Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That's what happens when you stick 90 gallons in each wingThe rate of roll is slower, due to the weight being farther from
the longitudinal axis of the airplane
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.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.
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?But the Ta152 is actually a Fw190D evolution
It said in turning it took four
circles for the IX to get onto the 47`s tail
The evolution of the Fw190 is really no different than other types, like the Spitfire and P-47.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?
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.
Interesting, I would have been inclined to use the VII/VIII/IX against the P-47D's. That said...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).
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.The main advantages for the P-47D over the Spitfire XIV were ... dive and zoom climb.
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).The Spitfire could turn tighter and climb faster. In terms of turning, all Spitfires would be able to turn inside a P-47.
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.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.
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.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.
Basta was the +25 boost right?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).
These included drop-tanks or internal fuel?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.
The damage from the 20mm was about 3-4.6 times that of the .50 cal right?Firepower: Practically identical
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).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 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...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%.
Okay, so they were pretty similar for most purposes -- that's good to have clarified.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.
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...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.
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.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.
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 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 Spiteful XIV used the same fuselage as the Spitfire XIV, except for the larger rear fin and rudder.
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.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 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 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.
Sorry, but no.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.
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 thinkThe 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.
Do you have any time-table and which P-47D sub-variants had what?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.
Didn't know that...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.
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 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.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.