]

I don't believe the Spiteful / Seafang really qualifies as a Spitfire any more. The fuselage appears to be a lot smaller and the wing is non elliptical and laminar flow.

The Spiteful XIV used the same fuselage as the Spitfire XIV, except for the larger rear fin and rudder. The Spiteful fin and rudder was used on the Spitfire 20-series.

The wing was different to other Spitfires, as was the wing on the 20-series Spitfires.

 

[Zipper730]

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).

Interesting, I would have been inclined to use the VII/VIII/IX against the P-47D's. That said...

The main advantages for the P-47D over the Spitfire XIV were ... dive and zoom climb.

That's an important thing to mention -- most people think of climb as being the steady-state climb figures, and think of dive-speed as the maximum mach number figures cited.

Dive speeds though are not just the maximum speed, but how fast you can get up to them, and the P-47 could get up there pretty fast. Mach number is also an issue more at high altitudes, as some airplanes are stressed to very high airspeeds, but not the highest mach numbers (the Spitfire was able to reach a placard limit of 0.85, dives were done to around 0.89 -- there was also one aircraft that did mach 0.96 in 1951-2, but they entered the dive at 51000 feet and hit 0.96 at 41000 feet -- maximum airspeed was around 450 mph, however).

Climb-speeds also include a steady-state/normal-climb which is based on the climb-rate at optimum airspeed at different altitudes. Zoom-climb is basically going well above that speed, then dumping speed for altitude. There are airplanes that don't have very impressive normal-climb figures, but they can zoom climb very well -- it seems the key to zoom-climb is speed and mass (low drag seems useful as well).

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

That seems about right (to be honest, I'm not sure if any of our aircraft could turn inside the Spitfire, and I mean either instantaneous or sustained turn).

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 2 x 20mm + 2 x 0.50" are the E-winged aircraft. I'm not sure when that first appeared on the scene, but it was a different wing-design at the tip.

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.

From what I remember, the P-47C's could already reach Mach 0.745 placard limit, and reach Mach 0.78 at the very minimum.

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).

Basta was the +25 boost right?

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.

These included drop-tanks or internal fuel?

Firepower: Practically identical

The damage from the 20mm was about 3-4.6 times that of the .50 cal right?

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.

I'd have figured that with the exception of landing-gear, our airplanes would have usually come out on top. That said the Tempest was a monster (14g ultimate load).

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%.

I think I know why, and it's not about robustness: It's about size and speed. The P-47 is bigger and can't fly as fast at low altitude...

Possibly depends on which versions, I suspect the thread title is so broad to make discussion difficult.

AFDU report #66 (23rd March 1943) on IX vs P47 states that roll rates basically so similar that the difference in real terms is inconsequential.

Okay, so they were pretty similar for most purposes -- that's good to have clarified.

It said in turning it took four circles for the IX to get onto the 47`s tail, and that in level flight acelleration in the IX was better, but in diving the 47 was superior in acelleration.

These turn figures: Are they at high altitudes? It seems odd that the P-47 would be able to stay with the Spitfire that long...

Max speeds
basically the same up to 28,000ft above which the IX superior. Sadly the test was only done to 30,000..... I guess as they thought that was about
the likely limit to which any actual dogfights might occur - but that wasnt explicitly stated and is my assumption.

If I recall the critical altitude was around 29000 feet so, if it's gaining at 28000, it will probably gain to at least 29000 feet.

The P-47D's critical altitude seemed to vary from around 28000 feet to 32000 feet depending on regulator and power-settings. If 28000 feet is used, it has largely topped off, and the Spitfire will gain on it. The question after that is after both top off, who will fall off faster, and I'm not confident the Spitfire will. Ram compression figures were quite good with the Merlin's.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The 2 x 20mm + 2 x 0.50" are the E-winged aircraft. I'm not sure when that first appeared on the scene, but it was a different wing-design at the tip.
From what I remember, the P-47C's could already reach Mach 0.745 placard limit, and reach Mach 0.78 at the very minimum.

.

The E wing was the same wing as the C wing, in fact it could be converted. The revised wing was for the F.21 which had 4 x 20 mm cannon.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The Spiteful XIV used the same fuselage as the Spitfire XIV, except for the larger rear fin and rudder.

Not quite, the production Spiteful had a revise fuselage. The depth was increased at the cockpit to raise the pilots position for better view over the nose. If you look at the profile you will
notice that cowling in front of the cockpit of the Spitfire is horizontal, while in the Spiteful it rises from spinner to windscreen

 

[Reluctant Poster]

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.

The stick force is not an aircraft limitation but rather the limitations of the average pilot. The force a pilot could exert on a joystick was determined by a NACA study to be 30 lb. I posted the NACA paper sometime ago. This is why multi engine aircraft had wheels.

 

[wuzak]

The P-47D's critical altitude seemed to vary from around 28000 feet to 32000 feet depending on regulator and power-settings. If 28000 feet is used, it has largely topped off, and the Spitfire will gain on it. The question after that is after both top off, who will fall off faster, and I'm not confident the Spitfire will. Ram compression figures were quite good with the Merlin's.

The critical altitude varied with the supercharger model and boost levels.

As the supercharger improved, the critical altitude was raised. That was to do with the efficiency of the turbine and compressor, and the strength of the rotating assembly (which dictated rpm). This was achieved with detail design improvements and, possibly, material improvements.

As boost levels increased, the critical altitude was reduced.

 

[wuzak]

The E wing was the same wing as the C wing, in fact it could be converted. The revised wing was for the F.21 which had 4 x 20 mm cannon.

The E-wing had the 0.303" ports blanked off?

In any case, the C wing could take 4 x 20mm or 2 x 20mm + 2 x 0.50" if so desired, though none (?) were configured with the 0.50s" and only a few with the 4 20mm.

 

[GrauGeist]

As for the Ta 152, it really was the FW 190D with a designation change as a courtesy to Kurt Tank, the designer. If the designation is that important, then going to something like the FW 190D-13 still leaves you with a pretty hot fighter.

Sorry, but no.

The Ta152 was a Fw190C - but we'll leave that for another discussion

 

[michael rauls]

The stick force is not an aircraft limitation but rather the limitations of the average pilot. The force a pilot could exert on a joystick was determined by a NACA study to be 30 lb. I posted the NACA paper sometime ago. This is why multi engine aircraft had wheels.

I should have added tolerate more stick force AND stay controllable. Probably still not the case but at least my supposition/ question makes a little more sense in the context of the discrepancy between the data presented in the table and the reputation the p47 had.......I think.
Anyway from what a couple of the other posters said above sounds like as G forces increased the p47 went from being mediocre to one of the best at rolling.
I guess that must account for the the discrepancy?

 

[Zipper730]

The critical altitude varied with the supercharger model and boost levels.

As the supercharger improved, the critical altitude was raised. That was to do with the efficiency of the turbine and compressor, and the strength of the rotating assembly (which dictated rpm). This was achieved with detail design improvements and, possibly, material improvements.

Do you have any time-table and which P-47D sub-variants had what?

In any case, the C wing could take 4 x 20mm or 2 x 20mm + 2 x 0.50" if so desired, though none (?) were configured with the 0.50s" and only a few with the 4 20mm.

Didn't know that...

 

[Spitlead]

Wuzak brings up excellent points in the comparison of flying characteristics but those are only a part of the equation. The outcome of any dogfight depends mainly on pilot skill. Look at how well the F-86 pilots did against the MiG-15 with the MiGs many performance advantages. Assuming the pilots in this scenario are equal, the next critical issue is the starting position at the beginning of the fight. If we were we to assume they are flying directly at each other at the same altitude with no advantage, as a Thunderbolt pilot I would take a snapshot during the head on pass and keep flying away and maybe climb. Stalemate. Not much the Spitfire pilot can do. I would in no way force a combat situation where I felt I was not at least on equal terms or better. If the combat was forced, I'd probably take the Mark Spitfire XIV.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

If we were we to assume they are flying directly at each other at the same altitude with no advantage, as a Thunderbolt pilot I would take a snapshot during the head on pass and keep flying away and maybe climb. Stalemate. Not much the Spitfire pilot can do.

A P-47's only real option in that situation would be to dive away, unless the combat was above 30000ft. The Spitfire, Mk.VIII and up, could quickly turn that into an advantage as it could out climb, and out accelerate the Thunderbolt

 

[Glider]

The E wing was the same wing as the C wing, in fact it could be converted. The revised wing was for the F.21 which had 4 x 20 mm cannon.

I admit that I thought they were very different. I thought that on the E wing the 20mm is outside the 0.50 to improve the payload that could be carried.