marseille jr
Airman
- 52
- Mar 28, 2005
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
DAVIDICUS said:" 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?
How is my presented data unique? I don't think it is and have been careful to source it for you so that you can verify that I am not making it up.
I have also presented evidence that the paddle blade afforded an additional 400fpm climb rate which you are discounting.
I am not comfortable with the P-47D's HP at 2,535 as quoted by you. You will find figures quoted from 2,000 to the 2,535 figure across
the net and in books.
It just doesn't pass the smell test for the following reason.
If the "C" series engine developed only 265 more hp, how could it have propelled the P-47's top speed so high. ("D" 429mph to "N" 467mph where the "N" weighs 1,700lbs more!) The 500hp increase of the "C" series engine over the earlier 2,300hp figure is more reasonable.
At any rate, you are comfortable with the post-paddle blade "D" initial climb rate of 3,120fpm and an initial climb rate forthe "N" of 3,150fpm "plus".
By "plus" do you mean possibly an additional 350fpm?
I am just having a hard time swallowing a mere 30fpm increase for the "N" over the "D".
And I frankly don't know what "plus" means.
Why don't you just come out and say what the figure is that you have in mind?
Again, I do think your hp figure is off. We both have seen a range of hp values ascribed to the P-47D and I think we both can agree that the figure you have selected is the highest either of us has ever seen. To quote you, "... and therefore I find it slightly unreliable so far. (wouldn't you ?)"
Speaking of the rules of physics and aerodynamics, is there any other aircraft that you can think of that could realize such a large increase in performance with an increase of just 265hp even though it is also 1,700lbs heavier? Does this sound like its adding up to the rules of physics and aerodynamics as you say? Is it not more reasonable to accept the also widely cited 2,300hp figure for the "D"?
You saud, "According to the -47N's overall specifications, it 'should' in theory be climbing slightly faster than the -47D or at least equal to it, but according to the data it doesn't. Now why is that ? Something seems to be wrong with the -47N's data...."
I think we have a breakthrough! I have only been arguing this for a while now Soren. I have pointed out time and again that your data shows the "N" model climbing literally slower than the pre-paddle blade "D" data.
Why don't you just tell me what you think the P-47N's initial climb rate would have been based on of your understanding of the post paddle balde "D" and "M" models. Please do not include a "plus". At this point, I really don't care to hash this about anymore so I agree to accept that you and I are not going to agree on this.
DAVIDICUS said:Soren, I don't know what books you have at home regarding the P-47M. That data I presented from: http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.html was cited from the following publications:
Warren M. Bodie, Republic's P-47 Thunderbolt
Roger Freeman, Republic Thunderbolt
Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, The American Fighter
David R. McLaren, Beware The Thunderbolt: The 56th FG in WWII
DAVIDICUS said:Why do you say that?