"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War " (1 Viewer)

[blueskies]

How far a design was pushed had more to do with what was decided/invested in it rather than some intrinsic aspect of the design.

The spitfire at the end of the war is nearly an entirely new aircraft compared to the mkI/II at the start. New structural wing, heavily altered fuselage, completely different tail, different rad, new engine, ect. There were a ton of changes Messerschmitt studied for the 109 - cut down fuselage with all round canopy, new thinner wing with inward retracting gear, new radiators, ect. What held them back was the required changes to production tooling. Germany had shortages of trained labor and lacked the ability to crank out new jigs. The 309 was killed because in large part because of how much tooling it needed. The late war 209, which is pretty much a 109 with new wing and engine, required just 25% or so new tooling with the rest of it the same as a regular 109.

 

[buffnut453]

How far a design was pushed had more to do with what was decided/invested in it rather than some intrinsic aspect of the design.

'Fraid I disagree with your assertion. The Spitfire intrinsically had more growth potential than the Hurricane. Similarly, the Whirlwind's growth was limited because it was designed around the Peregrine engine.

Yes, funding and the level of leadership interest play a role...but the design must be worth the investment in the first place, otherwise you do what Hawker did and start an all-new replacement for the Hurricane, the Typhoon, that equally lacked potential. It was only with the Tempest that Hawker finally got its head around designing an airframe that could do more than one thing, even evolving to the outstanding Sea Fury.

 

[blueskies]

'Fraid I disagree with your assertion. The Spitfire intrinsically had more growth potential than the Hurricane. Similarly, the Whirlwind's growth was limited because it was designed around the Peregrine engine.

Yes, funding and the level of leadership interest play a role...but the design must be worth the investment in the first place, otherwise you do what Hawker did and start an all-new replacement for the Hurricane, the Typhoon, that equally lacked potential. It was only with the Tempest that Hawker finally got its head around designing an airframe that could do more than one thing, even evolving to the outstanding Sea Fury.

The Spitfire was a ship of theseus that had nearly every part altered by the time the war ended. The airframe shared some lofts with its progenitor but structurally it was mostly all new. Likewise the P-51H had zero parts similarity to the A, but unlike the Spit it had different lofts everywhere.

The Hurrican had the problem of a very thick wing and this mistake was repeated with the Typhoon. The Tempest fixed that by taking the Typhoon airframe and sticking a thinner wing on it. If the Tempest had been called Typhoon II, which is what Hawker originally planned to do, would you be saying that the Typhoon was an airframe 'that could do more than one thing' unlike the Hurricane?

 

[SplitRz]

How far a design was pushed had more to do with what was decided/invested in it rather than some intrinsic aspect of the design.

The spitfire at the end of the war is nearly an entirely new aircraft compared to the mkI/II at the start. New structural wing, heavily altered fuselage, completely different tail, different rad, new engine, ect. There were a ton of changes Messerschmitt studied for the 109 - cut down fuselage with all round canopy, new thinner wing with inward retracting gear, new radiators, ect. What held them back was the required changes to production tooling. Germany had shortages of trained labor and lacked the ability to crank out new jigs. The 309 was killed because in large part because of how much tooling it needed. The late war 209, which is pretty much a 109 with new wing and engine, required just 25% or so new tooling with the rest of it the same as a regular 109.

The depth of development and evolution of some fighter designs was fundamental to their success

 

[SplitRz]

The Spitfire was a ship of theseus that had nearly every part altered by the time the war ended. The airframe shared some lofts with its progenitor but structurally it was mostly all new. Likewise the P-51H had zero parts similarity to the A, but unlike the Spit it had different lofts everywhere.

The Hurrican had the problem of a very thick wing and this mistake was repeated with the Typhoon. The Tempest fixed that by taking the Typhoon airframe and sticking a thinner wing on it. If the Tempest had been called Typhoon II, which is what Hawker originally planned to do, would you be saying that the Typhoon was an airframe 'that could do more than one thing' unlike the Hurricane?

Yes and no. The Typhoon was an entirely different aircraft design in relation to the Hurricane, thick wing or not. But the Tempest was a bit more than simply 'sticking a thinner wing on a Typhoon', wasn't it? Not least that there were three different prototypes with quite differing appearance and layout. The production Tempest, the mkv also had a modified fin that almost doubled the vertical tail surface area. The horizontal tailplanes and elavators were also increased in span and chord (also subsequently fitted to late production Typhoons!)

But I get your point. Perhaps, for semantics sake, the thing that most fairly distinguishes your 'ship of Theseus' from a new 'clean sheet' design, is when its a progressive, gradual evolution. Otherwise we could make the argument that a human of 7 isn't the human of 70. Yes, everything about them may have changed (though you'd still stand a good chance of recognising them in a photograph!) - but its done so by stages in a linear and evolving way.

 

[buffnut453]

The Spitfire was a ship of theseus that had nearly every part altered by the time the war ended. The airframe shared some lofts with its progenitor but structurally it was mostly all new. Likewise the P-51H had zero parts similarity to the A, but unlike the Spit it had different lofts everywhere.

The Hurrican had the problem of a very thick wing and this mistake was repeated with the Typhoon. The Tempest fixed that by taking the Typhoon airframe and sticking a thinner wing on it. If the Tempest had been called Typhoon II, which is what Hawker originally planned to do, would you be saying that the Typhoon was an airframe 'that could do more than one thing' unlike the Hurricane?

The fact that the Spitfire had almost every part altered shows that it had growth potential. The Mk.21 had a new wing but that only entered operational service in January 1945. Prior to that variant, all Spitfires had adaptations to the same basic wing form. Again, that's growth potential intrinsic to the design. Singling out the Mk.21 or P-51H completely ignores the growth inherent in both original airframes.

In order to have the capacity for growth, you must first have a design that doesn't just barely do its primary job. It must have the structural integrity to absorb more powerful engines, more armament, or take on different roles...and remain competitive while doing it. Some aircraft have those attributes and some don't. The Mosquito is another example of a type that did have growth potential...while the Blenheim is a type that didn't.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

In order to have the capacity for growth, you must first have a design that doesn't just barely do its primary job.

^^^^^

 

[SplitRz]

Back to the OP.... I haven't yet bothered to read the hushkit article. The last few I've read have been irritatingly 'clickbaity', and I suspect that the title of this latest piece is likely to reflect that same editorial desire.

That said, The P47 is undoubtedly a great aircraft. But the claim 'greatest' doesn't seem to stand any objective scrutiny to my mind.

I found the following interesting reading. P-47 Tactical Trials

 

[PAT303]

The spitfire at the end of the war is nearly an entirely new aircraft compared to the mkI/II at the start.

The P51D was a totally different aircraft to the P51A, the P47N was totally different from the P47C, Me109E and 109K ditto FW190Ato FW190D, no pre '42 aircraft were the same as post '44 models.

 

[PAT303]

The Spitfire was a ship of theseus that had nearly every part altered by the time the war ended

All Spitfires up to the Mk21 were based on either the MkII or MkIII fuselage from 1940, yes they were strengthened and modified but those changes were in parallel with engine development, again like every other WW2 fighter that had inbuilt growth potential.

 

[Vincenzo]

I think the title is right, just is right in italian, italian word for greatest it's the same of largest

 

[SplitRz]

The fact that the Spitfire had almost every part altered shows that it had growth potential. The Mk.21 had a new wing but that only entered operational service in January 1945. Prior to that variant, all Spitfires had adaptations to the same basic wing form. Again, that's growth potential intrinsic to the design. Singling out the Mk.21 or P-51H completely ignores the growth inherent in both original airframes.

In order to have the capacity for growth, you must first have a design that doesn't just barely do its primary job. It must have the structural integrity to absorb more powerful engines, more armament, or take on different roles...and remain competitive while doing it. Some aircraft have those attributes and some don't. The Mosquito is another example of a type that did have growth potential...while the Blenheim is a type that didn't.

Its fascinating how different interpretations of how linear a design is or isn't, muddy the waters, isn't it? I absolutely agree with you. But taking your example of the Blenheim, it goes to show how the naming of an airframe can be subjective and confuse matters. The Beaufort was a design evolution of the Blenheim with a very similar looking airframe, and was, essentially, a Blenheim enlarged, modernised, re-engineered and re-engined.
And the Beaufort itself lead onto the Beaufighter. But neither were de-facto Blenheims! But a cheeky designer *could* plausibly have tried calling them the Blenfort and Blenfighter, perchance?!

Post mark 21, even Supermarine had to admit that Trigger's New Broom merited a new name, and they called the latest iteration the Spiteful.


View: https://youtu.be/LAh8HryVaeY

 

[wuzak]

Post mark 21, even Supermarine had to admit that Trigger's New Broom merited a new name, and they called the latest iteration the Spiteful.

Post Mk 21 Spitfire there was the 22 and 24, as well as Seafires 45, 46 ad 47.

The original idea was to give the 20-series Spitfires a new name - the Victor.

The first Spiteful was the Spiteful Mk.XIV, the prototype was based on the Spitfire XIV, but with the new wings.

 

[GregP]

Are you telling me they didn't??

If you think back, it wasn't the Germans; it was the Gremans.

We had a long discussion about the Gremans and scared a potential new member away with it accidentally.

Darn Gremans anyway ... they were diabolical in their attempt to rust away the New York subway system by bombing the city with coastal French oranges using ultra long-range PZL Zubrs. Lucky for us the Zubrs had a service life of only one mission, so they became nonoperational during the practice mission.

 

[buffnut453]

If you think back, it wasn't the Germans; it was the Gremans.

We had a long discussion about the Gremans and scared a potential new member away with it accidentally.

Darn Gremans anyway ... they were diabolical in their attempt to rust away the New York subway system by bombing the city with coastal French oranges using ultra long-range PZL Zubrs. Lucky for us the Zubrs had a service life of only one mission, so they became nonoperational during the practice mission.

Hey Greg....did they let you sniff the barmaid's apron again? I told you it was too strong for you. Stick to Bud Light, there's a good chap!

 

[33k in the air]

If you think back, it wasn't the Germans; it was the Gremans.

We had a long discussion about the Gremans and scared a potential new member away with it accidentally.

Darn Gremans anyway ... they were diabolical in their attempt to rust away the New York subway system by bombing the city with coastal French oranges using ultra long-range PZL Zubrs. Lucky for us the Zubrs had a service life of only one mission, so they became nonoperational during the practice mission.

Just remember the most important rule: don't feed Gremans after midnight.




Wait, that might have been Gremlins.

 

[Barrett]

Few internet topics seem to define the criteria for Best or Most Important, etc. Just something for consideration.
Meanwhile:
Neither the Spit nor the 109 served "in every theatre." Spits were marginal in SE Asia, never in China to my knowledge, and certainly never in the Aleutians. 109s were nowhere near the Pacific, let alone the Aleutians!
Following up Pat's mention of carrier-based Spits/Seafires: the 109T (for Traeger, carrier) was a high aspect-ratio version intended for the dead-end Graf Zeppelin. Those aircraft went to JG-77, I believe. Wish I'd thought to ask Gen. Steinhoff about it...

 

[SplitRz]

Few internet topics seem to define the criteria for Best or Most Important, etc. Just something for consideration.
Meanwhile:
Neither the Spit nor the 109 served "in every theatre." Spits were marginal in SE Asia, never in China to my knowledge, and certainly never in the Aleutians. 109s were nowhere near the Pacific, let alone the Aleutians!
Following up Pat's mention of carrier-based Spits/Seafires: the 109T (for Traeger, carrier) was a high aspect-ratio version intended for the dead-end Graf Zeppelin. Those aircraft went to JG-77, I believe. Wish I'd thought to ask Gen. Steinhoff about it...

And the P47 never served in North Africa (or China?), it never served on the biggest land battlefront of all, the Eastern Front, and certainly highly marginal in the Atlantic

If we want to split hairs, its clear NO aircraft served in ALL theatres of war. And this forum IS ground zero for hair splitters - lol!

But I think we all know what PAT303 meant viz a ziv major theatres of war and the Spitfire. But agree regarding the 109 and the Pacific - and no one can ignore that as a major and critical theatre...

 

[GregP]

Actually, we DID make jokes about the Gremans. Seems like it was about 10 - 12 years back. A new member consistently misspelled Germans as Gremans and we took it up, ran with it, and created a partial Greman history line. We were going to complete it, but the subject died just when it was getting interesting.

He left and never came back. We were just having fun, and didn't mean to run him off.

I bet FlyboyJ remembers the Gremans. If not, maybe he was at Reno at the bar after the Gold final ... maybe.

Anyway, no more Gremans. Promise, unless it is brought up by somebody else up yet again. If so, we could run with it again. The Gremans haven't gotten any better over the years. They're still despicable.

 

[GregP]

And the P47 never served in North Africa (or China?), it never served on the biggest land battlefront of all, the Eastern Front, and certainly highly marginal in the Atlantic

If we want to split hairs, its clear NO aircraft served in ALL theatres of war. And this forum IS ground zero for hair splitters - lol!

But I think we all know what PAT303 meant viz a ziv major theatres of war and the Spitfire. But agree regarding the 109 and the Pacific - and no one can ignore that as a major and critical theatre...

The P-47 was one of the main United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) fighters of World War II, and also served with other Allied air forces, including those of France, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. It DID serve on the Russian Front. Just not is very large numbers. P-47s reached the CBI in 1944.