which was the real biggest fighter in WW2?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by rousseau, Nov 19, 2010.

  1. rousseau

    rousseau Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    The wing area of the Corsair significantly larger than the Thunderbolt, but aft one conversely won the heaviest record, comparably, they has close length and same engine, so I wonder why the Thunderbolt heavy so much and why the Corsair's service life shorter than Thunderbolt?
    What about specification of their performance? Was the Thunderbolt an attacker rather than a fighter?
     
  2. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    Do 217 night fighter
     
  3. Sydhuey

    Sydhuey Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (Helicopters)
    Location:
    Brisbane QLD Australia
    Would have to be the P-61 Black Widow bit shorter than a 217 but about 6000lbs heavier and bigger wing span, also the 217 was a converted bomber the P-61 was a dedicated fighter from the drawing board.
     
  4. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,223
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    rousseau, when you say fighter, are you meaning a single seat, single engine aircraft?

    Or any aircraft designated as a fighter, regardless of crew or engines?
     
  5. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,007
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Thunderbolt was designed from inside-out: the boys from Republic 1st attached the R-2800 to a elaborate turbo-charger installation that enabled high power (= high performance) even at 30-35000 feet. The drawback was added bulk, and therefore the weight.
    Corsair was designed with engine-driven supercharger - a much more compact system than exhaust gas driven supercharger (=turbocharger). So the hull was smaller lighter. Thunderbolt also featured 2 HMGs more than Corsair.
    I'm not sure Thunderbolt have had longer service life - Corsair was used even in Korean war.
    About the specification of performance, you should find some dedicated threads in this forum. IIRC, generally the same generation Corsair was ~better~ below 20K, while P-47 was better above 25K. Between 20K 25K those were about equal.
    As for what type was better suited for fighter service, I'd say both were very god - some even consider them the best fighters of WW2. Being rugged and with decent payload, they were good (ground/surface) attackers.
     
  6. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    The Ju-87 and IL-2 were even better in that role. But when people mention fighter aircraft they normally mean air to air combat.
     
  7. renrich

    renrich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,542
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    real estate
    Location:
    Montrose, Colorado
    Corsair was in production much longer than P47 and the corsair had a much longer service life. Neither was the largest fighter. I think P61 takes that honor.
     
  8. Night Fighter Nut

    Night Fighter Nut Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    2,336
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Mechanic / Avionics
    Location:
    Plano Texas
    I've read that the P-61 was the largest American plane with the "P" designation. "P" for pursuit so at least on the American side, the largest fighter was the P-61. :)
     
  9. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    Nakajima Ki-109, fighter version of the Ki-67 bomber.

    Or even the Me 323 escort fighter prototype :)
    Kris
     
  10. Njaco

    Njaco The Pop-Tart Whisperer
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,059
    Likes Received:
    994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Animal Control Officer
    Location:
    Southern New Jersey
    Now that would be something!!!! Did it come with drop tanks?
     
  11. vikingBerserker

    vikingBerserker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    24,093
    Likes Received:
    657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Korporate Kontrolleur
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Wow, that had to be something like the B-40.
     
  12. rousseau

    rousseau Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    What I mentioned both are single engine fighter!
     
  13. davparlr

    davparlr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    retired avionics engineer
    Location:
    Southern California
    The P-47N was much larger than the F4U-4. The P-38J was larger than the P-47N.

    The largest American fighter overall was the P-61.

    This is all by weight.
     
  14. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,223
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    Interesting to compare the single-seat, single-engined heavyweights side by side.

    Specs for the P-47D (P-47N had improved internal fuel tanks, but same area):
    Height: 14' 8"/4.47m
    Length: 36' 1"/11.00m
    Wingspan: 40' 9"/12.42m
    Wing Area: 300'²/27.87m²
    Empty Weight: 10,000lb./4,536kg
    Loaded Weight: 17,500lb./7,938kg

    Specs for the F4U-1A (F4U-4 was slightly larger/heavier):
    Height: 16' 1"/4.90m
    Length: 33' 4"/10.1m
    Wingspan: 41'/12.5m
    Wing Area: 314'²/29.17m²
    Empty Weight: 8,982lb./4,073kg
    Loaded Weight: 14,000lb./6,300kg

    Compared to the P-38L (J had added fuel tanks to the outboard wing area added dive-recovery flaps) also keeping in mind that it had the additional weight of a second engine, so it wouldn't qualify as a single-engined fighter:
    Height: 12' 10"/3.91m
    Length: 37' 10"/3m
    Wingspan: 52'/15.85m
    Wing Area: 327.5'²/30.43m²
    Empty Weight: 12,800lb./5,800kg
    Loaded Weight: 17,500lb./7,940kg

    And for the heck of it, I'll toss in a few Axis single-seaters.
    Fw190A-8:
    Height: 13'/3.95m
    Length: 29' 5"/9m
    Wingspan: 34' 5"/10.51m
    Wing Area: 196.99'²/18.30m²
    Empty Weight: 7,060lb./3,200kg
    Loaded Weight: 9,735lb./4,417kg

    KI-100-1a:
    Height: 12' 4"/3.75m
    Length: 28' 11"/8.82m
    Wingspan: 39' 4"/12m
    Wing Area: 215'²/20m²
    Empty Weight: 5,567lb./2,525kg
    Loaded Weight: 7,705lb./3,495kg
     
  15. norab

    norab Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Everybody seems to be forgetting the F6F Hellcat, I guess because it was carrier based people tend to think it was small, but it wasn't




    Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat
    Dimensions:
    Wing span: 42 ft 10 in (13.05 m)
    Length: 33 ft 10 in (10.31 m)
    Height: 14 ft 5 in (4.39 m)
    Wing Area: 334 sq ft (31 sq m)
    Weights:
    Empty: 9,060 lbs (4,110 kg)
    Normal Gross: 12,598 lbs (5,714 kg)
    Maximum Gross: 15,413 lbs (6,991 kg)
     
  16. renrich

    renrich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,542
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    real estate
    Location:
    Montrose, Colorado
    #16 renrich, Nov 20, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2010
    GG, I am pretty sure that the P47N had a greater wing span than other P47s which was where they carried the extra fuel. Online there is a P47N shown at the Cavanagh Air Museum in Addison Texas and the specs show the wing span as 42 feet 7 inches. I used to fly a 172 out of Addison and have seen that Jug, sitting next to a Spitfire and it is a monster, making the Spit look like a toy.
     
  17. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,223
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    I think it did too, but wasn't going to commit to that, because I'll be danged if I can find my specs on it! :lol:

    Better to err on the side of caution, you know?

    Still, the D was a beast in it's own right, especially with a Takeoff weight of 17,500 pounds...
     
  18. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,007
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    4500 lbs more for P-47N, max take off weight.
     
  19. Milosh

    Milosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    P-47N
    wingspan 42 feet 7 inches,
    length 36 feet 4 inches,
    height 14 feet 7 inches,
    wing area 322 square feet

    P-47D
    wingspan 40 feet 9 3/8 inches,
    length 36 feet 1 3/4 inches,
    height 14 feet 7 inches,
    wing area 300 square feet

    Republic P-47 Thunderbolt
     
  20. NZTyphoon

    NZTyphoon Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    University Student
    Location:
    New Zealand
    According to flight tests of P-47N AAF NO. 44-88406 the P-47N was tested at a weight of 16,400 lbs clean at take-off: with 2 x 165 US gal drop tanks it weighed 19,250 lbs and, with a 110 gal belly tank added, 19,880 lbs. Loading and performance charts from 1950 give a maximum weight of 20,867 lbs equipped for ground attack, with 3,000 lbs of bombs - rate of climb = 638 f/min at sea level.
     
Loading...

Share This Page