Which is better: P-47 or Fw-190?

Soren · Jun 6, 2005

DAVIDICUS said:
Soren, I'm still interested in knowing:

Why it would be reasonbable to accept the "N" model's initial climb rate as equal to the pre-paddle blade "D" model level.

AND

Why it would be reasonable to accept the "M" model's climb rate as only a few hundred fpm higher than the post paddle bladed "D" model when the top speed rocketed from 429mph to over 470 mph. (Keeping in mind that the 500mph XP-72 's climb rate in combat configuration was 1,700fpm higher than the post paddle bladed "D" model)

Various factors can have effects on climb rate DAVID, things such as; Wing-loading, power-loading, wing-area, wing-aspect ratio, airfoil shape and so on. (Power-loading being a very decisive one)

You must agree that an a/c with a power-loading of 4.74lbs/hp, isn't going to skyrocket at 4900ft/min ! Not even the 109 K-4 will do that !

In any case, I must agree with you DAVID, something is fishy about 'both' our data's, and this probably wont be solved before we get our hands on some reliable test-documents stating the true numbers.

lesofprimus · Jun 6, 2005

Your "?????'s"

Yes mine...

Whats the MAX rate for the 25-RE then??? That way I can compare it to the 35-RA....

See................... THATS MY POINT........ I cant use the stats u gave me....

Quote:
Who knows. Im still not 100% with u yet, so.....

Oh, I see.. And why is that ? (Send me a PM if you want)

Ummm... Uve forgotten already???

lesofprimus wrote:
Maybe some *incriminating* evidence not wanting to divulge???

Primus, I gave the "max" climb rate numbers, so why would I leave out any alt stats ? That would be meaningless...

Dude, Comeon.. Dont u have any humorous bones in ur body? IT WAS A JOKE......... Dammit, Uve been here long enough to get my humor by now.....

Soren · Jun 6, 2005

lesofprimus said:
Whats the MAX rate for the 25-RE then??? That way I can compare it to the 35-RA....

See................... THATS MY POINT........ I cant use the stats u gave me....

Oh, but you can

We were talking max initial climb rate, and I provided for both. (Without the alt though)

Ummm... Uve forgotten already???

I actually yes I "had", but as I've said ealier on, I hold no grudge over silly arguements.

Dude, Comeon.. Dont u have any humorous bones in ur body? IT WAS A JOKE......... Dammit, Uve been here long enough to get my humor by now.....

Guess not

lesofprimus · Jun 6, 2005

We were talking max initial climb rate, and I provided for both.

K, u just failed to put that max in front of the initial....

I actually yes I "had", but as I've said ealier on, I hold no grudge over silly arguements.

K... Just making sure.........

Guess not

I got a few Metatarsils I could share with u, or some bone chips from my elbow I'll give u free of charge...

Soren · Jun 6, 2005

DAVIDICUS · Jun 6, 2005

Soren, the 4,900fpm figure that I threw out was for the 504mph, 46,000ft service ceiling XP-47J. I never claimed that this figure applied to the "M" model. The issue of the 4.74 lbs/hp wing loading figure applying to 4,900fpm is a creature of your generation.

If you look back on my earlier post, you will see that the "M" figures I gave were quoted from http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.html as follows:

Climb, at max. gross weight (including three 75 gallon drop tanks): 4.9 minutes to 15,000 feet at 2,600 rpm (1700 hp). Reportedly, the "M" could reach 20,000 feet in 5.7 minutes at military power (2,100 hp @ 2,800 rpm). 20,000 feet in 4.75 minutes in WEP (2,800 hp @ 2,800 rpm). This is with full internal fuel and ammo. No external stores or drop tanks. In other words, normal load, clean configuration.

I don't think the above quoted figures would strike anyone as biased or otherwise incorrect. The entire purpose of quoting the "M" figures was in order to "speculate" on what the "N" model's climb rate would have been. (since no reasonable data appears to be available - further evidenced by the "N" model climb figure you quoted being at the pre-paddle blade "D" model level) As I pointed out earlier, the "M" model shared the same souped up powerplane but was lighter. In addition, however, the wing of the "N" model was larger and I'm not sure how that would have affected the climb.

If you accept the above quoted "M" model figure, what would you estimate or guesstimate the "N" model's climb as?

Anyone?

Soren · Jun 6, 2005

Soren, the 4,900fpm figure that I threw out was for the 504mph, 46,000ft service ceiling XP-47J. I never claimed that this figure applied to the "M" model. The issue of the 4.74 lbs/hp wing loading figure applying to 4,900fpm is a creature of your generation.

Sry, a mistake on my part. I obviously thought we were talking the -47M.

However my opinion seems to be the same about the XP-47J, as its power-loading isn't much better= 4.42 lbs/hp.

If you look back on my earlier post, you will see that the "M" figures I gave were quoted from http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.html as follows:

Climb, at max. gross weight (including three 75 gallon drop tanks): 4.9 minutes to 15,000 feet at 2,600 rpm (1700 hp). Reportedly, the "M" could reach 20,000 feet in 5.7 minutes at military power (2,100 hp @ 2,800 rpm). 20,000 feet in 4.75 minutes in WEP (2,800 hp @ 2,800 rpm). This is with full internal fuel and ammo. No external stores or drop tanks. In other words, normal load, clean configuration.

20,000 feet in 4.75 min !

Seriously DAVID, that's faster than a Spit XIV....

I think we can rule that out as a possibility, now can't we ?

plan_D · Jun 6, 2005

Spitfire XIV was 4.9 minutes to 20,000 feet, right?

DAVIDICUS · Jun 6, 2005

From: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14pt.html

Soren · Jun 6, 2005

plan_D said:
Spitfire XIV was 4.9 minutes to 20,000 feet, right?

A prototype made that time, yes. But it seems the production model did it in 5.1 min.

I normally go for the 4.9min figure though, as it seems more reasonable.

DAVIDICUS · Jun 6, 2005

Concerning the "M" model, that 4.75 minutes to 20K figure is at WEP.

At MP, it took 5.75 minutes to reach 20K ft.

plan_D · Jun 6, 2005

That's a great chart. The Meteor III had an awful climb rate, I thought it'd be better than that.

I saw 9 minutes for Spitfire XIV climb to 20,000 feet once. I couldn't stop laughing for, oh, about 9 minutes.

DAVIDICUS · Jun 6, 2005

And I once saw Soren quote 2,770 fpm as the initial climb rate for the P-47N. ( just poking fun Soren)

Soren · Jun 6, 2005

DAVIDICUS said:
Concerning the "M" model, that 4.75 minutes to 20K figure is at WEP.

At MP, it took 5.75 minutes to reach 20K ft.

The Spit's presented climb rate is with boost aswell.

Soren · Jun 6, 2005

DAVIDICUS said:
And I once saw Soren quote 2,770 fpm as the initial climb rate for the P-47N. ( just poking fun Soren)

You hurt my feelings

plan_D · Jun 6, 2005

I've probably missed it but what is the initial climb rate for the P-47N? On this, what books would be good to get on the P-47?

Soren · Jun 6, 2005

plan_D said:
I've probably missed it but what is the initial climb rate for the P-47N? On this, what books would be good to get on the P-47?

"Republic P-47 Thunderbolt" by Frederick Johnsen, and "Republic's P-47 Thunderbolt: From Seversky to Victory" by Warren M. Bodie, are both good books.

DAVIDICUS · Jun 6, 2005

That, my good man, is precisely what all the speculation is about. That is why the "D", "M" and XP-47J models' performance figures are being discussed. We don't seem to have any reliable "N" model climb data and are trying to extrapolate through guesstimation.

If you go back through the thread, it will all become clear ... or not.

plan_D · Jun 6, 2005

5,500 feet per minute for the Hornet, that's quite impressive. Not nearly as impressive as 50,000 feet per minute which the F.6 Lightning's initial climb rate was! Amazing, since the Lightning was a 1947 design.

plan_D · Jun 6, 2005

That's what I thought, Davidicus. So, I take it the Fw-190D-9 and P-47N must be pretty close in climb rates.

Which is better: P-47 or Fw-190?

1st Lieutenant

Brigadier General

1st Lieutenant

Brigadier General

1st Lieutenant

Staff Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Lieutenant Colonel

Staff Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Staff Sergeant

Lieutenant Colonel

Staff Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Lieutenant Colonel

1st Lieutenant

Staff Sergeant

Lieutenant Colonel

Lieutenant Colonel

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads