Wasn't the P-51 the best escort fighter of the war?

[Graeme]

I seem to remember there were several of these slides / pictures covering different stages or times during the war and the legs on all the fighters continued to increase, but that the P47, AKA Jug, was longer than the Spit. I looked but was unable to find them.

Something like this Biff?
This is from Bomber Offensive, Purnell's -1969...

 

[drgondog]

A rarity: an aircraft thread were nobody is claiming the Luftwaffe's aircraft were incontestably better than anybody else's. I'm impressed.

Of course, an escort fighter needs to have enough range to remain with the bombers to target and fight enemy interceptors to, from, and in the target area, or they were useless. It also need the air-air performance to win those fights. In the ETO day strategic bombing against the Axis, the only two practical choices were the Mustang and the Thunderbolt (the P-38's design flaws such as causing pilots to get frostbite in the cockpit takes it off the list). On the other hand, both were pretty useless at escorting a carrier strike against a well-defended carrier task force (until PGM, high-altitude bombers had trouble hitting a a specific city block, let alone a moving ship).

That is the primary reason the USN wasn't concerned about relatively short combat radius of F4U/F6F based on return distance after ejecting external tanks.

For the same reasons, the F4U/F6F weren't much use as primary escort in ETO/MTO/CBI or SWP for escort of long range land based bombers beyond 300mi.

 

[drgondog]

Something like this Biff?
This is from Bomber Offensive, Purnell's -1969...

View attachment 567053

This, among many produced during and post WWII were not extracted from source published AAF Operations docs for the P-38/47 and 51B/D.

For example - the P-38J-10 in December 1943 did not have factory installed 55 gal LE tanks. The kits were in the UK, as well as 85 gal fuselage tank kits for the P-51B - but - nether were installed in group level quantity until February prior to Big Week and March Berlin missions.

For example - the first external tank mission flown (with 200gal Ferry tank ~ 100gal usable fuel and high drag) was July 28 at the end of Blitz week. That mission CR was approximately 220mi. In August 1943, only the 75gal combat tank was operationally available for a CR of 230mi (slightly more than the awkward 200 gal tank). The P-47D as shown with '375mi CR in August 1943' was not attainable until Jan 1944 with 150gal C/L tank.

Does anyone have documentation that a Spit IX had a combat radius (defined to include combat for 20 minutes and 30 minute reserve before landing) of more than 100mi? It had less than 1/2 the P-51 internal fuel and the P-51A/B with only 180gal internal fuel - with same engine and greater gross weight - had a CR of 150mi.

 

[GrauGeist]

So what? Flight time was 15 minutes

The argument was who was fastest to 18K - with a RoC of 525 fps, the 163 will reach 18,000 feet in 34.286 seconds.
Much faster than any P-40 ever built...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The argument was who was fastest to 18K - with a RoC of 525 fps, the 163 will reach 18,000 feet in 34.286 seconds.
Much faster than any P-40 ever built...

But, but, but, it was not a liquid cooled P-51 so it doesn't count.

 

[GrauGeist]

But, but, but, it was not a liquid cooled P-51 so it doesn't count.

Ahh right, my bad.

Perhaps this might work, then

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ahh right, my bad.

Perhaps this might work, then

View attachment 567087

Who farted?

 

[GrauGeist]

Who farted?

¿Yo quiero Taco Bell?

 

[tomo pauk]

...
Does anyone have documentation that a Spit IX had a combat radius (defined to include combat for 20 minutes and 30 minute reserve before landing) of more than 100mi? It had less than 1/2 the P-51 internal fuel and the P-51A/B with only 180gal internal fuel - with same engine and greater gross weight - had a CR of 150mi.

Plain-vanilla Spitfire IX carried 100 US gals (= 84 imp gals). Drop tank of 45 or 90 imp gals should be standard in 1943? That's another 54 or 108 US gals.

 

[michael rauls]

Michael - the reason I broke the Performance Comparisons in the book (as shown except for the Bf 109G-6AS) is to portray the relative performances as a function of altitude for two primary periods. The first block for December 1943 - Jan 1944 was to position the narrative for a very important period when the P-47D through the -10 was equipped with Provisions for WI on the -21 engine but neither the -11 with factory WI/R2800-63 capable of 56" boost nor enough kits to equip Group level deployment. The important fact to take note of is that the P-47D at 52" boost and standard prop (Pre-paddle blade HM Std) was a sluggish pig in climb - comparatively speaking - until the turbo provided advantage above 24K vs the Bf 109 @1.3 ata and 20K for the Fw [email protected]. That said, the Chart plots for Flight test results are Optimistic. The Jug as flown was light on ammo and 50 cal guns. It performed no better than the P-47C.

At the end of 1943 the VIII FC Jugs started receiving the WI kits and installations began. The October 1943 Flight test on the P-47D-10 (so equipped and cited for April May for all pre-P-47D-11 and subsequent through the -16) reflected Group quantity deployment for combat ops. The P-47D-22 was the first production equipped Ham-Std prop and didn't appear in ETO until May in small numbers.The paddle blade dribbled in during the Jan-April timeframe but full Group equipment was not complete for VIII, IX and XV FC until April May timeframe. For an idea you could add ~200 fpm increased ROC at SL but drop top speed slightly at 20,000 feet.

The ROC and top speed for both the P-38 and P-47 when equipped with pylons, are both Optimistic (ditto the P-51B and FW 190) but less so due to the high drag of the fixed wing pylons after tanks were dropped. The Bf 109G-6 was the least affected with the Schlob 503 C/L rack.

To put the discussion in context - my book is all about pre D-Day battle for air supremacy over the beachead.

Very cool post. Seems it can be difficult to really nail down comparative performance for different types.
There are so many variables. Obvious ones like different types performance at different altitudes but also things that might not be so imediatly appearant like what was the practical load out for the different types for the missions the were flying. And of course changes over time.

 

[Greyman]

The P-47 pilots who talked about the impact of the paddle-bladed propeller said it was not so much in the rate of climb but that the P-47 could then climb steeper and pursue an enemy into the climb In such case, the pursuing aircraft does not have to be faster than the evading aircraft. The bullets have to be faster.

For that matter, the P-51's climb rate on paper was inferior to the later Bf-109 marks, but the pilot accounts don't seem to fret over that. Likely it's because the P-51's zoom climb and energy retention was excellent. When the P-51 starts the engagement with a speed advantage the zoom climb ability can make up for a lower basic climb rate. Same for the P-47, but the P-51 seemed to be the master of the zoom climb (with the exception of the Me-262, of course.

I will try to find passages to support this. If somebody beats me to it, so be it.

Zoom climb is a tough one cause there are so many variables. You can easily get a different result by using different rules/parameters of a zoom climb test.

That said, in British testing the Mustang III wasn't a stand-out in the zoom climb department -- being very similar to the 109G. The champion was the Tempest V.

The Meteor proved to be even better, and as Conslaw figured -- I'd be willing to bet the Me262 was better still.

 

[michael rauls]

Zoom climb is a tough one cause there are so many variables. You can easily get a different result by using different rules/parameters of a zoom climb test.

That said, in British testing the Mustang III wasn't a stand-out in the zoom climb department -- being very similar to the 109G. The champion was the Tempest V.

The Meteor proved to be even better, and as Conslaw figured -- I'd be willing to bet the Me262 was better still.

Do you know were the p47 and p38 included in that test. From what ive read of pilot accounts the p47 was a real standout when it came to zoom climb. I remember one pilot being surprised that what he had heard was really true that he could go into a shallow dive from 25,000 feet, then climb and be up at 30,000 feet" waiting for a Bf109" that had just climbed straight up from 25,000. " To my surprise it really was true" he said.
I found this incredible but I figure that pilot certainly knows better than I do.

 

[pbehn]

Do you know were the p47 and p38 included in that test. From what ive read of pilot accounts the p47 was a real standout when it came to zoom climb. I remember one pilot being surprised that what he had heard was really true that he could go into a shallow dive from 25,000 feet, then climb and be up at 30,000 feet" waiting for a Bf109" that had just climbed straight up from 25,000. " To my surprise it really was true" he said.
I found this incredible but I figure that pilot certainly knows better than I do.

I think it is the effect of the turbo, at high altitudes the P-47 could out turn the Bf-109 and others simply because it was producing more power.

 

[michael rauls]

Resp:
The two range charts that I have seen, gives the P-47 a slight edge over the Spitfire . . . when the RAF used them in escorting USAAF heavy bombers (4 engines). Google it. There wasn't much difference, but you will see that the Spitfire flew the initial leg (and sometimes the final leg for egress) with the P-47 relieving the Spitfire.

I think the p47 had about 35% longer range than the Spitfire early on and the difference grew over time. Although not a huge difference like double ,1/3 more range still seems fairly substantial to me.

 

[PAT303]

Plain-vanilla Spitfire IX carried 100 US gals (= 84 imp gals). Drop tank of 45 or 90 imp gals should be standard in 1943? That's another 54 or 108 US gals

The Spit had a dozen combinations of internal/external fuel tanks capable of extending their range eventually out to 500+ miles from 1940, they just weren't used for reasons unknown.

 

[Conslaw]

That is the primary reason the USN wasn't concerned about relatively short combat radius of F4U/F6F based on return distance after ejecting external tanks.

For the same reasons, the F4U/F6F weren't much use as primary escort in ETO/MTO/CBI or SWP for escort of long range land based bombers beyond 300mi.

 

[Conslaw]

That is the primary reason the USN wasn't concerned about relatively short combat radius of F4U/F6F based on return distance after ejecting external tanks.0

For the same reasons, the F4U/F6F weren't much use as primary escort in ETO/MTO/CBI or SWP for escort of long range land based bombers beyond 300mi.

The F6F was equipped with a 250 gallon self-sealing fuel tank. (As compared to 305 gallons in the P-47) but the F6F-3 was from the start capable of carrying a single 150 (or 165) gallon drop tank. That being said, the F6F was not combat ready until a few months after the P-47, so in the fall of 1943, their combat radii were likely similar. There was a rolling change in F6F-3 that added plumbing for an additional 165 gallon drop tank under each wing, and retaining the station under the fuselage, so these F6Fs could carry 3x150 gallons of external fuel. There was rarely a suitable mission for this type of load-out.

The F6F with two external tanks exceeded the combat radius of the carrier bombers that it would be tasked to escort, so there was not much point in increasing the rage beyond this.

 

[Conslaw]

Technically, the F6F's fuel was in 3 tanks totaling 250 gallons.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Spit had a dozen combinations of internal/external fuel tanks capable of extending their range eventually out to 500+ miles from 1940, they just weren't used for reasons unknown.

Reason(s) for not using increased fuel tankage from 1940 on is well known - it was then-current doctrine of the RAF. That myopically stipulated the long-range fighter will always be inferior to a short-rage enemy fighter, without looking at big picture.
This is also why I've mentioned just 45 and 90 imp gal drop tanks + 84 gal of internal fuel - those were standard for 1943 Spitfire IX.

 

[drgondog]

Plain-vanilla Spitfire IX carried 100 US gals (= 84 imp gals). Drop tank of 45 or 90 imp gals should be standard in 1943? That's another 54 or 108 US gals.

Hi Tomo - for planning purposes only the internal fuel is critical. The externals carry you to the fight. By AAF planning standards, the CR should be in the 100mi+ range.