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

[GrayWard]

Did anyone read the excellent article in the winter 2005 "Flight Journal" on German fighters that discussed a comparison of a FW190A-4 against a F6F-3 and F4U-1D. They compared rate of climb, horizontal speed, horizontal acceleration, rate of role, maneuverability, stability and control, angle of vision, general characteristics in mock combat and armament.This was done in 1944 with a captured 190. It gives a good indication of how it would stand against the P47. It was thought using the right tactics the American fighters would come out on top.

Gray.

 

[Soren]

Did anyone read the excellent article in the winter 2005 "Flight Journal" on German fighters that discussed a comparison of a FW190A-4 against a F6F-3 and F4U-1D. They compared rate of climb, horizontal speed, horizontal acceleration, rate of role, maneuverability, stability and control, angle of vision, general characteristics in mock combat and armament.This was done in 1944 with a captured 190. It gives a good indication of how it would stand against the P47. It was thought using the right tactics the American fighters would come out on top.

Gray.

Yeah I read it.

You can read here aswell: http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm

 

[marseille jr]

for escort duties I'd mount a p47 (range, dive, armor)
for dogfights a dora (or a ta-152) would be the byrd of preference here (cannons, more nimble, climb)

 

[DAVIDICUS]

"According to this doucment on the production model the climb rate was 4650-4700ft/min with 18lbs boost, which was the max allowable boost"

Yes, well I thought you would prefer the document that you cited. Just as I prefer the "M" data that I cited over that which you cited. Your data states 5,110fpm at 18.3lbs of boost at 1,700ft. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jf319.html
Are you now claiming that your data, which we have been arguing about, should not be trusted? Is there any other data or figures that you would like to withdraw at this time?


25 is 38% more than 18. An increase in boost from 18lbs to 25lbs represents an increase in boost of 38%. I still find it hard to believe that such an increase would shave only 12 seconds off the entire climb almost four miles up to 20K feet. Think about that for a second (or twelve). You yourself said that going to 25lbs from 18lbs would mean a difference of 4.9 minutes as opposed to 5.1 minutes in a climb to 20K (that's 12 seconds).

You also said, "With 25lbs of boost, the Spit XIV's max initial climb rate was 5,040ft/min, and it would according to tests reach 20,000ft in 4.9min with this amount." Where did this come from? The Mk. XIV data I presented only was for 18lbs of boost and indicated an initial climb rate of 4,700fpm. Your data, on the other hand, indicated 5,110 ft/min for just 18.3lbs as opposed to 25lbs of boost. Where did you get the 5,040fpm at 25lbs of boost figure from?

Earlier you estimated the "M" model's initial climb to be 3,500fpm. Now we're at 4,000fpm. You also estimated the initial climb of the XP-47J (the 504mph, 46,000ft ceiling fighter) to be but 3,900fpm.

At high altitude, the Spitfire doesn't have the advantage of P-47's turbosupercharger. That's why the P-47 was such a hot ship at high altitude. I don't really know how the climb performance between the Mk. XIV and "M" model would compare from say 30K to 40K ft. Perhaps fuel for another discussion.

I sense you are coming around, albeit slowly. If we go around for another 16 pages of posts I'm sure I can convince you but I think we've beat this one into the ground.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Thanks for posting the link Soren. I haven't read it.

So it really indicated that using the right tactics the P-47 would come out on top?

Interesting. Do you agree Soren?

 

[lesofprimus]

So in response to your question, and a response I might add that you have probably given your kid on more than one occasion, "Just because."
_________________

OK, Ill buy that for a Dollar...

 

[Sal Monella]

I bet you're a good lawyer. What kind of law do you do?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Soren, Davidicus, got a question for both of you.....

In your discussions, you guys keep talking about "boost" assuming you mean supercharger boost measured in inches of mercury at the intake manifold, and then relating this to climb perfomance. Are you gathering this data from flight manuals? I could tell you that at a given desired "boost" or manifold pressure you also have to consider RPM which is controlled by propeller setting, not the throttle. Comments?

 

[Soren]

Yes, well I thought you would prefer the document that you cited. Just as I prefer the "M" data that I cited over that which you cited. Your data states 5,110fpm at 18.3lbs of boost at 1,700ft. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jf319.html
Are you now claiming that your data, which we have been arguing about, should not be trusted? Is there any other data or figures that you would like to withdraw at this time?

Lets keep this friendly shall we ?

If you read my posts more properly you will not missunderstand them so much, here's what I said:
According to this doucment on the production model the climb rate was 4650-4700ft/min with 18lbs boost, which was the max allowable boost: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14climbchart.jpg

The 5,110fpm at 18.3lbs of boost at 1,700ft figure, is for the prototype.

25 is 38% more than 18. An increase in boost from 18lbs to 25lbs represents an increase in boost of 38%. I still find it hard to believe that such an increase would shave only 12 seconds off the entire climb almost four miles up to 20K feet. Think about that for a second (or twelve). You yourself said that going to 25lbs from 18lbs would mean a difference of 4.9 minutes as opposed to 5.1 minutes in a climb to 20K (that's 12 seconds).

Which is pretty much, DAVID. The 18lbs boost only lasted 5min

You also said, "With 25lbs of boost, the Spit XIV's max initial climb rate was 5,040ft/min, and it would according to tests reach 20,000ft in 4.9min with this amount."

I was still talking the production model.

Earlier you estimated the "M" model's initial climb to be 3,500fpm. Now we're at 4,000fpm.

Don't put words into my mouth DAVID ! I said I speculated it to be 3,500ft/min, but I was willing go up to 4,000ft/min to satisfy you DAVID. I still think 3,500ft/min is the most reasonable number.

You also estimated the initial climb of the XP-47J (the 504mph, 46,000ft ceiling fighter) to be but 3,900fpm.

Which it most likely was, it wasnt 4,900ft/min for sure, thats faster than a Bf-109K-4.

DAVID this whole arguement started with me objecting to your crazy 20,000ft in 4.15min/4.75min figure, but somhow we got it twisted to initial climb rate. All im 'really' concerned about is the 20,000ft time.

At high altitude, the Spitfire doesn't have the advantage of P-47's turbosupercharger. That's why the P-47 was such a hot ship at high altitude.

True, and I never denied that. But at 25K feet the Spit XIV still climbs faster, as its powerloading and wingloading still gives it the edge.

I don't really know how the climb performance between the Mk. XIV and "M" model would compare from say 30K to 40K ft. Perhaps fuel for another discussion.

At that altitude the P-47 is superior, also in the climb I would suspect.

I sense you are coming around, albeit slowly.

Not really, Im just tired of this discussion and want it finished. But hey, lets rock !

If we go around for another 16 pages of posts I'm sure I can convince you but I think we've beat this one into the ground.

 

[Soren]

Thanks for posting the link Soren. I haven't read it.

No problem.

So it really indicated that using the right tactics the P-47 would come out on top?

Interesting. Do you agree Soren?

Against the Fw-190A-4, definitely.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

The 5,110fpm at 18.3lbs of boost at 1,700ft. on Soren's chart is at 2,750rpm. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jf319.html


The chart I posted earlier in the thread which indicated an initial climb of 4,700fpm at 18lbs of boost was also at 2,750rpm.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14pt.html

Soren, you mentioned an A-4 but the Fw-190 in the tests referenced above by Gray Ward and linked by you were with an A-5.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

OK - now I'm seeing RPM posted. Without that you're missing part of the equation.

 

[Soren]

Guy's, I won't be able to answer for a few hours, as its hard concentrating when you've got the flu So I need to rest a little, but "I'll be back" :robot:

 

[lesofprimus]

DAVIDICUS wrote:
So it really indicated that using the right tactics the P-47 would come out on top?
Interesting. Do you agree Soren?

Soren wrote:
Against the Fw-190A-4, definitely.

And its also indicated, that with the right tactics, the Fw-190A-4 would come out on top....Pilots didnt always have the chance to fly with the right tactics... If u get bounced outta the Sun, tactics dont mean shit...

Survival does...

 

[DAVIDICUS]

"The 5,110fpm at 18.3lbs of boost at 1,700ft figure, is for the prototype. "

Ah, I did not see that.

"DAVID this whole arguement started with me objecting to your crazy 20,000ft in 4.15min/4.75min figure, but somhow we got it twisted to initial climb rate. All im 'really' concerned about is the 20,000ft time. "

I don't know how you got twisted around. This whole thing started as a search for the initial climb rate of the "N" for comparison purposes with the Fw-190-D-9.

There did not appear to be reliable data (you yourself posted data that indicated that the "N" had a poorer initial climb rate than the pre-paddle blade "D" model) so I threw out "M" and "J" data and started to discuss the weight differences, engine similarities and wing differences/similarities for speculative purposes.

Twice now you have quoted me as giving a 4.15min figure as time to 20K for the "M". Again, I have never posted or even eluded to any 4.15min figure for this aircraft. The info I offered for the "M" is below:

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.html

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.

Soren said, "Don't put words into my mouth DAVID ! I said I speculated it to be 3,500ft/min, but I was willing go up to 4,000ft/min to satisfy you DAVID."

OK, now you're starting to sound like my wife.

And as with some of the fights with my wife, I'm growing weary of this discussion too.

See you on another thread and again.

Les, those tests are with an A-5.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

On the issue of vibration and the Fw-190A-4, I found the following.

From: http://www.vectorsite.net/avfw190.html#m2

The "FW-190A-4" went into production in late 1942, the primary improvement being the addition of an "MW-50" water-methanol power boost system for the BMW-801 engine. The MW-50 injected water into the engine's cylinders to raise the engine's redline limit for a short period of time. The methanol was mainly intended as anti-freeze. The A-4 also introduced a small but distinctive modification in the form of a short radio aerial mast mounted on top of the tailfin. This item would be retained in later production. The A-4 was the first FW-190 subvariant to see real service on the Eastern Front.

In April 1943, the production lines began turning out the next subvariant, the "FW-190A-5", which was almost indistinguishable from the A-4 but added a longer engine mounting to increase strength and reduce vibration. The new mounts stretched the aircraft by about 15 centimeters (six inches) and became production standard.

So, according to the above, the longer engine mounting was for (1) increased strength and (2) a reduction in vibration.

Apparently, in the A-4, vibration was a problem that was large enought to be a cause for modification in order to bring about its reduction.

When I wrote earlier that, "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." I may not have been so far off.

 

[Soren]

Ah, I did not see that.

No problem.

I don't know how you got twisted around. This whole thing started as a search for the initial climb rate of the "N" for comparison purposes with the Fw-190-D-9.

I'm pretty convinced I wasn't alone twisting the argument, but that doesn't matter.

Twice now you have quoted me as giving a 4.15min figure as time to 20K for the "M". Again, I have never posted or even eluded to any 4.15min figure for this aircraft. The info I offered for the "M" is below:

Man you need glasses m8....

DAVID I repeat: If you read my posts properly you wont misunderstand them so much, here's what I said:
DAVID this whole arguement started with me objecting to your crazy 20,000ft in 4.15min/4.75min figure, but somhow we got it twisted to initial climb rate. All im 'really' concerned about is the 20,000ft time.

I was talking about both

OK, now you're starting to sound like my wife.

Bad choice of words on my part !

And as with some of the fights with my wife, I'm growing weary of this discussion too.

See you on another thread.

Aaarh come on DAVID... don't get so easily offended. Especially since you took offense to something that wasn't there

-----------------------------------------------

Anyway, lets start on a fresh one. This time we keep it clear what were talking about, so as to avoid any more confusion.

Your reference states:

P-47M time to 20,000ft 4.75min. But no Max. Initial climb rate.

XP-47J time to 20,000ft 4.15min. And a Max initial climb rate of 4,900ft/min.

My problem with these numbers:

P-47M:
Its time to 20,000ft is beyond reality, here's why:

P-47M:
Power-loading= 4.74 lbs/hp (used WEP 2800hp figure for calc.)
Wing-loading= 43.1 lbs/sq.ft.

Spit XIV:
Power-loading= 4.09 lbs/hp (Used 18lbs boost 2050hp figure for calc.)
Wing-loading= 33.8 lbs/sq.ft.

Spit XIV time to 20,000ft= 5.1min.

XP-47J:
Its time to 20,000ft is beyond reality aswell, here's why:

ZP-47J:
Power-loading= 4.76 lbs/hp (Used 2800hp WEP figure, weight figure from http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/republic/xp-47j.htm )
Wing-loading= 44.5lbs/sq.ft. (Used wing and weight figure from http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/republic/xp-47j.htm )
Compare the this to the Spit XIV's data---

Next XP-47J issue:
Its initial climb figure is ridiculous, here's why:

Bf-109K-4:
Power-Loading= 3.41lbs/hp.
Wing-loading= 38.7 lbs/sq.ft.

K-4 Initial climb rate: 4,823ft/min (1,470m/min)

XP-47J:
Power-loading= 4.76 lbs/hp (Used 2800hp WEP figure, weight figure from http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/republic/xp-47j.htm )
Wing-loading= 44.5lbs/sq.ft. (Used wing and weight figure from http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/republic/xp-47j.htm )

XP-47J Initial climb rate: 4,900ft/min

The XP-47J's time to 30,000ft is beyond reality aswell:
Bf-109K-4 time to 30K feet= 6.7min
XP-47J time to 30K feet= 6min 45 sec

 

[Soren]

On the issue of vibration and the Fw-190A-4, I found the following.

From: http://www.vectorsite.net/avfw190.html#m2

The "FW-190A-4" went into production in late 1942, the primary improvement being the addition of an "MW-50" water-methanol power boost system for the BMW-801 engine. The MW-50 injected water into the engine's cylinders to raise the engine's redline limit for a short period of time. The methanol was mainly intended as anti-freeze. The A-4 also introduced a small but distinctive modification in the form of a short radio aerial mast mounted on top of the tailfin. This item would be retained in later production. The A-4 was the first FW-190 subvariant to see real service on the Eastern Front.

In April 1943, the production lines began turning out the next subvariant, the "FW-190A-5", which was almost indistinguishable from the A-4 but added a longer engine mounting to increase strength and reduce vibration. The new mounts stretched the aircraft by about 15 centimeters (six inches) and became production standard.

So, according to the above, the longer engine mounting was for (1) increased strength and (2) a reduction in vibration.

Apparently, in the A-4, vibration was a problem that was large enought to be a cause for modification in order to bring about its reduction.

When I wrote earlier that, "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." I may not have been so far off.

You werent far off DAVID, as radials always vibrate more than in-line engines. However AFAIK there are no facts supporting that american radials ran smoother than German radials.

What I know from pilot accounts, is that the Fw-190 was praised for its excellent controls with good feel, and that no vibration has ever been mentioned as a problem. But maybe that only applied for the A-5 and onwards, and not the A-4. (It 'is' a possibility)

I am however convinced that the A-4 did not have any excessive vibrations that in any way destroyed the feel of the controls, as it has never been mentioned by any Fw-190 pilot.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

" This time we keep it clear what were talking about, so as to avoid any more confusion."

Since you want to keep clear what we're talking about, it's the initial climb rate of the P-47N. Alll the "M" and "J" data that we tossed about was for purposes of comparison and extrapolation.

Let's start out fresh. What do you think the initial climb rate of the "N" is?

P-47N
Weight is 16,300lbs normal load

Wing area is 322sq. ft. / Wing loading is 50.62

Engine is 2,800hp / Power loading is 5.82

Top speed 467mph

Initial climb rate - Unknown.

P-47D
Weight is 14,600lbs normal load

Wing area is 300 sq. ft. / Wing loading is 48.67

Engine is 2,300hp. / Power loading is 6.35

Top speed 429mph

Initial climb rate - 3,180fpm.

We can start with the "D" as I gather from the thread that unlike with the "M" and "J", there is no disagreement that the pre-paddle blade initial climb rate was 2780fpm and the post paddle blade climb rate was 400fpm more or 3,180fpm.

So, given the above figures for the "D", what do you think the "N" could pull in initial climb rate? I agree with Plan_D's suggestion that it would be close to the Fw-190 D-9 which you mentioned was 3,660fpm. (I'm actually thinking 3,500fpm.)

You said that the "N" model's initial climb rate might be as high as 3,150fpm.

The issue of wing loading and power loading, while helpful, doesn't present a necessarily accurate template in which to analyze this issue. For instance, merely changing the propeller on the "D" model yielded a 400fpm increase in climb rate with no change in horsepower, weight or wing area. If prior to the paddle blade's introduction, someone were to ask you to calculate what the increase in climb rate would be for the paddle blade model using horsepower, weight and wing area, you would be exactly 400fpm off.

If at all possible, I think it is helpful to use similar versions of the same aircraft because the significance of important variables like propeller efficiency, aerodynamics, wing design as it relates to lift/drag etc. are mitigated. I would prefer to use other P-47's as opposed to Spitfires or Me-109's which are really entirely different creatures.

We know that the "N" model had the same propeller as the post paddle blade 'D" model. We know that the "C" series engine of the "N" developed 500 more horsepower, and we know that the wing area of the "N" increased by 22sq.ft. Lastly, we know that the "N" had a normal loaded weight that was 1,700lbs more.

Using the post paddle blade "D" as a baseline then, what effect do you think that the interplay between the heavier weight, greater wing area and more powerful engine would have had?

I think the "M" data (whatever that may be) is helpful except that we can't agree on what it is. It had a similar top speed with the same powerplant but was significantly lighter. It also shared the "D" model's wing.

The "J" data (also in contention) was thrown in by me to lend credence to the "M" data.

Why don't we just start with the "D" data that isn't in contention and discuss where that takes us?

If we must examine different aircraft, I propose that we then examine the F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair for their more similar size/shape and weight before resorting to the very different Spitfires and Me-109's.

I think that's reasonable don't you?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It would depend on what I was using the aircraft for. For escort duties I would go with the P-47 however all other ways I would go with a Fw-190A-8 or a Fw-190D-9.

Not to knock the P-47. She was a marvelous aircraft and to me one of the most underated allied aircraft (she is often overshadowed by the less capable P-51), but I think the later Fw-190's were a more superior aircraft. I think just like the Fw-190's (Ta-152) the P-47 was far from the end of its evolution and would have evolved even better then she was.