Sea fang vs Sea fury vs XP-72

[GregP]

Very true but my point was how do you compare different countries manhour costs when we know nothing of how they are measured. Did Germany count how many hours slaves did before they were worked to death, did the Soviet Union count how many hours people in Gulags worked. Did Britain include the hours that went into a component that arrived free via Lend Lease.

No one seems to agree on how the hours were calculated by US accountants never mind how it was done in countries under occupation and bombing.

For figuring aircraft costs, the hours worked by a slave before death are irrelevant.

They aren't irrelevant morally and should never be so, but they are with regard to aircraft costs.

This didn't start out as a discussion of human condition, it was about aircraft costs. I'd rather keep it apolitical since there is no valid reason for what happened in WWII regarding slave labor.

 

[GrauGeist]

There's plenty of planes that were hammered that made it back, look at some of the damage the 4 engined heavy's took, some of those took damage that was simply unbelievable yet brought their crews home. For every one that made it back many tens of their kind didn't.

You had mentioned earlier, that the P-47 was no more durable than others.

This is really not the case. The P-47 showed many times over, that it was a robust aircraft and capable of absorbing a tremendous amount of damage and still able to make it home.
This is not casting aspersions on other types and it's not belittling the Spitfire, it's simply down to the point that the P-47 was huge, heavy and radial powered.

It came home missing major portions of wings, control surfaces, fuselage, engine or a combination of each. Any one of those listed would have down a lesser type.
The RAF's Typhoon was known to absorb a substantial amount of damage and make it back as well.

But when you fly your fighter through an Olive grove and hope to make it over 100 miles back to base, you better be in a P-47...

 

[buffnut453]

There is something being 'more robust', and there is something 'fragile', and then there is a whole spectrum of aircraft that were between the two extremes. I'd say that Spitfire was robust enough to bring the pilot home even if his aircraft was hit by a few 20mm shells (we've all seen photos), same as 99% of the aircraft of similar era, weight and performance. A good and unlucky burst of 20mm shells will doom a fighter of Spitfire class, but then again nobody will expect that those aircraft fly happily even after receiving such dose of punishment.
We also do know that Luftwaffe wanted something much more substantial than 20mm to bring the B-17s down - the Fw 190s tackling those with 4 cannons on daily basis were found lacking against them.

Entirely agree. Unfortunately, such discussions often rapidly descend into hyperbole with the Spitfire being equated to a paper aeroplane in terms of its combat resilience. The same thing happens when comparing aircraft weapons, where the 50cal gets elevated above everything else while the British .303 gets referred to as a "paint scratcher."

 

[buffnut453]

It came home missing major portions of wings, control surfaces, fuselage, engine or a combination of each. Any one of those listed would have down a lesser type.

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. Take a look at the photo posted earlier which showed a Spitfire which clearly sustained heavy damage to a major portion of the wing as well as the aileron control surface. That's 2 out of your 4 criteria. This is exactly the sort of lazy oversimplification that really bugs me.

Yes, the P-47 was a tough, rugged aircraft...but you're still using the language of "lesser types" which, by default, denigrates those other types. Yes, the P-47's radial was probably more able to take damage than a Merlin or Griffon...but what about the turbo-supercharger. How much damage could that entire installation take before it started impacting performance (and if your aircraft can't hit top speed, it becomes a more vulnerable target)?

 

[Clayton Magnet]

It came home missing major portions of wings, control surfaces, fuselage, engine or a combination of each. Any one of those listed would have down a lesser type.

Certainly only a P-47 could survive missing 60% of the circumference of the fuselage...

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The pilot of this P-47 managed to bring it back, missing the front 2/3rds of the aircraft. Truly amazing

 

[Howard Gibson]

XP-72 top speed was 490 mph

Republic XP-72

Look up those numbers carefully. The Hawker Sea Fury did its top speed at a lower altitude. The XP-72 did 490mph at 25,000ft. The Hawker Sea Fury did 460mph at only 18,000ft. At low altitude, it would outrun the XP-72.

The original Hawker Fury with a Sabre VII engine did 485mph at 18,500ft.

 

[special ed]

Certainly only a P-47 could survive missing 60% of the circumference of the fuselage...

It came back only because the German markings made it superior to other P-47s.

 

[GrauGeist]

Certainly only a P-47 could survive missing 60% of the circumference of the fuselage...

How about missing most of it's wing?

 

[PAT303]

In fairness, he did say "in fighting condition". Most of the photos of heavy combat damage show airframes that were barely flyable...but definitely not in fighting condition.

This is really not the case. The P-47 showed many times over, that it was a robust aircraft and capable of absorbing a tremendous amount of damage and still able to make it home.

None of the P47's mentioned or any other aircraft in a similar situation where in any condition to do anything other than struggle home, they are outliers in the grand scheme of things.

 

[PAT303]

How about missing most of it's wing?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

In fairness, he did say "in fighting condition". Most of the photos of heavy combat damage show airframes that were barely flyable...but definitely not in fighting condition.

Man, give me a plane that'll get me home.

The T-bolt wasn't the flying tank it is sometimes regarded for being, but complaining that it was full of stuff that goes "boom" -- which was P PAT303 's claim -- ignores the fact that much of that stuff was fairly well-protected. Insinuating it was fragile doesn't comport with what I've read over the years.

 

[GrauGeist]

View attachment 650673

A hole in the wing is a far cry from the entire outboard section.

No one is stating that Spitfires, Hurricanes, P-51s, P-38s, et al could not take damage and make it home.

But losing a wing during a collision with a flak tower, flying through an Olive Grove, accidently bouncing off the ground during a strafing attack, being hit 21 times by 20mm cannon, having the fuselage shredding by a flak burst (including the turbo assembly) and more, all to return home safely is a testiment to it's construction.

 

[special ed]

Somewhere on the forum is a pic of a P-47 completely, and I mean completely, covered in oil.

 

[PAT303]

Man, give me a plane that'll get me home.

The T-bolt wasn't the flying tank it is sometimes regarded for being, but complaining that it was full of stuff that goes "boom" -- which was P PAT303 's claim -- ignores the fact that much of that stuff was fairly well-protected. Insinuating it was fragile doesn't comport with what I've read over the years.

I love the Jug but Lets not kid ourselves, a burst of 20mm Mine/API/SAPI's anywhere is going to disable the aircraft at best, cause a fire or explosion at worst.

 

[PAT303]

flying through an Olive Grove

Apparently this is the Jug that flew through an olive grove, funny how everything is damaged except the prop?. Don't get me wrong I love the Thunderbolt but I have a theory that planes that would not have normally made it home did as the Luftwaffe was forced back further and further to Germany.

 

[PAT303]

View attachment 650712 Apparently this is the Jug that flew through an olive grove, funny how everything is damaged except the prop?.

 

[PAT303]

View attachment 650712 Apparently this is the Jug that flew through an olive grove, funny how everything is damaged except the prop?.

 

[PAT303]

Sorry don't know why I have the extra posts

 

[Macandy]

Nobody...but it's a common refrain on this forum and other websites. American aircraft, especially the B-17 and P-47, are consistently elevated as being more robust than British equivalents despite there being little objective evidence to support the assertion.

They were far more substantially built. US standards resulted in significantly, arguably excessively, robust and heavy airframes.
See the later US efforts like the P-51G to re-engineer planes to the UK standards and achieving very substantial weight savings and performance increases

The Lightweight Mustangs were 1,600lbs lighter than the D Model and had much higher performance.