P-47D or F4U-1?
- Thread starter Sal Monella
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
By June 1, 1944, all P-47D's in the ETO were using 100/150 grade fuel. (44-1)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45.pdf
At 70.0" Hg., with water injection, a maximum speed of 444 MPH was obtained at 23,200 feet.
P 47D Performance Test
Rate of climb (Note - no 70" HG climbs were made in this test, only 65"):
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p47d-44-1-climb.jpg
Top Speed:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45.pdf
At 70.0" Hg., with water injection, a maximum speed of 444 MPH was obtained at 23,200 feet.
P 47D Performance Test
Rate of climb (Note - no 70" HG climbs were made in this test, only 65"):
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p47d-44-1-climb.jpg
Top Speed:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
In answer to the question as to which fighter is best as an escort at 30000 ft it seems to me that both P47 and F4U could get to 30000 ft well enough with the P47 having an edge in performance at that altitude which increased at higher altitudes and the F4U having an edge below 25000 feet which increased at lower altitudes. Since most ACM took place below 25000 feet which fighter would you prefer? The Mig 15 had a definite performance advantage over the F86 above 30000 feet and was much more heavily armed but the kill ratio was heavily tilted for the F86.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
B17's flew at 30K, with the LW flying up to get them. Better to have a good high flying plane able to engage them at high and mid altitudes and avoid the low altitudes 9where the bombers arent).
P47 is still the plane ot have for escort work.
P47 is still the plane ot have for escort work.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I read Bob Johnson's book and he spoke about the terrific roll rate of the P47 but my reference states that: " Nobody raved about aileron performance of P47s, though data for the P-47C-1 showed a peak roll rate of about 85 degrees per second (a 4.2 second full roll) at 250 mph IAS with a 50 pound pilot force on the stick." " for a P47D-30 or D-40 indicated a peak of about 60 degrees per second ( a 6 second roll) at around 220 mph IAS using a stick force of 30 lbs. Roll rate dropped to about half that value at 400 mph IAS.)
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
My information indicates that few B17 or B24 missions were flown as high as 30000 feet especially over Europe.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The P47 would definitely tend to do best using energy tactics whereas the Corsair would do best as an energy fighter against such as the A6M but would probably convert to angles tactics against An FW190.
The F-86 had a lopsided kill ratio for reasons unrelated to its performance relative to the Mig-15. Had the Americans been flying the Mig-15 and the N. Koreans been flying the F-86, the kill ratio would have been the same in favor of the Americans.
I didn't know that this thread was about, "which fighter is best as an escort at 30000 ft." I think you are thinking of the thread about the P-47N and F4U-4.
I believe this thread is just a straight comparison in the air to air role of the late war variants of the F4U-1 and P-47D.
In light of the 100/150 fuel in use in the ETO after 6/1/44 (apparently, not used in the Pacific), the performance of the P-47D was further enhanced with a 444mph top speed (70" HG) and a climb rate that exceeded the F4U-1 at all altitudes. Even at 65" HG, the P-47D could pull 3,260fpm at 10,000ft. There is no test data for the climb rate at 70" HG. This is not estimated or extrapolated data but data from actual tests on an unmodified, production line aircraft in combat trim.
P 47D Performance Test
The best climb rate for the F4U-1 was with WEP at S/L and was 3,210fpm.
I think it would be accurate to say that in a close in, twisting and turning fight where a lead plane tries to shake a chase plane (the sort of "fight" that American Corsair and Thunderbolt pilots might playfully engage in as a test of their flying abilities), the F4U-1 could certainly turn much, much tighter and would win.
In the real world of air to air combat, it was not playful, close in slap fights though. Othyerwise the Zero would've been a real terror. The only advantage I see the late war F4U-1 having is turning radius. At all altitudes, climb goes to Thunderbolt, dive goes to Thunderbolt, roll rate goes to Thunderbolt, speed goes to Thunderbolt and offensive firepower goes to Thunderbolt.
Now the F4U-4 was a different animal entirely. For openers, it had a rocketing climb rate well far and away superior to the P-47D and F4U-1.
Lastly, the F4U-1 had large parts of its wings and control surfaces covered in fabric. Little girl's skirts are made of fabric.
I didn't know that this thread was about, "which fighter is best as an escort at 30000 ft." I think you are thinking of the thread about the P-47N and F4U-4.
I believe this thread is just a straight comparison in the air to air role of the late war variants of the F4U-1 and P-47D.
In light of the 100/150 fuel in use in the ETO after 6/1/44 (apparently, not used in the Pacific), the performance of the P-47D was further enhanced with a 444mph top speed (70" HG) and a climb rate that exceeded the F4U-1 at all altitudes. Even at 65" HG, the P-47D could pull 3,260fpm at 10,000ft. There is no test data for the climb rate at 70" HG. This is not estimated or extrapolated data but data from actual tests on an unmodified, production line aircraft in combat trim.
P 47D Performance Test
The best climb rate for the F4U-1 was with WEP at S/L and was 3,210fpm.
I think it would be accurate to say that in a close in, twisting and turning fight where a lead plane tries to shake a chase plane (the sort of "fight" that American Corsair and Thunderbolt pilots might playfully engage in as a test of their flying abilities), the F4U-1 could certainly turn much, much tighter and would win.
In the real world of air to air combat, it was not playful, close in slap fights though. Othyerwise the Zero would've been a real terror. The only advantage I see the late war F4U-1 having is turning radius. At all altitudes, climb goes to Thunderbolt, dive goes to Thunderbolt, roll rate goes to Thunderbolt, speed goes to Thunderbolt and offensive firepower goes to Thunderbolt.
Now the F4U-4 was a different animal entirely. For openers, it had a rocketing climb rate well far and away superior to the P-47D and F4U-1.
Lastly, the F4U-1 had large parts of its wings and control surfaces covered in fabric. Little girl's skirts are made of fabric.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
And it was shown that if you want to fight at low altitudes, use the F4U. Middle altitudes are even. High altitudes are for the P47.
I wouldnt want a F4U escorting a B17 at 30,000 feet. And I wouldnt want a P47 escorting light or medium bombers at 12,000 feet.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Seems like syscom 3 has pretty well nailed it. The P47D-30 or 40 had a roll rate of 60 degrees per sec at 220 mph IAS. Roll rate dropped to half that value at 400 mph IAS. The roll rate of the Corsair was 90 degrees per sec at 290 mph IAS. The F4U1D was faster than the P47D from sea level to 15000 feet and even at 20000 feet where the P47D began to be faster. When the question was asked as to how long a runway a P47 needed, the answer was every bit of it.
Do you have a citation for the assertion that the Corsair was faster from 0-15,000ft and also at 20,000ft? I see the P-47D pulling away after 10,000ft and remaining faster thereafter. (See the charts provided via the links concerning the Corsair and Thunderbolt which I have summarized below)
Do you have a citation or data that supports your assertion that the Thunderbolt's roll rate was, well, lousy?
I notice that you just sort of throw out claims without supporting evidence like when you said on the P-47N vs. F4U-4 thread, "The P47B-N carried 267 rds per gun which gave them a firing time of 17.8 sec. The F4U1-4 carried 400 rds per gun which gave them a firing time of 26.7 sec."
Actually, the P-47B,C&D could carry 425 rounds per gun and P-47N could carry 500 rounds per gun. (I cited evidence from pilots manuals and a Republic Aviation publication on capacities.)
Speed of P-47D.
P 47D Performance Test
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg
S/L - 347mph
5,000 - 351mph
10,000 - 392mph
15,000 - 417mph
20,000 - 435mph
23,200 - 444mph (Top Speed)
Climb at 10,000 at 65" (less than 70" WEP) 3,260fpm
Speed of F4U-1.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-17930.pdf
SL - 365mph
5,000 - 383mph
10,000 - 392mph
15,000 - 410mph
20,000 - 430mph
20,300 - 431mph (Top Speed)
Climb at S/L at WEP 3,210fpm.
Climb at 10,000ft at WEP 3,010fpm
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/MSWF4UDATA.pdf
(Less favorable numbers for the Corsair vs. Thunderbolt)
Do you have a citation or data that supports your assertion that the Thunderbolt's roll rate was, well, lousy?
I notice that you just sort of throw out claims without supporting evidence like when you said on the P-47N vs. F4U-4 thread, "The P47B-N carried 267 rds per gun which gave them a firing time of 17.8 sec. The F4U1-4 carried 400 rds per gun which gave them a firing time of 26.7 sec."
Actually, the P-47B,C&D could carry 425 rounds per gun and P-47N could carry 500 rounds per gun. (I cited evidence from pilots manuals and a Republic Aviation publication on capacities.)
Speed of P-47D.
P 47D Performance Test
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg
S/L - 347mph
5,000 - 351mph
10,000 - 392mph
15,000 - 417mph
20,000 - 435mph
23,200 - 444mph (Top Speed)
Climb at 10,000 at 65" (less than 70" WEP) 3,260fpm
Speed of F4U-1.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-17930.pdf
SL - 365mph
5,000 - 383mph
10,000 - 392mph
15,000 - 410mph
20,000 - 430mph
20,300 - 431mph (Top Speed)
Climb at S/L at WEP 3,210fpm.
Climb at 10,000ft at WEP 3,010fpm
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/MSWF4UDATA.pdf
(Less favorable numbers for the Corsair vs. Thunderbolt)
Lt. Mereel
Airman
the Corsair was used in the Pacific Theater againsts japan.
And the P-47 thunderbolt was used in the European Theater against Germany.
I like both of the aircraft, but I'll go with the Corsair.
And the P-47 thunderbolt was used in the European Theater against Germany.
I like both of the aircraft, but I'll go with the Corsair.
"And the P-47 thunderbolt was used in the European Theater against Germany."
The P-47 was used in the Pacific as well. And not just the "N" variant either but lots of "D" aircraft.
Thunderbolt: The P-47 in the Pacific: SS6079
I like the Corsair too.
The P-47 was used in the Pacific as well. And not just the "N" variant either but lots of "D" aircraft.
Thunderbolt: The P-47 in the Pacific: SS6079
I like the Corsair too.
Lt. Mereel
Airman
whoops, havent heard much of the P-47 in the Pacific theater
Renrich said, "When the question was asked as to how long a runway a P47 needed, the answer was every bit of it."
Indeed. Maximum take off weight for a P-47N was 21,198lbs! I believe the Corsair's was less than 17,000lbs.
The following is a fascinating read on P-47N's based out of Le Shima. By June 1, 1945, the 318th had racked up a 79 to 1 kill ratio. They also hold the all time record for the most planes destroyed by a fighter group in a single action when they encountered over 60 enemy aircraft and destroyed 34 without loss. They were the first to use napalm from the air, one of their pilots was the first to destroy an enemy aircraft with a rocket and they are credited with shooting down the last enemy aircraft of WWII.
"Glory Gal" loaded for bear (Note the 1,000lb bombs under each wing, the 500lb bomb under the fuselage and 10 HVAR rockets (140lbs each) for total load of 3,900lbs!
"The 318th Thunderbolts were rushed in between May 13th and 17th. Pilots were appalled by the airfield they found. Instead of the 5,800 dry feet needed to take off with 10 tons weight of plane and stores, they had 3,700 feet of wet sticky rock. Way too short for the big P-47 and the loads they were expected to lift. Major John Hussey, the 73rd CO, cut the tops off some trees on his first takeoff. 333rd CO Major Paul Fotjik described take off this way: "You put the tail wheel at the end of the runway, applied full throttle, full turbo, and the water injection (a "no no" on the ground). As the tail came up, we released the brakes. Sometimes we had to pop the flaps at the far end of the runway to get off. Fortunately, after clearing an embankment, we had a 400 foot drop-off to the ocean going north. We left many a wake in the water". They sometimes left tire tracks in the embankment as they took off too."
~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html
Indeed. Maximum take off weight for a P-47N was 21,198lbs! I believe the Corsair's was less than 17,000lbs.
The following is a fascinating read on P-47N's based out of Le Shima. By June 1, 1945, the 318th had racked up a 79 to 1 kill ratio. They also hold the all time record for the most planes destroyed by a fighter group in a single action when they encountered over 60 enemy aircraft and destroyed 34 without loss. They were the first to use napalm from the air, one of their pilots was the first to destroy an enemy aircraft with a rocket and they are credited with shooting down the last enemy aircraft of WWII.
"Glory Gal" loaded for bear (Note the 1,000lb bombs under each wing, the 500lb bomb under the fuselage and 10 HVAR rockets (140lbs each) for total load of 3,900lbs!
"The 318th Thunderbolts were rushed in between May 13th and 17th. Pilots were appalled by the airfield they found. Instead of the 5,800 dry feet needed to take off with 10 tons weight of plane and stores, they had 3,700 feet of wet sticky rock. Way too short for the big P-47 and the loads they were expected to lift. Major John Hussey, the 73rd CO, cut the tops off some trees on his first takeoff. 333rd CO Major Paul Fotjik described take off this way: "You put the tail wheel at the end of the runway, applied full throttle, full turbo, and the water injection (a "no no" on the ground). As the tail came up, we released the brakes. Sometimes we had to pop the flaps at the far end of the runway to get off. Fortunately, after clearing an embankment, we had a 400 foot drop-off to the ocean going north. We left many a wake in the water". They sometimes left tire tracks in the embankment as they took off too."
~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html
From the linked page on 318th FG:
"May 28th was not: it produced two aces. Twenty-four T-bolts encountered 48 Japanese planes over Kanoya, and 10 pilots scored 17 kills, four probables, and 2 damaged. Stanley Lustic (19th) picked 2 off another pilot's tail and became an ace with 6 kills. And, in another two man show, Capt. John Vogt and his wingman Lt. Philip La Rochelle (19th) dropped their external tanks, and engaged 28 "Zekes" in a wild fight at 28,000 feet. Vogt got 5 and a probable, (ace in a day) and La Rochelle got 1 confirmed and 1 probable. The survivors had had enough and bugged out. "
Some of their opponents that day were the 'elite' 343rd Air Group, flying the N1K1J Shiden-kai (George). The 343rd lost 3 pilots KIA another WIA and at least one other plane belly landed. Looking at other published versions of this combat, the Georges were apparently the "Zekes" which came in at around 20k ft while the P-47's were attacking (actual) Zekes taking off from Kanoya East a/f. But the top cover element of P-47N's saw them at a distance and outclimbed them to 26k ft to start that part of the action at an advantage. Lustic's claims at least were probably against the 343rd. It's described in "Genda's Blade" by Sakaida from both sides and in more detail from the US side in other books.
Joe
"May 28th was not: it produced two aces. Twenty-four T-bolts encountered 48 Japanese planes over Kanoya, and 10 pilots scored 17 kills, four probables, and 2 damaged. Stanley Lustic (19th) picked 2 off another pilot's tail and became an ace with 6 kills. And, in another two man show, Capt. John Vogt and his wingman Lt. Philip La Rochelle (19th) dropped their external tanks, and engaged 28 "Zekes" in a wild fight at 28,000 feet. Vogt got 5 and a probable, (ace in a day) and La Rochelle got 1 confirmed and 1 probable. The survivors had had enough and bugged out. "
Some of their opponents that day were the 'elite' 343rd Air Group, flying the N1K1J Shiden-kai (George). The 343rd lost 3 pilots KIA another WIA and at least one other plane belly landed. Looking at other published versions of this combat, the Georges were apparently the "Zekes" which came in at around 20k ft while the P-47's were attacking (actual) Zekes taking off from Kanoya East a/f. But the top cover element of P-47N's saw them at a distance and outclimbed them to 26k ft to start that part of the action at an advantage. Lustic's claims at least were probably against the 343rd. It's described in "Genda's Blade" by Sakaida from both sides and in more detail from the US side in other books.
Joe
The only rate of roll information I have concerns tactical tests in a December 1942 report between the P-47C, P-38F, P-39D, P-51 and P-40F.
P-47C Tactical Trials
(3) Maneuverability -- The P-47C-1 was flown in mock combat against the P-38F, P-39D1, P-40F, and the P-51.
...
(a) It had superior rate of aileron roll at all speeds, and especially at high speed to all American fighter contemporary types, none could follow it in a fast reverse turn.
...
(e) In close fighting the P-47C-1, due to its faster aileron roll, can quickly reverse turn and break off the combat almost at will.
3. CONCLUSIONS:
...
e. The rate of aileron roll is the best found in any type of American fighter.
P-47C Tactical Trials
(3) Maneuverability -- The P-47C-1 was flown in mock combat against the P-38F, P-39D1, P-40F, and the P-51.
...
(a) It had superior rate of aileron roll at all speeds, and especially at high speed to all American fighter contemporary types, none could follow it in a fast reverse turn.
...
(e) In close fighting the P-47C-1, due to its faster aileron roll, can quickly reverse turn and break off the combat almost at will.
3. CONCLUSIONS:
...
e. The rate of aileron roll is the best found in any type of American fighter.
Yes Joe.
For another good read on P-47N's in the Pacific, see "Oscar F. Perdomo - The Last Ace In a Day of WW II."
For his personal actions Perdomo received the Air Medal with one leaf cluster and the Distinguished Service Cross for extraordinary heroism in action. He also won the honors of being the last USAAF pilot to become an "Ace in a Day", and possibly the last pilot to claim this honor in World War II. See link below.
Oscar F. Perdomo
For another good read on P-47N's in the Pacific, see "Oscar F. Perdomo - The Last Ace In a Day of WW II."
For his personal actions Perdomo received the Air Medal with one leaf cluster and the Distinguished Service Cross for extraordinary heroism in action. He also won the honors of being the last USAAF pilot to become an "Ace in a Day", and possibly the last pilot to claim this honor in World War II. See link below.
Oscar F. Perdomo
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The performance information I am citing on WW2 fighters comes primarily from AMERICAS HUNDRED THOUSAND by Francis Dean, Schiffer Publishing 1997. Dean is an aeronautical engineer having a degree from MIT and worked for 35 years at Curtis-Wright and Boeing. It is apparent to me that there is a lot of data out there which conflicts. Being almost strictly an arm chair pilot most of what I know is what I read. However I reccomend this book to you highly. Even though you may disagree with some of it's material it is well written and appears to have been exhaustively researched. A 6 sec 360 degree roll for the P47D seems awfully slow to me as does a 4.2 sec roll for the Corsair. At the Joint Fighter Conference in 1944 the category of best ailerons at 350 mph showed the F4U1D finishing second behind the P51D. The P47D-30 finished 5th just in front of the P61B. I recently flew an L-39ZA whose roll rate is reputedly more than 300 degrees per second at 250 KIAS. I rolled it twice and it felt like what I imagined rollin a U-Bird or Jug would have felt like. FAST
I have not read Francis Dean's book and thus, have nothing to offer in opposition or agreement for that matter. Did that book indicate that the ammunition capacity of the P-47B-N was 267rpg vs. 400rpg for the Corsair?
I do have the Joint Fighter Conference. "Best ailerons" is not by definition nor necessarily "fastest roll rate." Also, I assume that you are well aware of the report's massive bias favoring USN over AAF aircraft. There are tallies of the pilots that evaluated each of the aircraft. Look at the ratio of USN to AAF evaluators for the USN and AAF fighters.
Because of the general bias in favor of USN fighters, I think it is more interesting where USAAF aircraft come out on top of USN fighters. Where USN fighters come out on top, I think one must factor in the lopsided ratio of USN to USAAF pilot evaluators.
The votes were based not on obective tests measuring speed, climb and altitude but personal, subjective evaluations. It would be easy to see how a very large Thunderbolt might seem to have less responsive or slower aileron control. Familiarity and past experiences helped shape the evaluations. Look at how poorly the P-38L fared. (With it's boosted ailerons, it had a much faster roll rate by the way than the Thunderbolt, Mustang or Corsair) Look at how much better the F4U-1 fared over the F4U-4. Specifically, look at the Best Fighter Above and Below 25,000ft categories.
The categories that are for "Best" were not designed to be in ranked order. It was literally how many votes there were for 1st place. There were no votes for 2nd place and 3rd place, only trailing numbers for other aircraft.
I note that the Seafire (9th place) had less votes for Best ailerons at 350mph than the P-61 (7th place). Are you arguing that the Black Widow had a faster roll rate that the Seafire?
I do have the Joint Fighter Conference. "Best ailerons" is not by definition nor necessarily "fastest roll rate." Also, I assume that you are well aware of the report's massive bias favoring USN over AAF aircraft. There are tallies of the pilots that evaluated each of the aircraft. Look at the ratio of USN to AAF evaluators for the USN and AAF fighters.
Because of the general bias in favor of USN fighters, I think it is more interesting where USAAF aircraft come out on top of USN fighters. Where USN fighters come out on top, I think one must factor in the lopsided ratio of USN to USAAF pilot evaluators.
The votes were based not on obective tests measuring speed, climb and altitude but personal, subjective evaluations. It would be easy to see how a very large Thunderbolt might seem to have less responsive or slower aileron control. Familiarity and past experiences helped shape the evaluations. Look at how poorly the P-38L fared. (With it's boosted ailerons, it had a much faster roll rate by the way than the Thunderbolt, Mustang or Corsair) Look at how much better the F4U-1 fared over the F4U-4. Specifically, look at the Best Fighter Above and Below 25,000ft categories.
The categories that are for "Best" were not designed to be in ranked order. It was literally how many votes there were for 1st place. There were no votes for 2nd place and 3rd place, only trailing numbers for other aircraft.
I note that the Seafire (9th place) had less votes for Best ailerons at 350mph than the P-61 (7th place). Are you arguing that the Black Widow had a faster roll rate that the Seafire?
