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
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
That book stated that the standard load for a P47 was 267 rds per gun. This was in a table in the front of the book with all the fighters listed. In the section on the P47 in a caption under a picture of the P47,( there are many photos in the books with a good many photos of fighters mfg. in the US between the wars) it states that the max. ammo cap. of the P47 was 425 rds per gun. Actually the Corsairs outboard guns only had 375 rds the other 4 guns had 400 rds. In this book it does not mention the Seafire. The pilots voted the P47 as the best fighter above 25000 feet and the P51 the best fighter below 25000 feet. The F4U1D was voted the best fighter bomber. The P47D was voted the best strafer. There are some incongruities in the voting which I don't understand but apparently all those Navy pilots were appreciative of the AAFs fighters. I really think you would enjoy the book if you got a chance to review it.
"Actually the Corsairs outboard guns only had 375 rds the other 4 guns had 400 rds."
I neglected to mention that. The maximum capacity for the Corsair was thus 2,350 rounds. The maximum capacity for the P-47B-D was 3,400 rounds and for the P-47N, it was 4,000 rounds.
"In this book it does not mention the Seafire."
The Seafire was evaluated at the Joint Fighter Conference. I only mentioned it because you pointed out that the Thunderbolt ranked just above the Black Widow for "Best ailerons at 350mph." (apparently arguing that the Thunderbolt's roll rate was poor) The Seafire ranked below the Black Widow and I think it would be safe to say that its roll rate was far superior to the Black Widow's. Thus, my point was that "Best Ailerons at 350mph" was not determinative of fastest roll rate.
I have done some reading and agree that the Corsair had an excellent maximum roll rate. I wish I had a chart showing the roll rate throughout the range of speed for both the Thunderbolt and Corsair.
One thing I recall reading about the Thunderbolt was that its roll rate was consistently high as opposed to having a sharp peak and valleys depending on speed.
Perhaps someone else has some infornation on the roll rates of these two ships.
I neglected to mention that. The maximum capacity for the Corsair was thus 2,350 rounds. The maximum capacity for the P-47B-D was 3,400 rounds and for the P-47N, it was 4,000 rounds.
"In this book it does not mention the Seafire."
The Seafire was evaluated at the Joint Fighter Conference. I only mentioned it because you pointed out that the Thunderbolt ranked just above the Black Widow for "Best ailerons at 350mph." (apparently arguing that the Thunderbolt's roll rate was poor) The Seafire ranked below the Black Widow and I think it would be safe to say that its roll rate was far superior to the Black Widow's. Thus, my point was that "Best Ailerons at 350mph" was not determinative of fastest roll rate.
I have done some reading and agree that the Corsair had an excellent maximum roll rate. I wish I had a chart showing the roll rate throughout the range of speed for both the Thunderbolt and Corsair.
One thing I recall reading about the Thunderbolt was that its roll rate was consistently high as opposed to having a sharp peak and valleys depending on speed.
Perhaps someone else has some infornation on the roll rates of these two ships.
More on the P-47 in the Pacific. The below piece centers on Thunderbolt ace, Colonel Neel Kearby.
By early 1944, the Fifth Fighter Command had nineteen squadrons, eleven of which were equipped with P-47's.
.
Wings of Valor II- Neel Kearby
.
.
.
By early 1944, the Fifth Fighter Command had nineteen squadrons, eleven of which were equipped with P-47's.
.
Wings of Valor II- Neel Kearby
.
.
.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Interesting enough, Sport Aviation Magizine got some flyable warbirds in 1990 and did a fly off measuring various variables. One was roll rate. The test was done at 200 kts. 10k ft., both right and left roll, full aileron deflection. The FG-1D is an F4U-1 without folding wings. This is the results.
Aircraft roll rate, degrees/sec, Left/Rright
P-51D 55/53
F6F-5 48/26
FG-1D 58/49
P-47D-40 66/61
This indicates that the P-47 would roll quite well at 10,000 ft.
Classic Military Warnings
"If your attack is going too well, you're walking into an ambush." Infantryman's Journal
jpatrick62
Airman
- 19
- Feb 9, 2007
What I find amazing about comparisons tests between Army and Navy fighter, particularly the F4U is the fact there is any comparison at all. It's simply a matter of fact that Navy fighters need a additional bracing for the carrier landings, a retractable tailhook strong enough for the brutal decceleration, and folding wing mechanisms. All this adds considerable weight and drag, about 700 pounds for a WW2 airplane. If you really want to compare aircraft, either add this stuff to a P47 or take it off the F4U. Then you will get a real test of the design. All told, the Vought designers did a fantasic job of creating a naval fighter that was equal to and in many cases superior to, the best fighters of WW2. By the way, the army let it's own test pilots comment on the F4U and compared it to the P47/P51/P38. the results are here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02296.pdf
These 2 fighters were designed for different purposes early on. The naval fighter needs to get airborne quick and needs it's best fighting qualities at a lower alt than do escort fighters. The escort fighter generally has higher wing loading for reduced drag and higher speed, sacrificing low alt manuverability.
The designs of these 2 fighters culminated into the P47M and F4U-4 by 1945.
The F4U-4 was designed with much better higher alt performace, while keeping it's naval requirements for low alt performance. Quicte frankly, the F4U-4 was, in my estimation, probably one of the 3 premier fighters of the war.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02296.pdf
These 2 fighters were designed for different purposes early on. The naval fighter needs to get airborne quick and needs it's best fighting qualities at a lower alt than do escort fighters. The escort fighter generally has higher wing loading for reduced drag and higher speed, sacrificing low alt manuverability.
The designs of these 2 fighters culminated into the P47M and F4U-4 by 1945.
The F4U-4 was designed with much better higher alt performace, while keeping it's naval requirements for low alt performance. Quicte frankly, the F4U-4 was, in my estimation, probably one of the 3 premier fighters of the war.
That test you cited has already been discussed above. If you go back and read, you can get caught up. It was of earlier models of the Corsair and Thunderbolt and was frankly surprising as most people (myself included) would have expected the Corsair to be far superior in most every tested value.
And it isn't just the Corsair that was weighed down with extra weight due to its very different role. Because it was an escort fighter, the P-47 had a much greater fuel load. You will notice that the cited tests of the late war P-47D -
P 47D Performance Test
- indicated a fuel internal fuel load of 370 gallons. All the test data on this thread for the Corsair is with 237 gallons of internal fuel.
133 gallons of fuel is not exactly light. In fact, it weighs well over 700 lbs! Shall we add that weight to the Corsair after subtracting 700lbs for the items you mentioned?
How about the extra weight of that fantastic turbo-supercharger and its components to enable high altitude retention of engine power?
The P-47 could be outfitted iwith six guns instead of eight too.
"These 2 fighters were designed for different purposes early on. The naval fighter needs to get airborne quick and needs it's best fighting qualities at a lower alt than do escort fighters. The escort fighter generally has higher wing loading for reduced drag and higher speed, sacrificing low alt manuverability."
I would generally agree with that but still think its fun to compare and contrast. I for one learn more in about aircraft from the various comparison threads than other sorts of threads.
Lastly, this thread concerns the F4U-1 and not the F4U-4 which was a different breast entiely. That beiong said, I would also agree that the F4U-4 was probably one the three best prop jobs of the war.
I think the P-47N was really a further evolution beyond the "M". At any rate, I think the P-47's evolution culminated with the XP-72 which had actually been ordered into production in late 1944 but then cancelled as the AAF decided that it wanted its fighter programs invested in long range escorts and jets.
3,450hp
Initial climb rate of 5,280fpm
Top speed at 25,000ft of 490mph
Now that would have been a fearsome fighter!
And it isn't just the Corsair that was weighed down with extra weight due to its very different role. Because it was an escort fighter, the P-47 had a much greater fuel load. You will notice that the cited tests of the late war P-47D -
P 47D Performance Test
- indicated a fuel internal fuel load of 370 gallons. All the test data on this thread for the Corsair is with 237 gallons of internal fuel.
133 gallons of fuel is not exactly light. In fact, it weighs well over 700 lbs! Shall we add that weight to the Corsair after subtracting 700lbs for the items you mentioned?
How about the extra weight of that fantastic turbo-supercharger and its components to enable high altitude retention of engine power?
The P-47 could be outfitted iwith six guns instead of eight too.
"These 2 fighters were designed for different purposes early on. The naval fighter needs to get airborne quick and needs it's best fighting qualities at a lower alt than do escort fighters. The escort fighter generally has higher wing loading for reduced drag and higher speed, sacrificing low alt manuverability."
I would generally agree with that but still think its fun to compare and contrast. I for one learn more in about aircraft from the various comparison threads than other sorts of threads.
Lastly, this thread concerns the F4U-1 and not the F4U-4 which was a different breast entiely. That beiong said, I would also agree that the F4U-4 was probably one the three best prop jobs of the war.
I think the P-47N was really a further evolution beyond the "M". At any rate, I think the P-47's evolution culminated with the XP-72 which had actually been ordered into production in late 1944 but then cancelled as the AAF decided that it wanted its fighter programs invested in long range escorts and jets.
3,450hp
Initial climb rate of 5,280fpm
Top speed at 25,000ft of 490mph
Now that would have been a fearsome fighter!
jpatrick62
Airman
- 19
- Feb 9, 2007
133 gallons of fuel is not exactly light. In fact, it weighs well over 700 lbs! Shall we add that weight to the Corsair after subtracting 700lbs for the items you mentioned?
The test I mentioned did not mention that the P47 was outfitted with 133 gallons of extra fuel, and I would suspect that both planes were outfitted similarly for testing purposes. Since this was an army test and service rivalry being what it was, I'm sure the army planes got every advantage necessary
But back to my initial post. Interestingly, the Navy did exactly what I was wondering - what would a "clean" or unnavalized F4U-1 (early version) do? Esssentailly what does the design allow? In short, the F4U-1 maxxed out at 442 MPH without the drag of navalized items in 1943. Climb rate was unfortunately not tested.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02334.pdf
The reason all navalized versions of airframes do poorly compared to their land based versions (see Seafire vs Spitfire, Sea Hurricane versus the land based version) is additional weight and drag factors directly relating to their
navalized requirements.
That all being said, the P47 can best be compared to the P51 or even the P38
since they were all considered high altitude escorts. Interestingly, the army picked the P51 over the P47 for ground support in Korea. This is strange in my book, considering the P47 models would have been better suited for this type of work.
The test I mentioned did not mention that the P47 was outfitted with 133 gallons of extra fuel, and I would suspect that both planes were outfitted similarly for testing purposes. Since this was an army test and service rivalry being what it was, I'm sure the army planes got every advantage necessary
But back to my initial post. Interestingly, the Navy did exactly what I was wondering - what would a "clean" or unnavalized F4U-1 (early version) do? Esssentailly what does the design allow? In short, the F4U-1 maxxed out at 442 MPH without the drag of navalized items in 1943. Climb rate was unfortunately not tested.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02334.pdf
The reason all navalized versions of airframes do poorly compared to their land based versions (see Seafire vs Spitfire, Sea Hurricane versus the land based version) is additional weight and drag factors directly relating to their
navalized requirements.
That all being said, the P47 can best be compared to the P51 or even the P38
since they were all considered high altitude escorts. Interestingly, the army picked the P51 over the P47 for ground support in Korea. This is strange in my book, considering the P47 models would have been better suited for this type of work.
This thread is about the late war P-47D and the late war F4U-1. The comarison you cited was with an earlier F4U-1 variant and P-47C. The P-47C, I believe, had a full internal fuel capacity of 305 gallons vs. 230 for the Corsair. The F4U-1 was by no means the winner. Read it again. If you have some evidence that the Thunderbolt was given a margin of superiority just because it was an Army plane, please show me. Just saying that it "must have been the case" because your plane didn't do as well as you would have liked is intellectually lazy.
As for the next test you are citing with a "cleaned up" version of the F4U-1, go ahead and read that one again to.
442mph at 21,800ft @ 2,000hp. Anything there strike you as strange? Here's a hint. More horsepower at an even higher altitude?
The F4U-1 can't generate 2,000hp at 21,800ft. That was an estimated speed based on 2,000 horsepower. Didn't you wonder how a cleaned up aircraft could suddenly generate more horsepower at an even higher altitude? 
Read what the actual top speed in the test run at WEP was.
Oh, lastly, the aircraft had a different propeller with a different gear ratio, neither of which were production standard. I guess that was to account for being non-navalized huh?
As for the next test you are citing with a "cleaned up" version of the F4U-1, go ahead and read that one again to.
442mph at 21,800ft @ 2,000hp. Anything there strike you as strange? Here's a hint. More horsepower at an even higher altitude?
The F4U-1 can't generate 2,000hp at 21,800ft. That was an estimated speed based on 2,000 horsepower. Didn't you wonder how a cleaned up aircraft could suddenly generate more horsepower at an even higher altitude? Read what the actual top speed in the test run at WEP was.Oh, lastly, the aircraft had a different propeller with a different gear ratio, neither of which were production standard. I guess that was to account for being non-navalized huh?
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
As regards roll rate of the P47, Bob Johnson's book stated that the P47 had an excellent roll rate much better than the Spitfire. In mock dogfights when a Spit got on his tail since he could not outturn it or outclimb it he usually would start rolling and the Spit could not stay with him in that maneuver. His next move if he had the altitude was to dive since the Spit could not stay with him in a dive either. At the bottom of his dive he would zoom climb until the Spit was well below him then he would hammerhead stall the Jug and come down on the Spit which was rapidly running out of airspeed trying to follow him. An excellent example of early energy tactics.
You know, I have Bob Johnson's book somewhere at home. You just gave me the impetus to pull it out and read it. For that I thank you.
Others on this forum have repeatedly made the point that we all get caught up in the minutia of top speed, rate of climb and the like. Hell it's fun! 8)
In the end though, great pilots exploit the relative strengths of their aircraft such that even a tub like the P-47 can dance with Bf-109's and Fw-190's.
Others on this forum have repeatedly made the point that we all get caught up in the minutia of top speed, rate of climb and the like. Hell it's fun! 8)
In the end though, great pilots exploit the relative strengths of their aircraft such that even a tub like the P-47 can dance with Bf-109's and Fw-190's.
Marshall_Stack
Senior Airman
I think it was a shame that the USAF didn't keep P-47s after WWII (other than for Reserve Units). The Corsair proved very useful in Korea as a fighter-bomber. The P-51s did okay but were vulnerable to ground fire since they had a liquid cooled engine.
I agree. Someone on this forum once said that the P-47N had fuel cells as opposed to tanks in the wings that didn't run the risk of condensation forming from non-use. The P-47N would have been closer in performance to an "M" than a "D" without all that extra fuel. The N also had the capacity for 500 rounds per each of its eight guns. If they had switched out the M2's for M3's, can you imagine the inferno? Eight M3's firing at 1,200rpm. That's 160 rounds per second!
I would much rather have a Thunderbolt than a Mustang. That being said, I think the more versatile F4U-4 was better for close air support in Korea.
Here is a picture of an "N" on LeShima.
"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 ordinance load of 3,900lbs.
I would much rather have a Thunderbolt than a Mustang. That being said, I think the more versatile F4U-4 was better for close air support in Korea.
Here is a picture of an "N" on LeShima.
"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 ordinance load of 3,900lbs.
All aircraft are vulnerable to ground fire. Even a radial engined aircraft is vulnerabel. Besides other parts of the aircraft the radial engine does not like ground fire either...
I think you know what he meant Adler.
Something to chew on.
From the Rerport of Joint Fighter Conference, NAS Patuxent River, MD, 16-23 Oct. 1944:
Lieutenant Colonel Tyler: "We have data which shows that in the entire European theatre the P-47is much better able to take punishment and return after any sort of mission - either ground attack or any mission which incurs damage. Thta may be due to the P-47 airplane or due to the air-cooled feature. We don't know which but it certainly can take it better than the other types."
Something to chew on.
From the Rerport of Joint Fighter Conference, NAS Patuxent River, MD, 16-23 Oct. 1944:
Lieutenant Colonel Tyler: "We have data which shows that in the entire European theatre the P-47is much better able to take punishment and return after any sort of mission - either ground attack or any mission which incurs damage. Thta may be due to the P-47 airplane or due to the air-cooled feature. We don't know which but it certainly can take it better than the other types."
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I enjoy your posts Jank. Thank you. Yes, Johnson's book is outstanding and a good reference. I saw a comparison somewhere of his combat record and a Luftwaffe pilot's record over a similar time frame, I think it was Moelder's, and it was amazing how similar their records were. The point of the comparison was that if Johnson had stayed in action as long as some of the German pilots did, assuming he did not get killed, his no. of kills would have been way up there like the German pilot's were.
jpatrick62
Airman
- 19
- Feb 9, 2007
Jank,
I think you need to reread the tests again yourself. The report clearly said that 2 speed test were physically conducted to geet the first result of 431 mph ON wep. In point 3, the testers clearly state that 1875 HP at 21,400 with ram was reasonable to expect, so I'm not sure where you state 2,000 HP would be out of capabilities. Remember, these guys actually did the tests and were there, they're not looking back at data unless you know something they don't. As for the remark about Army pilots favoring Army rides, that's not intellectual laziness, it's just reality. You youself stated earlier that the Combined 1944 fighter conference was slated heavily to the Navy (although I have the book and over 20 Army reps were there as well). Finally, as to my initial assertation that navalized fighters have excess weight that hinders their performance, that's not conjecture, that's fact. Look at the Seafire performance versus the statndard Spitfire, the Hurricanes as well. If you add a tailhook, extra bracing, and a folding wing mechanisms and drag to a P47, the performance will suffer and you'd be foolish to state otherwise.
I think you need to reread the tests again yourself. The report clearly said that 2 speed test were physically conducted to geet the first result of 431 mph ON wep. In point 3, the testers clearly state that 1875 HP at 21,400 with ram was reasonable to expect, so I'm not sure where you state 2,000 HP would be out of capabilities. Remember, these guys actually did the tests and were there, they're not looking back at data unless you know something they don't. As for the remark about Army pilots favoring Army rides, that's not intellectual laziness, it's just reality. You youself stated earlier that the Combined 1944 fighter conference was slated heavily to the Navy (although I have the book and over 20 Army reps were there as well). Finally, as to my initial assertation that navalized fighters have excess weight that hinders their performance, that's not conjecture, that's fact. Look at the Seafire performance versus the statndard Spitfire, the Hurricanes as well. If you add a tailhook, extra bracing, and a folding wing mechanisms and drag to a P47, the performance will suffer and you'd be foolish to state otherwise.
No there is a big idea floating around and you see it alot on this thread. That misconception is that radials were no vulnerable to enemy fire and never broke. That is simply not true, especially the breaking part. I have worked on T-6 engines, if they never broke, I would not have had to work on them.
Were radials more rugged than inlines. Ofcourse they were, everyone knows that, but radials are machines too and dont take kindly to ground fire either.
That is what I truely believe a lot of people around here do not believe.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Radials dont have coolant lines and radiators to spring a leak.
Radials still will quit working when lead is spit into them at a high velocity....
