FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
plan_D said:
But a Bearcat is faster in a climb off the mark........
Which is better: P-47 or Fw-190?
- Thread starter mosquitoman
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But a Bearcat is faster in a climb off the mark........
The Lightning will still get to 10,000 feet quicker. AVPIN kicks in, ignites the engines, brakes off and he's a rocket soaring vertically in a matter of seconds.
My dad used to scramble 'em while with 11 Sqd....he said from scramble call to take off, under 2 minutes was easy.
My dad used to scramble 'em while with 11 Sqd....he said from scramble call to take off, under 2 minutes was easy.
If you accept the "M" model's climb figures that I presented (again, that's "if"), the P-47"M" pulled an average of 4,200fpm throughour its 20,000 ft climb at War Emergency Power. I would imagine that it's initial climb rate would have been 4,500fpm which would be 400fpm shy of climb rate for the super hot 504mph, 46,000 ft ceiling XP-47J.
The XP-47J had the same powerplant, same wing, but had a close fitting cowling and weighed about 1,000 lbs less in loaded configuration than the "M".
The "N" model weighed about 3,000lbs more in loaded configuration than the "M" model, had the same powerplant as the "M" and XP-47J models and had 14sq. ft. more wing area with clipped wing tips.
Yeah, I think your statement that, "So, I take it the Fw-190D-9 and P-47N must be pretty close in climb rates." is quite plausible if not likely. I have read that the P-47N had no problem handling the late war Japanese rice rockets like the Ki-84 Frank which had a 3,600fpm initial climb rate.
The XP-47J had the same powerplant, same wing, but had a close fitting cowling and weighed about 1,000 lbs less in loaded configuration than the "M".
The "N" model weighed about 3,000lbs more in loaded configuration than the "M" model, had the same powerplant as the "M" and XP-47J models and had 14sq. ft. more wing area with clipped wing tips.
Yeah, I think your statement that, "So, I take it the Fw-190D-9 and P-47N must be pretty close in climb rates." is quite plausible if not likely. I have read that the P-47N had no problem handling the late war Japanese rice rockets like the Ki-84 Frank which had a 3,600fpm initial climb rate.
Clearly we are not going to resolve this issue. (At least not tonight)
The first and most obvious problem I see with the 3,100fpm initial climb rate for the P-47N is that is is below the widely accepted post paddle blade "D" model climb rate figure which you have cited.
The new "C" series engine shared by both the "M" and "N", managed to advance the top speed of the "M" model to over 470mph (It is claimed that it could actually go 488mph with some tweaking in the field) from the 429mph of the "D" model. The only other difference between the "D" and "M" was 1,200lbs of weight. The point here is that the new "C" series engine was a tremendous boost in power and performance. That same "C" series engine that drove the "M" to over 470mph drove the "N" to 467mph.
That being the case, I'm just finding it difficult to accept a lower climb rate for the "N" model vis a vis the "D" model.
The first and most obvious problem I see with the 3,100fpm initial climb rate for the P-47N is that is is below the widely accepted post paddle blade "D" model climb rate figure which you have cited.
The new "C" series engine shared by both the "M" and "N", managed to advance the top speed of the "M" model to over 470mph (It is claimed that it could actually go 488mph with some tweaking in the field) from the 429mph of the "D" model. The only other difference between the "D" and "M" was 1,200lbs of weight. The point here is that the new "C" series engine was a tremendous boost in power and performance. That same "C" series engine that drove the "M" to over 470mph drove the "N" to 467mph.
That being the case, I'm just finding it difficult to accept a lower climb rate for the "N" model vis a vis the "D" model.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
OK, both planes are at 30,000 ft. How much fuel is left in both aircraft and how many minutes of flying remains?
If you dont have much fuel left to fight with, you might as well as stay on the ground.
If you dont have much fuel left to fight with, you might as well as stay on the ground.
dinos7
Airman
fw 190
DAVIDICUS said:
It could be 3,150ft/min, that's a tiny bit more, I just said it would probably be 'around' the 3,100ft/min.
You must remember the -47N weighs about 2,000lbs more than the -47D, that's why I figure its climb rate was about equal or at most a tiny bit better than the -47D's.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
9 or 10 minutes to 30,000 - fuel burn, say about 50-75 GPH full power average both planes, P-47 carries over 300 gallons, -190 D9, 138 gallons, do the math, there's plenty of fuel left!
The P-47M had the same wing as the P-47D. The only difference was that the "M" weighed 1,200lbs less and had the "C" series engine. Those two factors increased the top speed from 429 to over 470 miles per hour.
The "N" weighed about 2,000lbs more than the "D" but was still able to muster 467 miles per hour.
One thing we can all agree on is that the 2,800hp "C" series engine was a powerful performance enhancer.
The "N" weighed about 2,000lbs more than the "D" but was still able to muster 467 miles per hour.
One thing we can all agree on is that the 2,800hp "C" series engine was a powerful performance enhancer.
Yes it was an "A" model. But for that matter, the the P-47 was a Razorback D-4 with the toothpick propeller.
The excerpt that people appear to sieze upon in asserting that the engine was not working properly is the following:
The engine seems to run rough at all times and the vibration transmitted through the control column almost completely destroys any feel of the flying characteristics.
But let's also not forget this other gem of an excerpt:
The FW-190 was in exceptionally good condition for a captured airplane, and developed 42 inches on take-off which is believed to be slightly above normal maximum boost
The fact that the engine "seemed" to run rough and vibrated may have been in part a reflection of the FW-190's engine's natural state of operation rather than an indication that the engine was not operating correctly. Radials were not as smooth as in-lines and the German radials were known to run rougher than the American radials.
The excerpt that people appear to sieze upon in asserting that the engine was not working properly is the following:
The engine seems to run rough at all times and the vibration transmitted through the control column almost completely destroys any feel of the flying characteristics.
But let's also not forget this other gem of an excerpt:
The FW-190 was in exceptionally good condition for a captured airplane, and developed 42 inches on take-off which is believed to be slightly above normal maximum boost
The fact that the engine "seemed" to run rough and vibrated may have been in part a reflection of the FW-190's engine's natural state of operation rather than an indication that the engine was not operating correctly. Radials were not as smooth as in-lines and the German radials were known to run rougher than the American radials.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
FLYBOYJ said:
OK.. so the P47 can enter combat with more fuel and can simply fly above the FW and wait untill the FW runs low on fuel and then pounce on it. If the FW manages to elude the P47, then the P47 dives away and zooms for altitude for another try.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
Now think about this - that P-47 already flew a few hundred miles to get over Germany, and still has to fly home. I know there's been performancce charts shown here, you could probably calcualte how long each aircraft could stay and fight.
Sal Monella
Airman 1st Class
On the issue of the P-47-N's climb rate, I recall reading that in tests against the Hellcat, the P-47 showed a higher climb rate. The Hellcat's climb rate was 3,240 fpm.
