GregP
Major
The P-47, especially in the later paddle-bladed propeller models, was a bit slower at low altitudes and just a few mph slower at 25,000 feet, but was faster above 30,000 feet and was probably one of the best Allied fighters in WWII above 30,000 feet.
It was a bit less maneuverable due to sheer mass and wing loading, with a wing loading of 48.3 pounds per square foot at normal gross weight for the P-47D-25 versus 39.5 pounds per square foot for the P-51D. So the Mustang was a better turner (in pitch). The Tempest II and V, Fw 190A, Thunderbolt, and Me 109 all had simlar turning circles. See WWIIaircraftperformance.org . The next best was the Meteor II followed by the Spitfire 21, followed by the Mustang II, and led by the Spitfire X, XIV and XVI. Naturally, these are all the aircraft in the comparison. None would want to turn with a Zero at 180 - 280 mph!
A P-47 would out-roll a Mustang from 200 - 300 mph; about 120° for the P-47 to about 80° for the Mustang in the same time. From 300 -400 mph the Mustang could get about 10° closer but still would not out-roll the Thunderbolt. The best roller from 200 - 400 mph was the Fw 190A follwed by the Spitfire 21. From 400 - 500 mph it was the Tempest II and V followed by the Spitfire 21. Again, WWIIaircraftperformance.org.
The Thunderbolt was better in a dive than a Mustang, and the Thunderbolt is shown with a slightly better radius of action than the Mustang (goes against accumulated data in my mind), though both are much more far-ranged than any of the British fighters. A quote from the performance page follows:
"In all cases the range is given at the individual aircraft's rated altitude, with full complement of drop tanks where applicable. Throttle settings are standardized in that five minutes are allowed for take-off at full power, climb at maximum throttle settings to rated altitude, five minutes combat at full throttle, 15 minutes at maximum cruising and the balance at economical cruising. This method is purely arbitrary, and should not be taken as representative of an operational sortie."
I like their comparison at WWIIaircraftperformance.org, but the speeds for the turning circles are not given, so it's somewhat partial data. The comparison gives an idea of the V-G diagram's cornering speeds in relation to one another but precise values are somewhat of an estimate.
At the Planes of Fame Museum, we find that almost everyone who flew a fighter in WWII usually flew only THAT fighter and has very little basis for comparison to other fighters. Maybe a mock dogfight with an Ally ... maybe just heresay of one. Of the people who flew multiple fighters, most had only one transition from one fighter to another one and, again, they KNOW about those two and are guessing about the others, particularly if they never encounterd a particular fighter in combat. A guy who flew in the ETO knows nothing about combat with a Zero at any speed other than what he has heard or read, and vice versa.
One quick story ... we have a volunteer who has been in the U.S.A. for 25 + years, but who flew for the Dutch Air Force in F-86K's, Hunters, and the F-104. He said they used to LOVE getting into dogfights with the guys in English Electric Lightnings and had great fun until the Lightnings ran out of fiuel and dead sticked (they would usually dogfight over the air base). He asked one Lightning pilot if it really WAS a Mach 2.5 fighter. The guy stroked his chin and said, "Toward the fuel you could get to mach 2.5. If you ever got to Mach 2.5 going away from the fuel, you'd never get back to the fuel!"
Typically, most of the guys who flew only the P-51 think it was easily the best fighter of the war, but have not flown any others for a real comparison .. but they are sure they are right! Ditto the Spitfire guys, Me 109 guys, etc. .It is much more interesting to hear a test pilot who had time in 10 - 15 different WWII fighters talk about the comparisons. Of course, if he has only tested and has had no combat time, what are his qualifications to make combat evaluations?
It's a crap-shoot, for sure, trying to get meaningful comparisons about the various fighters against one another. If a Blackburn Roc ambushed an Fw 190 and shot it down, is the Roc better? Or did he get an ambush kill and no real combat was joined ... just an ambush from out of the sun? The real comparisons would be from the infrequent fighter versus fighter dogfights from an equal starting position. Most WWII pilots avoided these for survival's sake, so finding these comparisons is very interesting. In most, the more experienced pilots came out on top regardless of the fighters involved ... at least according to the victor's comments. Natrually, he'd feel that way since he won, and his are usually the only comments available about a particular combat. History, in this case (as in others), is the point of view of the victor.
It's tough to sort out fact from opinion in combat reports.
It was a bit less maneuverable due to sheer mass and wing loading, with a wing loading of 48.3 pounds per square foot at normal gross weight for the P-47D-25 versus 39.5 pounds per square foot for the P-51D. So the Mustang was a better turner (in pitch). The Tempest II and V, Fw 190A, Thunderbolt, and Me 109 all had simlar turning circles. See WWIIaircraftperformance.org . The next best was the Meteor II followed by the Spitfire 21, followed by the Mustang II, and led by the Spitfire X, XIV and XVI. Naturally, these are all the aircraft in the comparison. None would want to turn with a Zero at 180 - 280 mph!
A P-47 would out-roll a Mustang from 200 - 300 mph; about 120° for the P-47 to about 80° for the Mustang in the same time. From 300 -400 mph the Mustang could get about 10° closer but still would not out-roll the Thunderbolt. The best roller from 200 - 400 mph was the Fw 190A follwed by the Spitfire 21. From 400 - 500 mph it was the Tempest II and V followed by the Spitfire 21. Again, WWIIaircraftperformance.org.
The Thunderbolt was better in a dive than a Mustang, and the Thunderbolt is shown with a slightly better radius of action than the Mustang (goes against accumulated data in my mind), though both are much more far-ranged than any of the British fighters. A quote from the performance page follows:
"In all cases the range is given at the individual aircraft's rated altitude, with full complement of drop tanks where applicable. Throttle settings are standardized in that five minutes are allowed for take-off at full power, climb at maximum throttle settings to rated altitude, five minutes combat at full throttle, 15 minutes at maximum cruising and the balance at economical cruising. This method is purely arbitrary, and should not be taken as representative of an operational sortie."
I like their comparison at WWIIaircraftperformance.org, but the speeds for the turning circles are not given, so it's somewhat partial data. The comparison gives an idea of the V-G diagram's cornering speeds in relation to one another but precise values are somewhat of an estimate.
At the Planes of Fame Museum, we find that almost everyone who flew a fighter in WWII usually flew only THAT fighter and has very little basis for comparison to other fighters. Maybe a mock dogfight with an Ally ... maybe just heresay of one. Of the people who flew multiple fighters, most had only one transition from one fighter to another one and, again, they KNOW about those two and are guessing about the others, particularly if they never encounterd a particular fighter in combat. A guy who flew in the ETO knows nothing about combat with a Zero at any speed other than what he has heard or read, and vice versa.
One quick story ... we have a volunteer who has been in the U.S.A. for 25 + years, but who flew for the Dutch Air Force in F-86K's, Hunters, and the F-104. He said they used to LOVE getting into dogfights with the guys in English Electric Lightnings and had great fun until the Lightnings ran out of fiuel and dead sticked (they would usually dogfight over the air base). He asked one Lightning pilot if it really WAS a Mach 2.5 fighter. The guy stroked his chin and said, "Toward the fuel you could get to mach 2.5. If you ever got to Mach 2.5 going away from the fuel, you'd never get back to the fuel!"
Typically, most of the guys who flew only the P-51 think it was easily the best fighter of the war, but have not flown any others for a real comparison .. but they are sure they are right! Ditto the Spitfire guys, Me 109 guys, etc. .It is much more interesting to hear a test pilot who had time in 10 - 15 different WWII fighters talk about the comparisons. Of course, if he has only tested and has had no combat time, what are his qualifications to make combat evaluations?
It's a crap-shoot, for sure, trying to get meaningful comparisons about the various fighters against one another. If a Blackburn Roc ambushed an Fw 190 and shot it down, is the Roc better? Or did he get an ambush kill and no real combat was joined ... just an ambush from out of the sun? The real comparisons would be from the infrequent fighter versus fighter dogfights from an equal starting position. Most WWII pilots avoided these for survival's sake, so finding these comparisons is very interesting. In most, the more experienced pilots came out on top regardless of the fighters involved ... at least according to the victor's comments. Natrually, he'd feel that way since he won, and his are usually the only comments available about a particular combat. History, in this case (as in others), is the point of view of the victor.
It's tough to sort out fact from opinion in combat reports.
Last edited:
I just assumed the 78th was in the 9th AF for some reason but of course 
...kinda destroys the point about the firepower of a massed group of P-47s. (The source quoted for that statement was Warren M Bodie, "Thunderbolt," Wings Special Edition Number 1, 1971 p. 41)
