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

[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"

[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 ****...

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/qu...485/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]

Originally Posted by DAVIDICUS

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.

Originally Posted by DAVIDICUS

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

Originally Posted by DAVIDICUS

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[marseille jr]

Yeps adler. I couldn't agree more here.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

does that seem out of context to anyone else??

[Soren]

Originally Posted by 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?

First of all let me make two small corrections:

P-47D

Max. Engine power is 2535 HP. (Not 2300 HP)

Power-loading is therefore 5.75 lbs/hp.

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

Now comes my opinion.

Since this debate started I've been searching my books and the internet for data on the P-47M,N,D and XP-47J. What I have found is that all the data is roughly similar to the data below, and that your presented site seems to be unique with its specifications, and therefore I find it slightly unreliable so far. (wouldn't you ?)

However my #1 reason for doubting some of your presented site's data, is that they just don't add up with the rules of physics and aerodynamics.

Anyways, on to the -47D and -47N issue....

The data below is roughly consistent with all five of my books, and at least 10 other websites, and AFAIK only your presented website's specifications arent consistent with these numbers:

P-47M:

P-47M-1-RE:
Initial climb rate: 3500 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2650 feet per minute at 20,000 feet.

P-47M:
Initial rate of climb: 3500 ft per minute at 5000 ft and 2650 ft per minute at 20,000 ft

P-47D:

P-47D-25-RE :
Initial climb rate: 2780 ft/min at sea-level, 1575 ft/min at 30,000ft.

Climb: 6.2 min to 15,000, 14 min to 30,000.

P-47D-35-RA:
Max initial climb: 3120 ft/min.

P-47N:

P-47N:
Rate of climb: 2770 ft per minute at 5000 ft and 2550 ft per minute at 20,000 ft

P-47N-5-RE:
Initial climb rate was 2770 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2550 feet per minute at 20,000 feet.

Climb to 25,000 ft in 14.2 minutes.


Now here comes the part where I agree with you...

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 believe the -47N should be climbing with atleast 3,150ft/min+.

The rest of the specifications above on the -47D and -47M, all seem perfectly reasonable to me.

[DAVIDICUS]

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.

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.

From:http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_4.html

It added 400 feet per minute to the climb rate, but during landings and takeoffs there was only a scant six inches of clearance between blade tips and the ground. Takeoffs and landings must have both been hair-raising.

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 ?)"

How does my data not add up to the rules of physics and aerodynamics? It is you who have offered up a mere additional 265hp on a 1,700lb heavier aircraft as explaination for an increase in speed from 429mph to 467mph.

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.

[Soren]

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.

There you go again ! You totally missunderstood me !

I said I found your presented site's data to be unique, in which I meant this site; http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Sev...Republic7.html (Which you presented us) is unique with some of its data.

I am in no way questioning your credibility DAVID, and I have no reason to, I'm just saying your presented site is not very reliable.

Geez, you sure have a nack of twisting things

I'll address the rest later.