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

[Ottobon]

Did anybody or could anybody give any info if War Emergency Power on P-47M/Ns reduced power above about 32,000ft so that at a higher altitude military power rating was actually more efficient?

This is a long and interesting thread that may have a Engine Power vs Altitude chart for the R-2800-57(C) but with busy holidays thought it would be worth asking rather then digging through entire thread incase somebody had it onhand.

 

[tomo pauk]

This graph might be interesting, when comparing speed on WER and military power. The WER still makes sense between 32000 and ~38500 ft, with manifold pressure steadily decreasing from 72 to 54.5 in Hg, and power from 2800 to 2100 HP. Above that the military power takes hold.

added: during the climb, the advantage of the WER diminishes at or above 30000 ft, moreso with the heavier a bit slower -N. graph; the -N was also with more wing area.

 

[GregP]

Hi Tomo,

The second graph makes complete sense.

The first one is a bit confusing. What are the units along the vertical axis? Since the graphs look about the same, it SHOULD be altitude, but the numbers go from 0 - 100, so maybe it is hundreds of meters? But that would mean the "100" is only 32,000 feet, so I don't think so.

 

[tomo pauk]

The graph above, left, is a bit cropped on left side. So on the right side it has marks '20', '30' and '40', among other, meaning 20000, 30000 and 40000 ft respectively.

 

[GregP]

I saw the hand-written number on the right, but was just wondering what the number on the left meant. I'll just take the charts as you intended, and thanks, Tomo.

 

[bentwings]

Flyin through trees. Nice but how about the Corsair guy that got two kills by chopping the tail off of the enemy with the prop. Not that a jug could do that just as well. The guy got a hero,medal...
msny years ago someone dug up a military test of all the popular fighters. They had prime examples of each. They were all put through their paces for a week of testing. Only the Corsair was still flyable at the end.
I build and fly rc scale models over the years I've seen a number of various nice scale models. Just check8ng the actual scale size and comparing only the same factor to my Corsair. It was faster by far as judged by other flyers. Turned and tacitlynflown was good enough to earn me ace for 5 meets first place. Yes I had kill flags. Wouldn't you? I had the advantage being a drag car racer so I applied full scale exhaust adding slight tuning. Also sealedcontrol surfaces cleaned up cowl interior sealed control surfaces. Smooth wheel doors and other race care "tricks so maybe not technically equal but others could have done the same things I ran my motors on the ragged edge all the time and fine tuned the props but it was all cook book stuff. We're I to do another today it would have functional oil cooler openings and larger motor but, it's a hot rod in anybody's book.

just imagine what it was like to go from your flat head40 Ford convert with grand total of 240 hp 3x2 barrel carbs 3/4 race cam Mallory ignition 3 spd trans Columbia two speed rear end to a 2800 hp combat aircraft with take off speed faster than your old Ford could go down hill.LOLIMAGINE OVER TAKing THE ENEMY BY 6 times your best top speed.ripping off more shots of .50 cal in one second than Bonnie and Clyde tommy guns held in an entire magazine.

 

[tomo pauk]

<gets popcorn>

 

[P-39 Expert]

P-39N compared to P-47M/N attached.

 

[fubar57]

​

 

[P-39 Expert]

P-39N compared to P-47M/N attached.

Tomo, why you no likee? Attempted humor not appreciated?

 

[tomo pauk]

Tomo, why you no likee? Attempted humor not appreciated?

I'd hate to see another thread locked down.

 

[Xplodez]

I'm a little late to the conversation, but I prefer the P-47 in terms of looks. If I had to choose to dogfight against the other, I would get in the P-47 and do my best to tear through the F4U with my armament. After reading this thread, however, It seems as if I would have to be careful about my opponent getting behind me.

 

[SaparotRob]

Hi there, Xplodez and welcome.

 

[Admiral Beez]

. . . but you could land a Corsair on a carrier.

True. P-47, not so much.

P-47 carrier capable?

Anyone knows something about this, what version of P-47 that is, when and where it happend?

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Admiral Beez]

View attachment 612167​

Perfect! I'll use that when needed, if you don't mind.

 

[PAT303]

How would either go once they had to turn at 30,000 plus feet?, my guess both would lose altitude rapidly once combat commenced.

 

[SplitRz]

I'm a little late to the conversation

Whats 17 years between friends?!

 

[PAT303]

Whats 17 years between friends?!

True, I'd love to see a few aces going at it at over 30,000ft in the various high altitude fighters, late mark Spitfires, Ta 152, P47M/N, the tactics would be interesting, I'd assume the Spit and Ta pilots would turn and climb, the American's would try to use their speed to boom and zoom, at least for the first pass.

 

[davparlr]

How would either go once they had to turn at 30,000 plus feet?, my guess both would lose altitude rapidly once combat commenced.

Not much decision 30k
Hp available at 30k F4U-1D 1390 P47D-25 2300 910 hp advantage P-47
F4U-4 1700 P47N 2800 1100 hp advantage P-47
airspeed at 30k F4U-1D 380 mph P-47D-25 420 mph 40 mph advantage P-47
F4U-4 428 mph P-47N 464 mph 36 mph advantage P-47
climb F4U-1D 1200 f/m P-47D-25 1650 f/m 450 f/m advantage P-47
F4U-4 1600 f/m P-47N 2000 f/m 400 f/m advantage P:-47

at lower altitude, different story

 

[GregP]

The P-38 was no slouch at high altitudes and neither were 2-stage Spitfires. But the P-47 was at or very close to being one of the best fighters of the war above 30,000 feet. The Corsair was NEVER intended for high-altitude operations. If was a fleet defense and Naval attack fighter that operated most of the time below 20,000 feet and largely below 15,000 feet.

I'd take the Corsair at low altitudes and the P-47 over almost anything else above 25,000 feet. In between would be a crap shoot.

The Ta 152 has been brought up as a high-altitude fighter, but they only delivered about 43 examples to the Luftwaffe, and it had a distinctly pedestrian victory-to-loss ratio (somewhere between 7 and 10 victories against 4 losses). That ratio was due more to the war situation than to any inherent flaws in the basic Ta 152 design, but the airplanes that were delivered were little more than rushed prototypes that were anything but well-developed. There was NO spare parts chain. Any Ta 152 that malfunctioned was used for parts or for major repairs if returned to flight status with other parts. When the war ended, there were exactly two Ta 152C's left operational for the entire Ta 152 series of airplanes. The Ta 152H-0 that the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum has was repaired to fly to the collection point. So, Ta 152s aren't in the mix if only due to lack of availability in general. None of the above detracts from what the Ta 152 design could have become had it been developed and mass-produced. The basic airplane was solid. It just never really had a chance. Two or three Ta 152s weren't ever going to be much good against 200 - 300+ P-51s coming down to straffe when the bombers turned around and started for home in 1945.

The Me 262 was far and away the superior airplane to the Ta 152, and 100 Me 262s were lost to Allied piston fighters against 542 victories for the jet. Even being over 100 mph faster than the competition wasn't enough against overwhelmingly superior numbers of lesser opposition.