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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
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.
 
I would guess the -47N's climb rate to be around 3,100 ft/min, and the -47M's to be the mentioned 3,500ft/min. The -47J's climb rate I would guess to be around 3,900ft/min.

The Fw-190D-9's climb rate was 3,660ft/min.
 
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.
 
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.
 
At 32,000 ft, I have read that the D-9 could only muster 397 mph. The "N" model P-47 could do 467 mph.

Even the "D" model though could do 429mph at that altitude.
 
DAVIDICUS said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DAVIDICUS said:
At 32,000 ft, I have read that the D-9 could only muster 397 mph. The "N" model P-47 could do 467 mph.

Even the "D" model though could do 429mph at that altitude.
Click to expand...

The -47's straight out speed is highly thanks to its low drag wing-design.

But yes, at high alt the -47 is superior to the D-9 in all but maneuverability.
 
syscom3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
According to those tests with the captured 190, the P-47 would also out manuever a Fock Wulf at very low altitudes as well.
 
Jank said:
According to those tests with the captured 190, the P-47 would also out manuever a Fock Wulf at very low altitudes as well.
Click to expand...

That was a Fw-190"A", with a not properly working engine.
 
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.
 

Yes, 18lbs of boost. There was more boost available as I have seen 25lbs of boost on data before.

 

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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
2
Replies
25
Views
703
yulzari
A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
4K
Admiral Beez
A
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
S
Italian series 5/6 fighters really better?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register