P-47N Thunderbolt vs. F4U-4 Corsair - Which was superior?

[Snorts]

First post:

My Dad flew the P-47N. He engaged in mock combat with the F4U's all the time, in both a D model and an N model, and against the -4's as well as earlier marks.

For practice flights his squadron would fly south from Dover Delaware on loooong training flights. On the way back they would often engage Navy Units in their birds in dogfights.

My Pop's thoughts on all this, as captured in several oral history sessions.

The Corsairs wanted the fight below 15,000 feet, the Thunderbolt pilots above that. Taunting would ensue until one group said heck with it and climbed or dove to engage.

In a D model P-47 Pop said it had a performance very similar to earlier Corsairs. And, he couldn't tell by looking which model F4U he was facing. That said, what a -4 pilot would do was to lure the P-47 into a half or quarter turn, high G, then roll wings level and zoom climb. The -4 outrolled and out zoomed the P-47D's, and as the D fell off the Corsair had them.

In the N model when the -4 did that, the N outrolled and out-zoomed the Corsair. he said the Jug would catch and soar past the Corsair, and he would wave. The Corsair pilots would wave back with one finger.

Dad said you did NOT turn with the Corsair, they could out turn the Jug, any version. But he dismissed that as insignificant, a Jug pilot never thought of getting into a luffberry anyway. Dive, zoom, roll, those were what the Jug did well. He also said the lead computing sight was a great piece of equipment.

According to Dad, the poor sustained climb rate of the P-47N meant nothing. He was flying into combat at the altitude he wanted, and the zoom climb was what was used in aerial combat, and the P-47 excelled at that.

He dearly loved his P-47's. But before one thinks he was blindly loyal to it, he freely admits the P-51 was better below 30,000 feet. Even at that, he said that above 30,000 feet with the Mustang "you still had an airplane". In other words, it was still capable.

I have it on tape, me asking Dad to pick the plane that did things better, P-51 or his favorite, the P-47.

Speed..."Mustang" (According to Dad, the N did not outrun the Mustang until above 22000 feet or so. The D models could not outrun it at any altitude. He flew P-51s with 145 octane, and he said it made the acceleration, climb rate and top speed down low even more of an advantage for the Mustang).
Acceleration..."Mustang"
Roll rate...."Mustang"
Dive acceleration..."Mustang"
Dive speed....a long pause. Then a tired sounding "Mustang".
Zoom climb...."Mustang". His eyes lit up on that. According to him, the P-51 was fantastic in the zoom, and he felt it was the single best attribute of the Mustang.
Visibility..."Mustang"
Turn..."Mustang"
Dad tired of this, and began talking. Basically he told me that sure, the P-51 did most things better than the Jug, except bring you home. According to him, Pilots liked that better than any performance or maneuverability advantage, and liked the added firepower as well. Tough with a great punch. He would have preferred flying the P-47 in combat.

The war ended as he was, literally, on the way to Ie Shima. He and my Mom were part of the occupation, and Dad was assigned to a P-51 photo recon unit in Japan, getting in his Mustang hours. *Edit* Again, per the old Man...the Recon versions of the Mustang ALWAYS flew like they had a full fuselage tank due to the camera location.

Dad is deceased, after serving in three wars, WW2, Korea where he actually flew the B-26, and Viet-Nam. Take this for what it is worth, it is offered with no apologies or caveats.

I like this forum!

 

[drgondog]

First post:

My Dad flew the P-47N. He engaged in mock combat with the F4U's all the time, in both a D model and an N model, and against the -4's as well as earlier marks.

For practice flights his squadron would fly south from Dover Delaware on loooong training flights. On the way back they would often engage Navy Units in their birds in dogfights.

My Pop's thoughts on all this, as captured in several oral history sessions.

The Corsairs wanted the fight below 15,000 feet, the Thunderbolt pilots above that. Taunting would ensue until one group said heck with it and climbed or dove to engage.

In a D model P-47 Pop said it had a performance very similar to earlier Corsairs. And, he couldn't tell by looking which model F4U he was facing. That said, what a -4 pilot would do was to lure the P-47 into a half or quarter turn, high G, then roll wings level and zoom climb. The -4 outrolled and out zoomed the P-47D's, and as the D fell off the Corsair had them.

In the N model when the -4 did that, the N outrolled and out-zoomed the Corsair. he said the Jug would catch and soar past the Corsair, and he would wave. The Corsair pilots would wave back with one finger.

Dad said you did NOT turn with the Corsair, they could out turn the Jug, any version. But he dismissed that as insignificant, a Jug pilot never thought of getting into a luffberry anyway. Dive, zoom, roll, those were what the Jug did well. He also said the lead computing sight was a great piece of equipment.

According to Dad, the poor sustained climb rate of the P-47N meant nothing. He was flying into combat at the altitude he wanted, and the zoom climb was what was used in aerial combat, and the P-47 excelled at that.

He dearly loved his P-47's. But before one thinks he was blindly loyal to it, he freely admits the P-51 was better below 30,000 feet. Even at that, he said that above 30,000 feet with the Mustang "you still had an airplane". In other words, it was still capable.

I have it on tape, me asking Dad to pick the plane that did things better, P-51 or his favorite, the P-47.

Speed..."Mustang" (According to Dad, the N did not outrun the Mustang until above 22000 feet or so. The D models could not outrun it at any altitude. He flew P-51s with 145 octane, and he said it made the acceleration, climb rate and top speed down low even more of an advantage for the Mustang).
Acceleration..."Mustang"
Roll rate...."Mustang"
Dive acceleration..."Mustang"
Dive speed....a long pause. Then a tired sounding "Mustang".
Zoom climb...."Mustang". His eyes lit up on that. According to him, the P-51 was fantastic in the zoom, and he felt it was the single best attribute of the Mustang.
Visibility..."Mustang"
Turn..."Mustang"
Dad tired of this, and began talking. Basically he told me that sure, the P-51 did most things better than the Jug, except bring you home. According to him, Pilots liked that better than any performance or maneuverability advantage, and liked the added firepower as well. Tough with a great punch. He would have preferred flying the P-47 in combat.

The war ended as he was, literally, on the way to Ie Shima. He and my Mom were part of the occupation, and Dad was assigned to a P-51 photo recon unit in Japan, getting in his Mustang hours.

Dad is deceased, after serving in three wars, WW2, Korea where he actually flew the B-26, and Viet-Nam. Take this for what it is worth, it is offered with no apologies or caveats.

I like this forum!

Snorts - this is almost verbatim the same run down from my father who flew all the USAAF birds except P-39 but only flew P-51B and D in combat.

He differed on your dad's summary of Roll giving the edge to the 47D and M until high speed and an overall edge to the Jug above 30,000 feet when the Merlin started running out of power. He did say the 51H was definitely superior to the D and most notably in stability, acceleration, climb and and speed, but also noted the 51B seemed to be nearer in performance to the H than the P-51D's..

AFAK he never did a terminal dive in either a P-38 or a P-47 so had no comment on max dive speed.

The 355th FG, when he was group CO, was rumored at one time to be headed 'east' from occupied Germany just before the war ended in PTO and he snuck more late model P-47D and M time from the 405th FG which was fairly close to Gablingen, GY at the time.

Before he had the 35FG in Japan in 1948, he had some time in P-47N and P-51H in 1946-1947 before we moved to Japan - the 35th was equipped with P-51D/K

 

[Catch22]

to your dad!

Welcome aboard, and great info!

EDIT: Missed drgndog's post, should have quoted.

 

[zoul310]

Dad tired of this, and began talking. Basically he told me that sure, the P-51 did most things better than the Jug, except bring you home. According to him, Pilots liked that better than any performance or maneuverability advantage, and liked the added firepower as well. Tough with a great punch. He would have preferred flying the P-47 in combat.


Terrific post.
Did he think that because of the R2800 or anything else ?
Thanks.

 

[Marshall_Stack]

Great post Snorts and Drgondog. Interesting details....

 

[Snorts]

drgondog, thanks for a great post of your own.

A bit of clarification....Pop agreed with your Dad, the P-47 was better than the Mustang above 30,000 feet. Not that the Mustang was poor, the P-47 just came into its own in the thin air.

Roll rate, who am I to argue? Just reporting what the Old Man said. It is really cool to compare the two opinions, though. I think the point of the story there was that the P-47N rolled better than the P-47D he flew.
He did tell me he remembered cruising along at high speed in the Mustang, throwing the stick over, and banging his head on the opposite canopy side.

Dad apparently did some terminal dives in the P-47. He said that the one thing that separated it from all the other props he flew was that you KNEW it would hold together. You split essed with absolute confidence
He never flew the P-51B, H or K versions, just the D' and the F6. He did say that if you were flying with 145 octane fuel, it was like a different airplane. They also 'blew out the engines' every 20 -30 minutes with the 145 octane to avoid spark plug fouling.

He also described the P-47 as a Cadillac, with a roomy cockpit, and lots of pilot comforts. The P-51 was 'worn' by the pilot, tight fitting and cramped. You also wore gloves in it, because unfinished metal edges would cut you. "Thus the "Spam Can" nickname. When asked, he said the instrument layout for both planes was good.

I quizzed him pretty thoroughly on the charge that the P-51 had high stick forces. I wish I had a video. He wrinkled his forehead and said, "no more than any of the other planes I flew." Constant trimming was necessary when flying the Mustang, and if you didn't have it trimmed right, THAT could cause high stick forces.

Dad also flew all the AAF types except the P-38. He got a ride in a P-39, and had quite a bit of time in the P-40. He also got a flight or two in the P-36. Later in his career he flew the F-86, F-86D, P-80, T-33 and F-101B Voodoo.

 

[Marshall_Stack]

drgondog, thanks for a great post of your own.

A bit of clarification....Pop agreed with your Dad, the P-47 was better than the Mustang above 30,000 feet. Not that the Mustang was poor, the P-47 just came into its own in the thin air.

Roll rate, who am I to argue? Just reporting what the Old Man said. It is really cool to compare the two opinions, though. I think the point of the story there was that the P-47N rolled better than the P-47D he flew.
He did tell me he remembered cruising along at high speed in the Mustang, throwing the stick over, and banging his head on the opposite canopy side.

Dad apparently did some terminal dives in the P-47. He said that the one thing that separated it from all the other props he flew was that you KNEW it would hold together. You split essed with absolute confidence
He never flew the P-51B, H or K versions, just the D' and the F6. He did say that if you were flying with 145 octane fuel, it was like a different airplane. They also 'blew out the engines' every 20 -30 minutes with the 145 octane to avoid spark plug fouling.

He also described the P-47 as a Cadillac, with a roomy cockpit, and lots of pilot comforts. The P-51 was 'worn' by the pilot, tight fitting and cramped. You also wore gloves in it, because unfinished metal edges would cut you. "Thus the "Spam Can" nickname. When asked, he said the instrument layout for both planes was good.

I quizzed him pretty thoroughly on the charge that the P-51 had high stick forces. I wish I had a video. He wrinkled his forehead and said, "no more than any of the other planes I flew." Constant trimming was necessary when flying the Mustang, and if you didn't have it trimmed right, THAT could cause high stick forces.

Dad also flew all the AAF types except the P-38. He got a ride in a P-39, and had quite a bit of time in the P-40. He also got a flight or two in the P-36. Later in his career he flew the F-86, F-86D, P-80, T-33 and F-101B Voodoo.

Snorts,

I am envious of your Dad!

I guess that the P-47N rolled better since it had the clipped wings. I was surprised about the comment of the P-47N being able to out climb the P-47D in the zoom. The P-47N was heavier due to the extra fuel tanks.

 

[renrich]

I had an uncle who was an IP in P47s (and P39s) He said that when in mock dogfights they got waxed by Corsairs. I keep hearing about P47s having good roll characteristics but in Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand," he said the roll rate of the P47 was nothing to shout about. Would not the P47N with the longer wing span have a poorer roll rate than the P47D?

 

[DAVIDICUS]

I think the "N" had larger control surfaces on the wings.

Marshall, check out the following zoom climb test of the "D" and "N" models:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-zoom.pdf

 

[davparlr]

I had an uncle who was an IP in P47s (and P39s) He said that when in mock dogfights they got waxed by Corsairs. I keep hearing about P47s having good roll characteristics but in Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand," he said the roll rate of the P47 was nothing to shout about. Would not the P47N with the longer wing span have a poorer roll rate than the P47D?

Two pilots, two planes, different stories. I suspect the altitude at which the mock combat occurred would make a significant difference, and possibly fuel load. His comments about the -4 against the D would conform to your dad's comments.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Indeed, I suspect such mock combat didn't take place at 30,000 feet.

 

[MikeGazdik]

First of all, thanks to Drgondog and Snorts for some great info.

2nd, I found out it is important to look at the date posted on the top left. I was reading this whole thread and was thinking "man, just a day and I missed alot!" Then I see this started 4 years ago! Oops.

3rd, This fits in nicely with a paperback I am presently re-reading. ( they stay with me forever) Its about an 8th AF pilot that starts out in Thunderbolts, then switches to Mustangs. He pretty much said what it sounded like Snort's father was saying. The Mustang was better, but in the Thunderbolt he felt safer. I guess when things get ugly, and you are on the receiving end, advantage Thunderbolt !

Another great read, thanks to all!

 

[syscom3]

Did the P47D-25 or "N" version have boosted controls?

 

[renrich]

It would be interesting to know the amount of air combat that took place above 25000 feet and below 25000 feet in WW2. I am reading a book, "Retribution" by a Brit named Hastings, about the last year of the war against Japan. He quotes an AAF pilot who said that the B29 sounded like it was coming apart when trying to get above 25000 feet with a full load. My hunch is that many of us have the idea that fighters and bombers regularly mixed it up at 30000 feet while the reality may have been much different.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Renrich has a good point. Combat that starts at high altitude degrades to maintain speed. Tactics that emphasize zoom-climb slashing attacks help but the loss of altitude over time is inevitable.

 

[renrich]

Another point is that, for example one takes two fighters; one has a critical altitude of 25000 feet where it's vmax is at it's best. The other has a critical altitude of 30000 feet where it's vmax is at it's best. The first fighter is superior in vmax and climb at every altitude from SL to 25000 feet. The second fighter is superior in vmax and climb at all altitudes above 25000 feet. The first fighter has a service ceiling of 39000 feet, the second, a sevice ceiling of 41000 feet. Which fighter has the best chance all other factors being equal of winning a fight? The Mustang was considered to be be the best fighter below 25000 feet, the Thunderbolt was considered the best above 25000 feet. Which had the most success against LW fighters? If I am at 30000 feet and want to fight at 25000 feet it is a lot easier to get to 25000 than if I am at 25000 and want to get to 30000.

 

[Snorts]

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts and comments.
To emphasize...Dad said the P-47N was better in the zoom and rolled better than the D models he flew. And that the tactic the -4 pilots used of a brief hard turn, followed by a quick roll to a zoom were nullified when flying the N.
The Jug pilots wanted to fight the Corsairs above 15,000 feet, the Corsairs below that. They two groups would taunt the other until one dove or climbed and the fight was on. To add to this, the Old Man thought this was funny, the way the two groups knew where their advantage was.
And, as to who won all the time, Dad never really said. He just thought it was funny how what used to work for the Corsairs against the P-47D no longer did against the N.
*Edit* Dad also said the Corsair was a "good plane." He was dismissive of the Hellcat. A lot ot typical fighter pilot bravado there? Maybe. Just reporting the facts as my Dad saw them.

 

[syscom3]

....was dismissive of the Hellcat. ......Just reporting the facts as my Dad saw them.

Hmmmm ...... some people at the Best Pacific Fighter thread say the Hellcat was tops.

 

[Daviducus2]

I'm at work right now and can't log in so I have re-registered.

From P-47 Thunderbolt: Aviation Darwinism:

Test comparisons were made with a P-47D-30-RE throughout the early portion of the evaluation period. Much to everyone's surprise, the XP-47N, with its greater wingspan and higher weight actually proved to have better roll performance than the D model. At 250 mph TAS, the N attained a maximum roll rate just over 100 degrees/second. The P-47D-30-RE could manage but 85 degrees/second at the same speed. At higher speeds, the N widened the gap further. In mock combat with a P-47D-25-RE, the new fighter proved to be notably superior in every category of performance. In short, the XP-47 waxed the venerable D model regardless of who was piloting the older fighter. The new wing was part of this newfound dogfighting ability, however, the more powerful C series engine played a role too.
...
The testing program included determining the maximum range of the fighter. This was done with various combinations of fuel loads and external drop tanks. Ultimately, a test flight was made from Farmingdale to Elgin Field in Florida. The XP-47N took off with two 315 gallon drop tanks hanging from the under-wing hardpoints. Usable fuel in these tanks totaled 600 gallons. Added to the internal fuel load, the N eased off the runway with 1,170 gallons of fuel (usable). At a gross weight of 20,166 lbs., the Thunderbolt headed south in company with a P-47D chase plane. Arriving off the coast, east of Elgin in 3 hours, 44 minutes, the external tanks were dropped. Another P-47D, already waiting at Elgin, took on the N in a mock dogfight that lasted for twenty minutes. The throttle was advanced to military power for 15 minutes of this time, with an additional five minutes in the War Emergency Power (WEP) detent. After these fun and games were concluded the N was turned around and flown back towards Farmingdale. Heavy weather over Long Island caused the plane to divert to Woodbine, New Jersey. Having flown 1,980 miles, total fuel usage was measured at 1,057.5 gallons. There was still more than 112 gallons of usable fuel remaining in the main fuselage tank, enough for another 330 miles ...

This was a test between a "D" and an "X" but it generally confirms what other posts are indicating. The P-47N had the capacity for 570 gallons of internal fuel. With an "M" loadout of fuel, the P-47N probably had performance that approached the P-47M.

P-47 Thunderbolt: Aviation Darwinism - The Cradle of Aviation Museum - The Cradle of Aviation Museum

 

[renrich]

D2, my Dean book is packed right now, since I am moving, but when I get situated I will pull it out and recite what his comments about the roll rate of the P47D were. I seem to recall that he said that anything under a four second 360 degree roll was good performance for a WW2 fighter. Of course that varied according to the speed. I got to do a couple of aileron rolls in an L39 once and at 250 knots it could roll 360 degrees in just over one second. When I rolled it, the sensation was that the earth was going around not the plane. Snorts, your comments and recollections are much appreciated.