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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Reply to FLYBOYJ >>>

JJs OK, You may...

You are 100% correct with your above post, about growth, repair... but I had a specific event in mind... I was stationed @ Edwards in 1981; we recieved two new T-38s for the pilots training school there. After the crew chiefs set the planes, they were to be refuled, sent on thier way within two hours. An APU truck clipped the left wing of one and the right of the other (the driver had a heart attack). It was suggested by the Sgt. in charge (I was an airman) to the commander, that in order to save time, the dammaged panel from the one with lessor dammage be replaced with the other's as they were new, less than 50 hour flight time on each, in that way we may be able to release one of them on time. Before removing the panel from the healthy plane, the dammaged section was placed on top; we wound up building the parts from scratch, as the devations were obvious. Not that I thought it was a good idea to begin with... The next day the T-38s were on thier way.
 
Edwards 1981? I used to live in the Antelope Valley. I worked on occasion at Edwards and used to fly there with the Aero Club. The whole area is a lot different today...
 
...Man that was a while ago. Last time I was back there was '95, on my honeymoon (We landed in Vegas, stayed two days, then for two weeks armed with a Caddy from Hertz, traveled from Vegas, to the Grand Canyon, to 4 corners, to LA, to SF and flew home from there) already things were different. Pomdale raceway had expanded, my Trailer Park the Drive In were gone... even the intersections at the wind factory (can't remember the name of where all those wind generators are) were busy. My favorite 'derelict' places were now accessible... I was pretty much a lost soul back then, guess I still am.
 
Jon, you said,

"I posted the info given for the XP-47J to show that we all (yes including myself) are guilty of being able to slant, ever so slightly taint things 'our way' even when we know better. A better example (within Sal approved data) I can not, as of yet, find; how in the world (of sim reality beer) can an aircraft, whose best climb rate, taking what was printed at face value, be 4,900 ft/min @ SL 4,400 ft/min at 20,000 ft reach 20,000 in 4min 15 sec.? Want to know; Mother Nature has an opinion, guarding the '47, as it was her favorite plane of the time, she aided the craft with a well placed blast of her nostril…"

The cut and paste job that I did on that site was as follows:

"The XP-47N took to the air for the first time on July 22, 1944. 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 additional horsepower allowed the N to retain its energy better than the older Thunderbolt. Perhaps the greatest performance increase was in maximum speed. Though not as fast as the stunning P-47M, the heavier N was fully 40 mph faster than the P-47D-25-RE and could generate speeds 30 mph greater than its principal rival, the Mustang. Scorching along at 467 mph @ 32,000 ft., the N could not be caught by any fighter in regular service with any air force on earth with the single exception of its M model sibling. This combination of wing and engine had pushed the N model up to the top rank of the superlative prop driven fighters then in existence."

As you see, there is no "J" data among any of the above. I recall mentioning the "J" and XP-72 in relation to the claim that you made that the P-47 wsa at the end of its design potential and mentioned the top speeds that these two aircraft could achieve. (I never broached the subject of climb rate.) Anyway, I cut and pasted that section from that website rather than just citing to the website in full because I was not in fact adopting all the data this site contains. Just the portion I cut and pased. I have a small part of the report or some other report that references it that mentions that mock battle that specifically says that they switched the pilots just to be sure that the outcome they were getting was really right. They expected the "N" to get, as was written, "clobbered."

As for that websiit that you keep referencing, you are using it too. Even though it contains information that you yourself are claiming can't be true. Hmmm. Could that be an implicit admission that the sources you yourself relying on contain garbage information? Oops.

So, to recap, if I cut and paste a section from a website, I am indeed vouching for the information I cut and pasted. I am ot vouching for any other information regarding dates, persons, events, etc.

As you the small section of a previous post that I erased, as I already pointed out, I removed it because I realized that it was in error. I could have left it up and posted after that that it was in error too. Six of one or a half dozen of the other. What is your point? Whether I erase something 10 minutes (literally) after I post it or make another post immediately thereafter, pointing out that something I wrote was incorrect, what's the difference?

You said, "I'm off 6.2% from your bible"

That "bible" should be your bible too. Otherwise, as you have seen on the multitude of websites and publications, there is a lot of varying information out there and some of it varies an awful lot. If you just decide to choose the datat that you see cited most often, you run the risk of choosing data that just happens to have been used as source material more often than other erroneous material. I am relying on primary source material, hence your apt characterization that I am using a bible. It's time you got some religion Jon.

You said, "For a closer look at how combat weight within my tables are determined: I started with 10997 lbs (funny, practically the same number, somebody please fill the tires), to which I added a 225 lb pilot, 75 lb radio, 30 lbs fudge factor (maybe the pilot naked is 225, maybe the radio weighs more, maybe there was 5 gallons of gas stuck from the last flight), 529 lbs of guns (M2=66.1 lbs), 1296 lbs of bullets (5.184 oz/round) @ 500 rpg 3336 lbs of fuel (6 lbs per gal/556 gal). This brings me to my 'combat weight figure'. I propose your Republic book I have one or more of the following happening, we have different pilots in mind, or a different amount of ammo."

I'm not going to drag out my stuff again but I can tell you right off the top of my head that your weight for the radio (actually, there are three of them) is WAY off. I suspect that there may be other errors in your assumptons on weights of various items as well.

You said, "So much for your bomb analogy."

What are you talking about? What analogy did I make concerning bombs?
 
JonJGoldberg said:
Reply to FLYBOYJ >>>

JJs OK, You may...

You are 100% correct with your above post, about growth, repair... but I had a specific event in mind... I was stationed @ Edwards in 1981; we recieved two new T-38s for the pilots training school there. After the crew chiefs set the planes, they were to be refuled, sent on thier way within two hours. An APU truck clipped the left wing of one and the right of the other (the driver had a heart attack). It was suggested by the Sgt. in charge (I was an airman) to the commander, that in order to save time, the dammaged panel from the one with lessor dammage be replaced with the other's as they were new, less than 50 hour flight time on each, in that way we may be able to release one of them on time. Before removing the panel from the healthy plane, the dammaged section was placed on top; we wound up building the parts from scratch, as the devations were obvious. Not that I thought it was a good idea to begin with... The next day the T-38s were on thier way.
Click to expand...

We canabalize parts for our aircraft all the time but we never use structural parts from another aircraft because of the reasons that FBJ said. If we need repairs like that made such as to the skin of hte aircraft we go to aircraft and they make us another "copy" if you will of the damaged piece.

I am not saying anything about your situation that you talked about at Edwards in 1981. I am just saying from my experience what we do.

Damn I hope that came out allright. :lol:
 
Sal, seriously, Happy Thanks Giving.

>>Sal Monella Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 3:42 pm
As you see, there is no "J" data among any of the above. I recall mentioning the "J" and XP-72 in relation to the claim that you made that the P-47 wsa at the end of its design potential and mentioned the top speeds that these two aircraft could achieve. (I never broached the subject of climb rate.) Anyway, I cut and pasted that section from that website rather than just citing to the website in full because I was not in fact adopting all the data this site contains. Just the portion I cut and pased. I have a small part of the report or some other report that references it that mentions that mock battle that specifically says that they switched the pilots just to be sure that the outcome they were getting was really right. They expected the "N" to get, as was written, "clobbered."<<

In reply, I'll 1st use an old post of yours...

>>Sal Monella Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:49 pm
Jon, with respect to your assertion that, "Fuel in the wings, and the fuselage extension did not benefit the '47's aerobatic performance; although the increased power, fuselage extension (2"), wing air flow improvements did increase its speed."

Please see http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html <<

With this posting, which neglects to describe 'limited endorsement', you took me to an article, labeled: The Cradle of Aviation Series Presents P-47 Thunderbolt: Aviation Darwinism Chapter Eight I opened read the other chapters. In chapter seven you will find... "The J model was an especially good climbing fighter too. It had a climb rate at sea level of 4,900 fpm. At 20,000 feet, it was still rocketing up at 4,400 fpm, and got there in 4 minutes, 15 seconds." I figure if you can cut paste the excerpt of your choice, so may I. I figure if you reference an article, I'm able to read it in its entirety. ...There I go, wrong again, as now you are only vouching for your excerpt; that's OK, as you cement my point about having to filter out information (I made need this later), we now all see the same applies to you.

>>Sal Monella Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 3:42 pm
...the small section of a previous post that I erased, as I already pointed out, I removed it because I realized that it was in error. I could have left it up and posted after that that it was in error too. Six of one or a half dozen of the other. What is your point?<<

My points, there are 3: 1-You make mistakes, as do I; 2-You do not admit to mistakes, rather you erase them; 3-You had made some pretty colorful remarks towards me in those deletions, you choose not to display in light of your error. All within your rights to do; all a reflection character.

>>Sal Monella Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 3:42 pm
As for that websiit that you keep referencing, you are using it too. Even though it contains information that you yourself are claiming can't be true. Hmmm. Could that be an implicit admission that the sources you yourself relying on contain garbage information? Oops.<<

Humm... Lets see how I 'referanced' (am using) this site; 1st my post:

>>JonJGoldberg Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:13 am
http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/aircraft/p-47/7.html
From what must be a 'Sal' approved site, as you sent me here: "Many of the Fighter Groups flying the P-47 in June of '44 were still flying some of the older "razor back" models with the framed canopy. These included the ultimate "razor back", the P-47D-23-RA. This Evansville built fighter was equipped with the latest Curtiss Electric paddle blade propeller. Of all the D models, this one was the fastest and best climbing."

These are but a few for the prop climb thing; at least ones that *ucked up Einstein can give you instant gratification for (You must have edited all of this from your post, as these refrences are now missing; good catch).

The N stats:

Maybe I should not have mentioned the Cradle of Aviation, your referenced site, this is also from your referenced article: "J model was an especially good climbing fighter too. It had a climb rate at sea level of 4,900 fpm. At 20,000 feet, it was still rocketing up at 4,400 fpm, and got there in 4 minutes, 15 seconds." <<

As for this site's info appearing on my tables, I can't seem to remember listing it...

>> ADDITIONAL INFO SOURCED FROM:
*Illustrated History Of Fighters; Editor Bill Gunston; Exeter Books 1983
*The Complete Encyclopedia Of World Aircraft; Editors Paul Eden, Soph Moeng; Aerospace Publishing 2002
*US Military Aircraft; Joe Baugher; Last revised: 20 May 2001; http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/
*Aircraft Of The World; Joe Baugher; Last revised: 9 March 2001; http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/
*USAAF Resource Center; http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/fighters.htm
* http://www.acepilots.com/index.html#top *http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/
*The USAF Museum; http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/early_years/ey.htm
*Special thanks to Jerry Beckwith's work available at http://www.avhistory.org/
*Thanks to Jabberwocky://www.ww2aircraft.net/
*Francis H. Dean, America's Hundred Thousand: U.S. Production Fighters of World War II, Schiffer Military History, 1996
*http://.ww2aircraft.co.uk *http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/yak3/yak3vk108/yak3vk108.html
*History Of the Royal Air Force; http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/ac_hist.html <<

...Nope not there. Must have forgotten to pick up the trash; Oops! In fairness, had I posted something from a web site, it doesn't mean that I go through the whole dam site, checking its references. We all have better things to do. But, if I reference an article, don't make note of where I the author may disagree, I try to follow this 'rule' forget sometimes too, I do expose myself, have been in the same circumstance you find you are in. However, how you handle being wrong, is more important than how you handle being right. So for examples, please view several exchanges between myself lots of members in the Best Fighter III section, at about page 17, or 18. See how I others have responded when faced with our mistakes misjudgments that we all make.

>>Sal Monella Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 3:42 pm
You said, "I'm off 6.2% from your bible"
That "bible" should be your bible too. Otherwise, as you have seen on the multitude of websites and publications, there is a lot of varying information out there and some of it varies an awful lot. If you just decide to choose the datat that you see cited most often, you run the risk of choosing data that just happens to have been used as source material more often than other erroneous material. I am relying on primary source material, hence your apt characterization that I am using a bible. It's time you got some religion Jon. <<

I reposed this not to reply to the religion thing, that stuff is for other sites; but to propose the following... I've repeatedly asked (nicely even as you suggested) for you to submit info from your service manual, send me a copy, or a .pdf. I would love to include 'more accurate data'. I believe the pilots manual to be a better source than the service manual, I have neither, will (gladly) accept info from either; if you send it to me I will indeed re-run the new numbers, repost a revision, name you as a source, fair? I have shared all of my data, posted it, defended it, displayed it. I make no money from it, charge nothing to those interested in its use. I have not posted it anywhere but here (@ ww2Aircraft.net) intend not to post it anywhere but here, as the members here are the ones who caused me to draft it, this site should benefit any residuals from the traffic that may be generated by people looking for it. Most have found the perspective to be at the very least interesting, others are using it as a starting point for their own assessments. That knowledge, knowing that others are using my work in this manner is my payment, my reward for this. Additionally, I receive information to construct better 'simulations' of these aircraft for my own enjoyment.

>>Sal Monella Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 3:42 pm
I'm not going to drag out my stuff again but I can tell you right off the top of my head that your weight for the radio (actually, there are three of them) is WAY off. I suspect that there may be other errors in your assumptons on weights of various items as well.<<

My apologies, you are correct there are 3 radios, and this weight is for all 3, in total. Thank you.

>>Sal Monella Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 3:42 pm
You said, "So much for your bomb analogy."
What are you talking about? What analogy did I make concerning bombs?<<

In reply, I'll old posts of yours...

>>Last edited by Sal Monella on Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
…(For a mental illustration of just how debilitating an extra 2,500lbs can be, imagine what would happen to the climb rate of the "D" if you added a 2,500lb bomb load in addition to having its tanks topped off.)

Seems I tuckered you out; sorry. Where I work, they say I'm one of the most difficult (anal) persons to argue with, that I should have become an attorney instead of the lighting intergration department head, high profile job designer programmer for one of the largest 'smart house' companies out there (I have a gallery I finished in Mexico City for my company coming to the Robb Report). I do not find the attorney comment a compliment, share this with you to show that you are not alone. I am quite a handful.

To wrap up, I believe we are posturing over 'minor differences'. For example I believe I read somewhere (wish I cold remember the source, will post it if I do, or maybe others can help me here) that production differences were as much as this (6% performance differences when consecutive serial numbered aircraft were tested) from may aircraft factories. Please, once again send me data, I will update. The real deal is that I would like the data that appears on my tables to be as accurate as possible. I would like to be able to banter about history, as opposed to 'specs'; I actually hate stats.

Reply To DerAdlerIstGelandet >>>
Yes, you got it right!!! As I gained more experience in the service, I came to learn how ridicules the offer was. It was the 1st thing that popped into my head as I was drafting the reply to Sal, I thank you FlyboyJ for the added comments; 'growth' should have been explained to Sal ( all of you) as well. As former sheet metal mechanic, I deserve some lashes...
 
Jon,

Jon, you said:

"Sal Monella Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:49 pm
Jon, with respect to your assertion that, "Fuel in the wings, and the fuselage extension did not benefit the '47's aerobatic performance; although the increased power, fuselage extension (2"), wing air flow improvements did increase its speed."

Please see http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html"

Again, the excerpt itself makes no mention of any "J" data. Please note that the "Please see http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html comment referred not to what preceeded that cite but what came after which was the cut and pasted excerpt itself. Otherwise I would have just made a conclusory statement and added a cite which I clearly did not do. The purpose of cutting and pasting the excerpt was to point you to that very section of the cited material. Not anything about the "J" climb rate. Otherwise, in keeping with the precedent of my cut and paste, I would have cut and pasted the "J" data as well which I clearly did not do. The "J" climb data has no relevance in a discussion of the relative merits between the "D" and "N" or the accuracy of the "N" data that you are relying on aka "the garbage".

You said, "As for this site's info appearing on my tables, I can't seem to remember listing it... "

You are right. My point that it was a site you sourced from is incorrect. However, my point about the absolute irrelevance of the "J" climb data which was NEVER referenced by me still stands.

Yes I make mistakes. Again, a half dozen of one or six of the other. I erased that small portion of my post within ten minutes of posting it so frankly, I don't see any foul. I could have left it up and made a follow up post but it's just easier to edit the existing post. Sorry of your feelings were hurt. I promise that if you erase something ten minutes after posting it because you realized that it is wrong, I won't get my drawers in a bunch. OK? As far as mistakes, I have no problem admitting to mistakes. I never said that I didn;t make those comments ten minuyes earlier before I erased them. Again, I think you'tr trying to make a case here about nothing. As for colorful comments, I think you're as moron. Happy? I promise I won't delete that.

I am ot the one defending the use of data that I know is wrong. You have already made it clear that you feel that some of the differences that I have pointed out are too minor to make a difference rather than admit that your data is wrong, regardless of the margin. Why would anyone defend the use of data they know is incorrect? Why ekse would you make light of what you assert to be small differences? For the record, some of those differences aren't so small. Like your asserted climb rate being 2,770fpm when it's 2,950fpm.

Just admit that your data is wrong. Do that without colorful references to filling the tires with air or referring to my data as having eminated from my "bible". Like I said, you should strive to collect yout data from primary source "bibles" as well. To do otherwise is intellectually lazy. This ain't rocket science. You can do this. Just get a hold of the correct primary source data and stop wasting energy defending garbage. Hell, your dimensional data is even incorrect!

Your several websites don't even agree with each other and none of them get it correct! Hmmm. Every one of your sites have conflicting informatrion but that shouldn't set off any warning bells - if you're not really interested in accurate data that is.

You said, " In fairness, had I posted something from a web site, it doesn't mean that I go through the whole dam site, checking its references."

Well, how exactly, when you go through all these websites, do you select which data to use since many of the sources vary with each other? Some of them apparently even give rise to false memories. You crack me up. You read a typo (I think I was being too generous. I think it was probably just another instance of garbage data) regarding a difference in length between the "D" and "N" models and then suddenly have a "recollection" that the "N" model was lengthened 2" to move the center of gravity. You and I and everyone else reading our little exchange here know that that is a vat of bullshit.

You have no such "recollection" because you have NEVER read or heard it anywhere. You made it up to support the use of your erroneous data because you can't admit that you're wrong. Talk about character.

You said, "My apologies, you are correct there are 3 radios, and this weight is for all 3, in total. Thank you. "

Not so fast Mr. Magoo. Thank you for acknowledging that I am correct about the three radios but no, you are still WRONG on their weight. (surprise surprise) I don't have the "N" specs in front of me right now but I can tell you that the radios on the D-25 were as follows:

SCR-274N @ 82lbs.
SCR-522 @ 96lbs.
SCR-695 @ 54lbs.

That's a total weight of 232lbs. (The "N" had a HEAVIER total radio weight. Can you guess why?) Now I realize that 232lbs is not really that much different than 75lbs in the scheme of the entire aircraft's weight so I fully expect you to now argue that it's OK to use the 75lb data. By the way, where did you get that 75lb figure? Did you pull it out of your rectum too?

I don't have the time to check item by item all of your other assumptions but I know that total ammunition load weights at different loadings is in my materials as well. I wouldn't place much stock in what appears to be your practice of multiplying the weight of a single round (As evidenced by your assertion that "1296 lbs of bullets (5.184 oz/round) @ 500 rpg) by the number of rounds.

Excuse me but different types of rounds have different weights. An armor piercing round has a diferent weight than an incindiary round. In addition, your computation (which, I might add actually goes out to the thousanth of an ounce) fails to include the steel belt linkage weight as well.

And who told you thst an M2 weighs 66.1 lbs? More of that data that has been residing in your ass! It is 72.5lbs per gun on the D models up to D-25 and 68.5lbs for the M2's installed on the D-25 series onwards.

Lastly, you said on an earlier post, "By the numbers, at sea level a P-47N @ 50% fuel from Combat weight, is at its Max Designed Performance Weight."

Again, where are you getting this shit? That's WRONG!

I did make that bomb analogy so thank you for pointing it out. The point (which I stand by) is that an extra 2,500lbs of bombs or fuel will have a devastating effect on performance. I knwo that you and I agree on this point, just not on whether this extra 2,500lbs of fuel should be included when comparing the relative dogfighting abilities of the "D" and "N" models in a head to head match up. As I have already indicated, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Neither of us is going to make any additional points that convinces the other. it's an argument about fairness and not reducible to an argument like if 2+2 = 4. (I have a feeling though that if your data on 2+2 came out to 4.2, you in keeping with your established pattern, would argue that it's too small of a difference to be of any consequence.)

I got my manuals over the course of many years from a bunch of sources but I understand that there is an outfit called Essco where you can ourchase flight performance and dimensional/weight data for a bunch of different aircraft. Read up and we'll talk some more.

You said, "Seems I tuckered you out; sorry. Where I work, they say I'm one of the most difficult (anal) persons to argue with, that I should have become an attorney instead of the lighting intergration department head, high profile job designer programmer for one of the largest 'smart house' companies out there (I have a gallery I finished in Mexico City for my company coming to the Robb Report). I do not find the attorney comment a compliment, share this with you to show that you are not alone. I am quite a handful."

A handful? The only handful you're wielding is your pecker. Look, I have the accurate stats. I have the facts. You do not. I'm not the one defending the data I have. You are the one playing defense here. That's because as between your data and mine, mine is from reliable primary sources. It's easy to argue when the facts support you. It's too bad you don't have the luxury of occupying that position here. You have no claim to facts. Yeah, you're anal all right. That's how you're so good at pulling garbage out of your ass.

You said, "I actually hate stats."

Yeah from looking at your charts, I can see that. Obviously the product of someone who hates stats. Yep. :lol: To be fair, it does explain why you're so mentally lazy by using your web search engine rather than seeking out prmary sources which no one can argue with. (Well, except you.) I mean, hell, as long as you can plug numbers in, who cares if they are accurate right?

Go out and get a hold of primary source accurate data Jon. You'll see that many of our differences as well as those "false memories" about fuselage lengthening will fall by the way side. This debate is over whether the "N" or "D" would be a superior contender against the F4U-4. You say "D" and I say "N". Neither of us are going to convince the other as at the heart of the debate is whether the "N" should be compared with a full internal fuel load and even you will concede that under the same fuel loads, the "N" will wax the "D" under all circumstances.

Hope you had a good Thanksgiving. I'm sure you have a chart somewhere on the proper mashed potatoes to gravy ratio that you pulled out to to argue with the family over. Lucky for you and unlike with this debate, none of your family can respond with factual data.
 
Alright lets keep this nice okay. There is no reason to get out of hand and start talking about peoples peckers. If you dont like what someone says then work it out in a friendly manner.
 
Agreed. I apologize Jon.

In a couple of days, I'm going to be gone for a while and won't be on the board. I probably won't be checking the board much before then either.

Good discussion!
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
It was not machines that won the war it was men that won the war.
Click to expand...
Exactly Alder! If it wasnt for guys like you and everyone else who served in the armed forces, those machines wouldnt mean anything!

You could give a inexperienced pilot a really good aircraft but he could get shot down my an experienced pilot who was flying a not so good aircraft!
 
For all especially for Sal: You ( possibly others) appear to believe for some reason that this is a personal vendetta. It is not. I thought it simply is/was an exchange of views in whole; more importantly for me, that it had developed into an exchange that had, as one member put it, the feeling of a guy defending a thesis in front of a panel of dissecting experts. I thought to myself how wonderful (I never went to collage). I learned quite a bit from all of this, will outline some changes to the tables as a result. The outline will follow the response/s:

 Sal, your 2nd to last reply (not quoting anymore), starts with bantering about the erroneous 'J' data in the preceding chapters (not web sites), of an article you forwarded me a link to (at the end of which please find 'Return to the Cradle Of Aviation Museum'; once there within a few clicks, you can view the entire article, all eight chapters). Refer people to an article, or section of an article, it is reasonable that a person would look to read the article in its entirety ('cut paste' policies be dammed). So what, you didn't post this 'J' data… Obviously it is of no relevance to the N vs. D question, out of context; in support of the point, all of us must disseminate 'facts' the 'J' data was used. To show that even Sal disseminates 'real' vs 'fiction (aka garbage)' as evidenced by content. I made two errors: 1-I thought you would have read the preceding chapters; 2-Rather than deflecting, I thought you might actually have addressed my point.

 Your 2nd to last reply continues attempting to deflect issues. To refocus them; the amount of time your erroneous post was visible is far off issue; 10 minutes, 5 days, no difference. These points remain: 1-You make mistakes, as do I; 2-You do not admit to mistakes, rather you erase them; 3-You had made some pretty colorful remarks towards me in those deletions, you choose not to display in light of your error; all within your rights to do; all a reflection character.

 Continuing; moving to climb rates: Posted data sources with my climb figures were rebutted by your document/s of 'unquestioned authenticity'. I defended my figure, asked that you post, E-mail, or direct me to where I might be able to see your data (only after I see your source data, will I 'know' I'm wrong). Have you responded in kind; no, you continue to 'harp' in effort to deflect that fact. Again, I may be in error, please send me or direct me to your data, please respond in kind. No response will be considered your admission that my data is correct. An accepted response will be the satisfaction of the request for accessible 'service manual' or 'pilot manual' source data, which you say you have. If the 'service manual' source data is received/posted, where in error, the tables will be modified. I will acknowledge my error by post the source of the correction in the tables, as done in the past.

 I thought the 2" exchange closed: You asked me to post source info, I posted it. You rebutted, asking for justification. I explained continue not to be able support my statement with any documented reference (proving not all info comes from Klingons around Ura…), in perfect cadence of our exchange; not as you suggest, by 'sudden recollect'. I may be erroneous ( serving a vat of bull), as declared when I answered your question the 1st time. If it is found that the 2" difference is bull, or because of anything other than CG adjustment, I will, as always, admit error/s. I've not made the admission Sal; I'm still waiting on access to your 'service manual' source data, which is to include 'D' dimensions please.

 The Weight of radios armaments; before continuing, what follows here is an example of good that can come out of exchanges like this: Info I have says the T-Bolt carried a SCR-274N, consisting of one transmitter (type not given), one receiver (type not given) one modulator (type not given). These are the 3-radios to which I refer. You posted a listing of radio model numbers with weights, being far from versed in 'radio' technology as to know model numbers I looked up everything; you may confirm, follow the link address below (Sal, source info access). Now I had no idea of what I might find, is Sal on to something?... My interpretation of the data (insight into how I discern 'fact' from 'vat'): The SCR-274N SCR-522 do the same exact thing, over the same frequencies. Since the 274 was of 'Navy' origin, I conclude it was used in the Pacific; since the SCR-522 was of British origin, I conclude it was used on the few 'N's that went to Europe. I conclude that they were not used together, as the '47, in whatever version, did not have a radio operator's station. What I find most interesting is the SCR-695, as it was/is an IFF box. Not that I don't believe that it could have been installed in a '47, but as if a rabbit was pulled from a magic hat, I was surprised. Hold this thought for awhile, as I'll get back to it. Bullet Gun weights were taken from the gun table mentioned referenced on my table. Bullet Mixing: The author/s states… Values can only be approximate, and in particular will vary depending on the particular mix of types included in an ammunition belt. The power and weight calculation takes a typical mix of ammunition, where known. They also take no account of the fact that some incendiary mixtures, and some types of HE, were more effective than others were. However, they do provide a reasonable basis for comparison. There is no point in trying to be too precise, as the random factors involved in the destructive effects were considerable. Gun Bullet Weight: I found; referencing Table 3 (I used Table 2, like Sal am very guilty of not going through the entire document, I saw only what I wanted), whose gun bullet weights matched those on Table 2; the author/s states… The specified weight is the weight of the bare guns and the ammunition. It does not include belt links, ammunition tanks, gun mounting points and recoil buffers, synchronization systems and trigger gear, et cetera. Realistic figures for the weight penalty would probably be 30 to 60% higher; for example, values are known of 685 kg for the P-38J and 495 kg for the P-39D. (This is accountability Sal.) I stopped, dead in my tracks. Now, I'm going to use Sal's numbers when available, as posted so that all may see why I stopped. From an empty weight of 10998 we add an 82 lb radio, 54 lb IFF box I had asked you to hold, 225 lb pilot, totaling 11359 lbs; to this we add 3336 lbs of fuel, totaling 14695 lbs, add to this the lighter, unadjusted weights of the guns bullets of 529 lbs 1296 lbs, your total should be 16520 lbs, above both my Sal's 'combat weight' numbers. … Question; what now?

o From the Regimental Division, Office Chief of Signal United States Army Signal Center, Fort Gordon, GA. (http://www.gordon.army.mil/ocos/Museum/ScrComponents/scrf.asp)


 Saying that I may acquire a copy of some inexactly named document/s at some site you believe to be Essco, is not in any way making your data accessible; it is not an answer in kind; it is an omission of data. You may use graphic language, snort, stomp your feet; you may tell all that I'm too ugly, short, fat, that you don't like my hair; that you really really can't send data until the mashed potato charts, ruthlessly enforced at the Goldberg household especially on Thanksgiving, are amended; you may tell everyone to see Chart 2... The temper-tantrum has not replaced the data. No response will be considered your admission that my data is correct. An accepted response will be the satisfaction of the request for accessible 'service manual' or 'pilot manual' source data, which you say you have. If the 'service manual' source data is received/posted, where in error, the tables will be modified. I will acknowledge my error by post the source of the correction in the tables, as done in the past.

After reading this last this reply, thanks for staying with me by the way, it probably appears that I (JJG) am now conducting a vendetta. I am still defending my work, it's accuracy by intent, anything presented in manner that any member sees as being offensive, is a mistake on my part, if pointed out will be avoided in the future.

New Table outlines, as taken from an exchange with Wmaxt 11/26/2005 7:28:10 PM Eastern Standard Time:

I haven't posted my last response to Sal, although I read his post; from this experience, some experience now with you, as they regard to some or all of the performance data (for example the climb rate data)... I'm going to re-label the following headers, Horizontal Limits, Vertical Limits with the following: {@ Projected Combat Weight (Actual value given was calculated checked to be within the 'window' of 'reliable' specifications, when available)}. I'm going to update all 'Combat Weight' figures to read 'Calculated Combat Weight'. I will update all notes to include the amount of 'points' in question.

This should allow me to address data inconsistencies, limit mandated changes as proposed by other's measurements, documents, or other materials, to changes that I may accept, or pass, in a much less condescending light. At this point, again not to be stubborn, condescending, arrogant or rude; due to the inconsistencies of data values from the best of sources, I must both identify where I have used, continue to rely on, my own judgment.

Again, thanks for staying with me, there is a lot to read here. Maybe next weekend, with or with out Sal's data, to better serve all I will post the new tables. PS: been working with Wmaxt in resolving, and including firing range. If we can acquire this data, this new feature should bring us that much closer.
 
Reply to all >>>

I fully agree: It, without doubt, or question was the contrabution of the men women who served that made all the differance.

That said... The topic here is: P-47N vs. F4U-4 - Which was superior? There is no flesh or bone in the question.

...Maybe I should just say "Welcome Vassili" stop looking for a fight; Sorry, signing off to cool down.

Seasons Greetings to all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

O
F4U-4 Corsair contribution in WW2
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
nuuumannn
nuuumannn
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
spicmart
S
Aeroweanie
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
6
Views
524
SaparotRob
SaparotRob
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
J
P-47D Thunderbolt, 'The Madam', 387th FS, 365th FG
Replies
2
Views
714
JulianHale
J
Back