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

[lesofprimus]

Maybe some *incriminating* evidence not wanting to divulge??? Who knows. Im still not 100% with u yet, so.....

Im kinda surprised at u actually, cause ur statistical info is usually complete and precise, and this one wasnt, hence all the ????'s surrounding it...

[syscom3]

I have one pix of the P47 in the 2004 show, plus as a bonus for you Brits, a hurricane.

I have more pix to share, but i suppose i will need to open a whole new topic.

BTW, my 2 cents worth..... the P47 would defeat the FW190 everytime if it had room to dive. And the solid construction of the plane would mean the Fw190 pilot would have to make every shot count as he wouldnt have it in his sights for long.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Maybe some *incriminating* evidence not wanting to divulge???

Primus, I gave the "max" climb rate numbers, so why would I leave out any alt stats ? That would be meaningless...

Who knows. Im still not 100% with u yet, so.....

Oh, I see.. And why is that ? (Send me a PM if you want)

I'm kinda surprised at u actually, cause ur statistical info is usually complete and precise, and this one wasn't, hence all the ????'s surrounding it...

Your "?????'s" I haven't really seen any others

[DAVIDICUS]

Soren, you wrote, " I still wonder how they could even hope to let us to believe the -47 would climb at 4900 ft/min ! That's an insane number for such a heavy a/c ! "

I submitted the 504mph XP-47J's climb rate as 4,900fpm. I have no reason to believe that it could not deliver on that number. I did not asert the "M" model's climb rate as 4,900fpm. I do suspect that it was probably close to 4,000fpm though. (A frankly speculative guess)

With respect to the numbers you quoted from your source, I'm still interested in knowing:

Why it would be reasonbable to accept the "N" model's initial climb rate as equal to the pre-paddle blade "D" model level.

AND

Why it would be reasonable to accept the "M" model's climb rate as only a few hundred fpm higher than the post paddle bladed "D" model when the top speed rocketed from 429mph for the "D" to over 470 mph for the "M".

Keep in mind that the 500mph XP-47J 's climb rate in combat configuration was 1,700fpm higher than the post paddle bladed "D" model.

Concerning the XP-47J
From: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_9.html

Weights were 9663 pounds empty, 12,400 pounds normal loaded, 16,780 pounds maximum.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I

BTW, my 2 cents worth..... the P47 would defeat the FW190 everytime if it had room to dive. And the solid construction of the plane would mean the Fw190 pilot would have to make every shot count as he wouldnt have it in his sights for long.

No, it would "escape" almost everytime it had room to dive. There's a difference

The P-47's only advantage over the Fw-190 was its diving characteristics, nothing else. (Except later -47's were faster ofcourse)

[Soren]

Originally Posted by DAVIDICUS

Soren, I'm still interested in knowing:

Why it would be reasonbable to accept the "N" model's initial climb rate as equal to the pre-paddle blade "D" model level.

AND

Why it would be reasonable to accept the "M" model's climb rate as only a few hundred fpm higher than the post paddle bladed "D" model when the top speed rocketed from 429mph to over 470 mph. (Keeping in mind that the 500mph XP-72 's climb rate in combat configuration was 1,700fpm higher than the post paddle bladed "D" model)

Various factors can have effects on climb rate DAVID, things such as; Wing-loading, power-loading, wing-area, wing-aspect ratio, airfoil shape and so on. (Power-loading being a very decisive one)

You must agree that an a/c with a power-loading of 4.74lbs/hp, isn't going to skyrocket at 4900ft/min ! Not even the 109 K-4 will do that !

In any case, I must agree with you DAVID, something is fishy about 'both' our data's, and this probably wont be solved before we get our hands on some reliable test-documents stating the true numbers.

[lesofprimus]

Your "?????'s"

Yes mine...

Whats the MAX rate for the 25-RE then??? That way I can compare it to the 35-RA....

See................... THATS MY POINT........ I cant use the stats u gave me....

Quote:
Who knows. Im still not 100% with u yet, so.....


Oh, I see.. And why is that ? (Send me a PM if you want)

Ummm... Uve forgotten already???

lesofprimus wrote:
Maybe some *incriminating* evidence not wanting to divulge???


Primus, I gave the "max" climb rate numbers, so why would I leave out any alt stats ? That would be meaningless...

Dude, Comeon.. Dont u have any humorous bones in ur body? IT WAS A JOKE......... Dammit, Uve been here long enough to get my humor by now.....

[Soren]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Whats the MAX rate for the 25-RE then??? That way I can compare it to the 35-RA....

See................... THATS MY POINT........ I cant use the stats u gave me....

Oh, but you can

We were talking max initial climb rate, and I provided for both. (Without the alt though)

Ummm... Uve forgotten already???

I actually yes I "had", but as I've said ealier on, I hold no grudge over silly arguements.

Dude, Comeon.. Dont u have any humorous bones in ur body? IT WAS A JOKE......... Dammit, Uve been here long enough to get my humor by now.....

Guess not

[lesofprimus]

We were talking max initial climb rate, and I provided for both.

K, u just failed to put that max in front of the initial....

I actually yes I "had", but as I've said ealier on, I hold no grudge over silly arguements.

K... Just making sure.........

Guess not

I got a few Metatarsils I could share with u, or some bone chips from my elbow I'll give u free of charge...

[Soren]

[DAVIDICUS]

Soren, the 4,900fpm figure that I threw out was for the 504mph, 46,000ft service ceiling XP-47J. I never claimed that this figure applied to the "M" model. The issue of the 4.74 lbs/hp wing loading figure applying to 4,900fpm is a creature of your generation.

If you look back on my earlier post, you will see that the "M" figures I gave were quoted from http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/qu...485/P-47M.html as follows:

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.

I don't think the above quoted figures would strike anyone as biased or otherwise incorrect. The entire purpose of quoting the "M" figures was in order to "speculate" on what the "N" model's climb rate would have been. (since no reasonable data appears to be available - further evidenced by the "N" model climb figure you quoted being at the pre-paddle blade "D" model level) As I pointed out earlier, the "M" model shared the same souped up powerplane but was lighter. In addition, however, the wing of the "N" model was larger and I'm not sure how that would have affected the climb.

If you accept the above quoted "M" model figure, what would you estimate or guesstimate the "N" model's climb as?

Anyone?

[Soren]

Soren, the 4,900fpm figure that I threw out was for the 504mph, 46,000ft service ceiling XP-47J. I never claimed that this figure applied to the "M" model. The issue of the 4.74 lbs/hp wing loading figure applying to 4,900fpm is a creature of your generation.

Sry, a mistake on my part. I obviously thought we were talking the -47M.

However my opinion seems to be the same about the XP-47J, as its power-loading isn't much better= 4.42 lbs/hp.

If you look back on my earlier post, you will see that the "M" figures I gave were quoted from http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/qu...485/P-47M.html as follows:

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.

20,000 feet in 4.75 min !

Seriously DAVID, that's faster than a Spit XIV....

I think we can rule that out as a possibility, now can't we ?

[plan_D]

Spitfire XIV was 4.9 minutes to 20,000 feet, right?

[DAVIDICUS]

From: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14pt.html

[Soren]

Originally Posted by plan_D

Spitfire XIV was 4.9 minutes to 20,000 feet, right?

A prototype made that time, yes. But it seems the production model did it in 5.1 min.

I normally go for the 4.9min figure though, as it seems more reasonable.