Warbird Information Exchange

I think it is time to consider perhaps the last major asset categories together: 1st Range. Not required in some areas such as the intense fighting centered over Malta; other missions such as the escort of bombers to Japan reqire range above all. P-51 is tops, perhaps followed by Mosquito, P-38, Zero. The short guys would be a Rata with about an hour of fuel and 109. Early Spits with 102 gal, were pretty short, by Mk IX with rear fuelage tank there was 168 gal so about 3 hours, also could carry drop tank adding as much as 210 gal to the 168. P-51 had up to 300 gal drops. Internal fuel is not only more streamlined, but most important, you may have to jettison the tanks at first combat. 51 has more than Spit, internal or total and criuses slighty faster. Next I'd consider high altititude climb and ceiling. Spitfire with that great wing and lighter weight is king here, 51 with the Merlin next and 109 good also, as well as late 47. Some radial fighter, FW, and the Allison engine ones not as good up high. So we have looked at arms, speeds, turning&diving, now range&ceiling. I'll leave this for a few days and then finish up with what I consider minor categories. Now all you fat blue airplane, and down under Dreadnought fans let's hear it.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

P-47N is the ultimate combination of internal fuel, range, and performance at altitude.

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

I have to agree, nothing beats a P-47N when range and shear whoop-ass factor is needed.

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB

for this part i can't go past the japanese,in the early part of the war the tainan kukutai flew from taiwan to attack clark field in the philippines,around trip of over 12 hours . and yet according to most reports the a6m2 wasn't the longest range zero it was the a6m2 model 22.
of the later war aircraft both the ki-84 and ki-100 seem to fill the role well with good range(neede as japan has a lot of islands to defend) and fire power,the ki-84 in particular was also used as a figherbomber so as an ofencive weapon needed it's range to attack the enemy before he can attack you.
paul
(whats wrong with aussie dreadoughts ?)

Excerpts from the 1946 Tests of P-47N at Wright - Pat
II Summary

The P-47 N airplane has performance and handling characteristics very similar to the early P-47 airplanes, but due to heavier weights caused by greater fuel capacity, performance is lower when using equal power settings. The rate of roll is slower, due to the weight being farther from the longitudinal axis of the airplane.

Control forces are good, but as in the earlier model P-47 airplanes large changes in trim are necessary for a change in airspeed.
More
F. Maneuverability and Aerobatics.

Maneuverability and aerobatic characteristics are similar to earlier P-47’s in the clean configuration. With wing tip tanks filled the rate of roll and radius of turn of the P-47N is poor. No aerobatics were performed at the high gross weights (wing and belly tanks), but the rate of roll was slow for this condition.

more
D. Level Flight Performance.

Speed, power, and fuel consumption runs were made at various altitudes and curves of speed vs power in the clean configuration from 3500 ft. to 38,000 ft. are shown in Figure 4. This same data has been reduced to P-w vs Via form in Figure 6. Considerable decrease in propeller efficiency at high altitude is indicated for this airplane as has been true of other P-47’s. A summary of level flight performance of the P-47N including engine data such as turbo rpm, exhaust back pressure and carburetor air temperature at military rated power, normal rated power and 2250 rpm, 40.5” Hg is given in Figure 3, and is tabulated below:

Finally



IV Conclusion

1. Due to the large quantity of fuel it can carry, the P-47N is a good long range fighter-bomber. Although the performance is not too good at high gross weights, it improves as the external fuel is used and by the time the target area is reached it compares favorably to earlier P-47N’s


Net - the 47N as a long range escort was not any better than the late model D's other than gain in speed, had slower acceleration and roll rate.

Both were less capable at high altitudes than the P-51D or H in air to air combat and these reasons are why the USAAF and USAF dropped the 47N in favor of the 51D and H for post war. [/u][/i]

Tests done in 1946. I thought this was a WWII question.

The parameters were speed and performance at altitude. Since you brought up the issue of aerobatic performance, at least the P-47N could still dogfight with a full load of internal fuel. Try anything even remotely resembling aerobatics in a Mustang with a full fuselage tank, and one usually spent the next several thousand feet regretting the decision.

No, the N wasn't perfect, but it got the long-range job done (much like the B-29 in that regard).

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

Dog, Pretty interesting report there, good job. Oz has presented some good claims for the late war Japanese fighters, something I'm not very familiar with and don't have much info on after the Zero. Same for the latest Russian ones. We do know what 109 did over a lot of years, and also Spit over both years , both enemies, and what 51 did in both theaters. I hope to get some more replies, then I'll move on to what I consider some final less important categories, like pilot comfort.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Dan - yes the 47N tests I just quoted were done in 1946 - so what?

The 47N was delivered in March 45 as was the 51H. The only thing a 47N could out do vs a 51D at high altitude was a.) POSSIBLY out roll it (the Roll moment of inertia on the N was higher than 47D because of extra wing weight and structure to carry the extra fuel) and b.)was only slightly faster at 25,000 feet.

On the other hand the 51H was 40 kts faster than a 51D and would a.) out accelerate, b.) out climb, c.) out roll and d.) dive faster than a D - so there wasn't much left for a 47N except firepower and durability.

I have not seen a Comparison Test between a 47N and 51H but suspect that it could not do anything better except initial dive acceleration - and that is not a sure thing.

I also haven't seen the compressibility tests for the 47 but the 51D maxed at .85 Mach/486mph TAS and had a better drag co-efficient than any P-47 ever built. As I recall only the Spit had a higher Mach crit for a dive - so what was the dive performance for the 47D or N?

As to the 85 gallon tank on a 51 - it was SOP to burn first even before drop tanks so was rarely an issue... as it was normally empty after crossing the Channel in the ETO after forming up and climbing to altitude.

on the other hand a 47N with a full load of fuel could drop tanks and still not be able to fight much for a long time until it had burned a lot of internal fuel, and with a full load of fuel it was less capable than the 47D in a dogfight. The paddle blade prop also wasn't very effective at high altitude according to the report so both turning performance and initial climb suffered.

The most most revealing comment in the 47N report was a conclusion that it offered a lot as a long range Fighter/Bomber - but you may recall that 51's and F-82's were in the inventory for long range escort right into the Korean War - because they were the best existing conventional fighter the USAF had to excort the B-29.

Bill - the Ki 84 and several other Japanese fighters were very capable high performance, long range fighter aircraft... like other Japanese fighters you did not want to fight this one in a turning fight and it had excellent speed and heavy firepower - it is a contender.. as well as Raiden and Shiden -


Regards to you both,

Bill

What kind of combat record did the P-51H have in 1945? I honestly don't know how many claims/victories are credited to the H versus the P-47N.

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

Dan - since the 51H was a production fighter contracted in 1944 and delivered in 1st qtr of 45 - it qualifies as a WWII fighter... you can choose to pick your own criteria

As long as you want to be pedantic and limit to combat record - then compare the 47N with the better 51D or 51C or B in total record of destruction - pick any category or all...

They all are superior long range escort and the P-51B/C and D destroyed 50% more aircraft with 1/2 of the sorties, and lost 30% fewer a/c to all of the P-47's combined. If that is the record you want to go on - go for it.

Net - more missions for the 47, more a/c built of the 47, fewer a/c destroyed, more lost, and less impact on the air war. If you want to start a thread on Best Fighter Bomber or Best Ground Support, you would have a really good candidate with the P-47... but if you want to deal with long range excort and aerial combat - and talk to the facts, the P-47N is not the horse to ride.

Regards,

Bill

Does anyone know what kind of combat record the P-51H had in 1945? I thought I read somewhere that a few made it to the combat zone before the end of hostilities.

It's curiosity--not pedantry.

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

Sorry Dan - as far as I know, none of the 51H squadrons rotated overseas. The war in ETO was nearly over and the 51D force at Saipan and Iwo Jima were deemed more than adequate to risk losing latest 51H's.

I recall that the 47N's made the 318th and 348FG (and 35th?)and I suspect the reason was a.) known better survivor in the dirt and b.) plenty of capacity and loiter over Okinawa and Japan to support ground forces during invasion... the latter is speculation pure and simple -

I do know that over 300 were delivered (51H) by VJ Day and as more and more P-80's came into the inventory, more and more US Based 51's rotated to National Guard.. and even the 56Fg converted to 51H's immediately after VE Day after they came home to Selfridge -as 56FIS.

The 35thFG converted to 51's immediately after VJ Day and remained so equipped through the end of the Korean War. My father was CO of the 35th from 1948-1949 - There is no question the 35th would have lost far fewer a/c and pilots in Korea if they had 47's for the role they played.. but they were designated FIW not FBW.

My father loved the D but loved the H more - claimed better turn and climb and acceleration at all altitudes over D's - and had no fear rat racing with F8F's or F4U's at Atsugi(sp?) NAS.


Regards,

Bill

I'd list firepower and durability pretty high on my scale of "wants" (especially durability). The P-47 could take a lot of bullets and bring you back home. The P-51 couldn't take a bullet in the radiator and last very long thereafter.

I've talked to several WWII vets who, for that reason alone, would prefer the P-47. Granted, they were P-47 pilots, so they might have been a little biased. But then again, so are most people.

Janovec - the Il-2 had awesome of firepower and durability but did nor score particulalry well against the Fw 190 and Me 109.

The legendary F4F had firepower in abundance and great durability -but fought the A6M under ideal conditions at the far end of the Zero range, and usually didn't stick around to play dogfight in horizontal or positive vertical.

The following top a/c suffered from the golden B-B syndrome, to name a few ; Spitfire, Me 109, Fw 190d and Ta 152, for example.

Having said that, In the last year of the war you wouldn't have many pilots of 51's Spits, Fw 190D or Ta 152's lining up to fly the 47 instead of their bird if air to air was the primary role despite being ougunned in a couple of cases and having to tough it it out with glycol dependent engines..

The 354th FG (Eagleston, etc) Begged Quesada to give them back their 51's after flying them for 3 1/2 month - and got them to be once again the only 9th AF Mustang outfit.

Ask the bomber crews which type fighter they were most comfortable having escort them - short or long haul. The Luftwaffe nearly stopped daylight bombing when only the 47 and 38 were in theatre in the ETO - but flourished when the 51 basically broke the back of the Luftwaffe Mar-June 1944 when the 8th killed about 1000 experienced pilots per month.

The 56th played one hell of a role but they were the only really hot outfit flying P-47's - the 4th, 78th, 352nd, 353rd, 355th were so so and the 356 was getting clobbered.. but they flourished with 51's and the 357th came in as rookies (along with 354thFG) starting out with 51's and emerged as two of the top three scoring outfits air to air in the ETO. And the 56th had an 8 month and 10 month head start, respectively over the 354th and 357th.

I would give a lot more thought to pilots that started out in the escort role with 51's then switched to 47's and ended up preferring the 47. I can't even think of a fighter group per se that begged to keep their 47's other than the 56th.

Do you have examples of say, any aces, that fit that profile? i.e started in 51's, switched to 47's and wanted to stay with 47's when the mission was kill German (or Japanese) fighters and protect the bombers?

Conversely I can think of a lot of P-47 drivers that were tasked to run interference for Patton and very much preferred the 47 (remembering that the paddle blade in the P-47 significantly improved acceleration and climb for the Jug in low to medium altitudes)..

As usual just my opinion.

Regards,

Bill

the p-51 h didnot see ww 2combat & the mods killed it's beautiful lines like an inept plastic surgeon.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!