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

[Jank]

I don't think the F4u-4 would have any real advantage in climb at higher altitudes. (Agree that it would at low and medium altitudes)

The F4u-4 is only pulling 2,080hp at 26,000 feet down from 2,450 at sea level.

The Thunderbolt N is pulling 2,800hp at 32,000 feet (She pulls 2,800hp at sea level too)

By the time you're getting beyond 25,000 feet, I think the Thunderbolt is getting pretty close in climb and by the time you're at 30,000 feet, the Thunderbolt would overtake the Corsair because that's 4,000 feet over critical altitude for teh Corsair. The horsepower of the corsair is really hurting and would probably be about 1,900 or so vs. 2,800 for the T-bolt.

 

[gabbys]

I don't think the F4u-4 would have any real advantage in climb at higher altitudes. (Agree that it would at low and medium altitudes)

The F4u-4 is only pulling 2,080hp at 26,000 feet down from 2,450 at sea level.

The Thunderbolt N is pulling 2,800hp at 32,000 feet (She pulls 2,800hp at sea level too)

By the time you're getting beyond 25,000 feet, I think the Thunderbolt is getting pretty close in climb and by the time you're at 30,000 feet, the Thunderbolt would overtake the Corsair because that's 4,000 feet over critical altitude for teh Corsair. The horsepower of the corsair is really hurting and would probably be about 1,900 or so vs. 2,800 for the T-bolt.

the chart i posted on page 8 has the P-47D climb rate up to 30K.

the F4U-4 still maintains a higher climb rate. Even the F4U-1 and F6F-5 maintained a very slightly better climb rate up through 30K.

 

[Jank]

"the chart i posted on page 8 has the P-47D climb rate up to 30K. "

I noticed that. The threead is about the N model though which is not a D. My post concerns the N. The horsepower of the N is 2,800.

Do you know which D model your chart is refering to? Different D's differ in Horsepower and type of propeler. The late war horspower of a D model was 2,530. Your chart shows the P-47D horsepower as less than the F4u-4 up to about 8,000 feet. Don't think so.

That can't be right if we're comparing apples to apples. If we are comparing a late war D model against an F4u-4 then the relative WEP horsepower difference would be 2,530 (P-47D) vs. 2,450 (F4u-4). Your chart either is not comparing a late war D model or a late war D model not at WEP.

 

[Gemhorse]

Still, it was a shame to have discarded the 'Bolt', and the P.38 too, at the end of the War, as the Bolt's ground-attack capability was terrific....As stated, it was pushing to the edge of Prop-aircraft's ability, but perhaps the advent of the Bearcat and Tigercat coming on stream had something to do with it...I agree that the Corsair had the aircraft-carrier advantage in it's favour, although it wasn't really the 'bees-knees' of carrier aircraft.......

 

[gabbys]

"the chart i posted on page 8 has the P-47D climb rate up to 30K. "

I noticed that. The threead is about the N model though which is not a D. My post concerns the N. The horsepower of the N is 2,800.

Do you know which D model your chart is refering to? Different D's differ in Horsepower and type of propeler. The late war horspower of a D model was 2,530. Your chart shows the P-47D horsepower as less than the F4u-4 up to about 8,000 feet. Don't think so.

That can't be right if we're comparing apples to apples. If we are comparing a late war D model against an F4u-4 then the relative WEP horsepower difference would be 2,530 (P-47D) vs. 2,450 (F4u-4). Your chart either is not comparing a late war D model or a late war D model not at WEP.

I'll try to dig it up, but here is a good write up on the p-47N

Climb at 20K is 2550, still below the U-4.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_13.html

 

[Jank]

I'm sure you'r right about the f4u-4 outclimbing the N model at 20,000 feet.. That's why in my earlier post I said -

"By the time you're getting beyond 25,000 feet, I think the Thunderbolt is getting pretty close in climb and by the time you're at 30,000 feet, the Thunderbolt would overtake the Corsair because that's 4,000 feet over critical altitude for teh Corsair. The horsepower of the corsair is really hurting and would probably be about 1,900 or so vs. 2,800 for the T-bolt."

I was wrong though on teh horsepower of the Corsair atb 30,000 being about 1,900. According to your chart, at about 25,000 feet, the horsepower is more like 1,700 so at 30,000 you could just imagine.

Oh, and I think the climb rate listed for the N on that website has aklready been discredited as too low.

 

[gabbys]

I'm sure you'r right about the f4u-4 outclimbing the N model at 20,000 feet.. That's why in my earlier post I said -

"By the time you're getting beyond 25,000 feet, I think the Thunderbolt is getting pretty close in climb and by the time you're at 30,000 feet, the Thunderbolt would overtake the Corsair because that's 4,000 feet over critical altitude for teh Corsair. The horsepower of the corsair is really hurting and would probably be about 1,900 or so vs. 2,800 for the T-bolt."

I was wrong though on teh horsepower of the Corsair atb 30,000 being about 1,900. According to your chart, at about 25,000 feet, the horsepower is more like 1,700 so at 30,000 you could just imagine.

Oh, and I think the climb rate listed for the N on that website has aklready been discredited as too low.

I agree with you 100%

 

[JonJGoldberg]

The posting from gabbys was as informative as it is misleading.

The tests done with an F4U-4 were done using the following:

1- The data in all comparison tables charts showing F4U-4 performances were done with a model equipped with an R-2800-C @ 70 or better in. HG. Not only was this not a standard engine (P&W R-2800-18 or -18W), but it was operated outside its 'rated' envelope. See posted my accompanying image 1 - F4U-4 R-2800-C RATED POWER. Notice that this table shows power well below those in the 'comparison' charts gabbys posted; both taken from the same article gabbys referenced.

2- The F4U-4 power plant standard I mention is confirmed in image 2 –CHARASTICS OF CURRENT FIGHTERS, again taken from gabbys article, re-enforced every time you see "70" in gabby's posted charts, as it 'denotes' a difference from the 'referenced' numbers, in my opinion. Continuing image 2 states that the P-47D had a 12' 2" prop of a 'C' model ('modern' P-47D would have had a 13' prop), that the P-51D was in fact a B.

3- Image 3 – F4U-4 PERFORMANCE WITH P&W R-2800-18W shows, again taken from gabbys's article, displays performance numbers well below those illustrated in the comparison charts gabby posted, cementing my points.

I hear the bells of a previous discussion, IE comparative tests P-47N vs. P-47D another member referenced.

 

[Magister]

Great charts Mr. Goldberg.

 

[CurzonDax]

Kickin charts. I may have missed the post but where did you dig this stuff up?

:{)

 

[gabbys]

Kickin charts. I may have missed the post but where did you dig this stuff up?

:{)

See my post here

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about3233.html


some mostly other aircraft compared to F4U, great overall content.





..

 

[JonJGoldberg]

Reply to CurzonDax >>>

I can not take any credit here, other than the interpretive comments large size of the .JPGs, as the charts were contained in a posting from gabbys, to whom you Magister owe your praise thanks.

gabbys Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:11 am
From: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/MSWF4UDATA.pdf

I have posted a fighter comparison chart of my own, you may find here...
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-520.html
Download the PDF, found below the picture.

 

[pbfoot]

For all the charts and all I see no mention made of what type of props were used were they the Curtiss Wright Electrics or Hamilton Standard I read where some of the pilots prefered the Hamilton props over the hollow type Curtiss because of less flex in the blade giving it better purchase hence better performance

 

[Jank]

Some trivia:

The propeller on the P-47M and N models (according to Republic Aviation) weighed 565lbs.

 

[Skyraider3D]

Quite some discussion!

Fact is Corsairs were still being used in Korea while Jugs weren't, which probably says enough about the aircraft's usefulness if anything else

 

[syscom3]

Quite some discussion!

Fact is Corsairs were still being used in Korea while Jugs weren't, which probably says enough about the aircraft's usefulness if anything else

It has more to do with the fact that carrier jets still were in their infancy while the USAF was fielding its second generation jets.

 

[Skyraider3D]

Actually, Panthers and Skyknights and later Banshees were in the thick of the action, and USAF made extensive use of the Mustang for ground attack, so that argument doesn't hold too well

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The P-47 was not used in Korea becuase of cost. It was decided in the late 40s that the P-51 was going to be the standard recip mount of the 5th AF.

The Navy kept the Corsair on becuase there still was a mission for it. Many of the early jets in the ground support roles didn't have the legs the Corsair or Skyraider had. There was even squadrons moved to the mainland to support combat operations; during Korea most of the Navy's jets stayed on the carrier unless deployed to well-built concrete runway airfields.

 

[syscom3]

Actually, Panthers and Skyknights and later Banshees were in the thick of the action, and USAF made extensive use of the Mustang for ground attack, so that argument doesn't hold too well

The F-51's were used because there was nothing else available early in the conflict. They were quickly replaced as F84's (and others) became available.

And for the USN, untill there were engines powerfull enough to give the carrier jets a good payload and radius of action, they were still a generation behind the USAF.

 

[lesofprimus]

Have to agree with FBJ and syscom here.... Once there was a replacement available, the prop jobs were sent to the scrap heap or Honduras...