F6F Hellcat vs. P-47 Thunderbolt

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Demetrious

I would love, with all my soul, to find data that gives the rate of roll in degrees/sec for these ships.

I don't know how accurate this graph is but it's always some info.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-rollchart.jpg

[Demetrious]

Originally Posted by marshall

I don't know how accurate this graph is but it's always some info.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-rollchart.jpg

You have filled me with glee, sir. I thank you.

mhuxt, I didn't know about this site before now... I think I'll go look up the Buffalo and see how it rolled.

EDIT: This graph is fascinating- it really shows how the Spitfire dominated low-speed fights, but lost roll performance rapidly as speed increased. The data for the P-40 and the P-51 are interesting too, since they rolled better then most, but only at the higher speeds. Maintaining those velocities would have been easy for the P-51, but not so much for the P-40... I wonder if WWII aircraft performance has a chart for sea level performance as well (though 10,000 feet really isn't that high.)

The roll performance of the clipped-wing Spitfire is slightly frightening, as well.

[Magister]

I see this too.

Tactical Suitability of the P-47C-1:

(3) Manueverability -- The P-47C-1 was flown in mock combat against the P-38F, P-39D-1, P-40F and P-51.

(a) It had superior rate of aileron roll at all speeds, and especially at high speed to all American contemporary fighter types, none could follow it in a fast reverse turn.

P-47C Tactical Trials

[Demetrious]

Originally Posted by Magister

I see this too.

Tactical Suitability of the P-47C-1:

(3) Manueverability -- The P-47C-1 was flown in mock combat against the P-38F, P-39D-1, P-40F and P-51.

(a) It had superior rate of aileron roll at all speeds, and especially at high speed to all American contemporary fighter types, none could follow it in a fast reverse turn.

P-47C Tactical Trials

That's odd. That chart shows the P-40 and the P-51 has superior roll at all speeds... at ten thousand feet, at least. Perhaps that test was done at higher altitude; I've heard that the P-40 and it's big wings really started to dominate the thinner the air got.

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by Demetrious

Agreed, but what is this I hear about the P-47 being a "great climber?" One of my favorite anecdotes about the P-47 comes from Hub Zemeke, after he was congratulated on proving that the P-47 could outdive a 109. He said, "By god, it ought to dive- it certainly won't climb!" (I have seen this quote attributed to Donald J.M. Blakeslee as well.) In fact, the poor climb rate of the P-47 is the one thing I hear about the most, right behind it's incredible ruggedness. The data on wikipedia shows the F6F has a slight advantage in climb rate (3,500ft/s to 3,125), not a disadvantage.

Sadly, I almost never see roll rate data, anywhere, but the impressive roll rate of the P-47 is well known, so I'll assume it had the advantage there. The P-47 was faster and rolled better, the F6F rolled well (but not as good as the Jug) and turned rather better (wing loading of 37.7lbs/square foot to 58.3).

These ships seem very similar in performance. It would seem that it comes down to what you consider more important, turn rate or roll rate. I'd say roll rate, personally, but it's worth considering that the F6F was a good roller and had good turn; it's just that the P-47 was an exceptional roller.

I would love, with all my soul, to find data that gives the rate of roll in degrees/sec for these ships.

I've read from many sources that after they introduced the paddle blade propeller, the climb rate became very respectable and the Germans were no longer able to use the climb as an easy out.

I know that quote was from before the new propeller was introduced.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by Demetrious

...I've heard that the P-40 and it's big wings really started to dominate the thinner the air got.

Its wings might have, though I doubt it
its engine certainly didn't

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by Colin1

Its wings might have, though I doubt it
its engine certainly didn't

As a fighter, just about everything you read says the Jug was at its best at 30,000 feet.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by Clay_Allison

As a fighter, just about everything you read says the Jug was at its best at 30,000 feet.

Well then I'm confused
what are we talking about - the Jug or the P-40?

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by Colin1

Well then I'm confused
what are we talking about - the Jug or the P-40?

No, I'm confused. How did the P-40 make it into this thread?

[billswagger]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Combined air and ground the P-51 destroyed over 9,000 aircraft... most of any allied fighter...............

i'd like to read more about this, do you have the source???

I pulled this off of Wiki

"Despite being the sole remaining P-47 group in the 8th Air Force, the 56th FG remained its(The Air Force) top-scoring group in aerial victories throughout the war."

and....

Warbird Alley: Republic P-47 Thunderbolt

this article attributes approximately 7,000 enemy fighter losses, air and ground, to the P-47 in ww2.

[syscom3]

When it came to air to air fighting at middle and low altitudes, the Hellcat was supreme.

But fighter bomber and high altitude work, the P47 was best.

Pick your mission and then choose which one of these planes is better.

[Demetrious]

Originally Posted by Clay_Allison

I've read from many sources that after they introduced the paddle blade propeller, the climb rate became very respectable and the Germans were no longer able to use the climb as an easy out.

I know that quote was from before the new propeller was introduced.

Oh. Quite correct on all accounts, there.

I wonder what the climb rate with the new propeller was. Apperently better then the F6F, at any rate.

Originally Posted by Clay_Allision

No, I'm confused. How did the P-40 make it into this thread?

I accidentally typed "P-40" instead of "P-47."

A combination of the long P-40 thread I've been mostly posting in, and the dire consequences of working the third shift.

[billswagger]

The P-47 is the superior fighter, even at lower altitudes. IMO.
Although it was designed to fly at 30K+, its that altitude that gave it a superior punch at lower altitudes, many times leveling out at speeds well above what the hellcat could dream of.
I would give the hellcat marks for better turn rate, however, the P-47 would pounce on the enemy so quickly, there was no need to turn fight.

The P-47 took some time to learn what it was proficient at, and many pilots quickly learned to take advantage of its dive from high above.

It was never known for its climb rate, however upgrades and WEP gave it no trouble hanging with its contemporaries.
Over a long stretch, say 10-15+ minutes of climb, the lack of efficient climb rate was more noticeable. When it had the momentum of a dive behind it, it had no problem getting back up to altitude and beyond. Pilots like "Gabby" could
"...dive from 25K down to 20K....and be able to zoom up to 30K in a matter of seconds, ready to meet 109s."

[marshall]

Originally Posted by billswagger

"...dive from 25K down to 20K....and be able to zoom up to 30K in a matter of seconds, ready to meet 109s."

Could you give the source of this quote?

[Magister]

Some interesting zoom climb P-47N vs. D test data:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...p-47n-zoom.pdf