P-47N Thunderbolt vs. F4U-4 Corsair - Which was superior?

[JonJGoldberg]

Reply To Sal Monella>>>>

From the book The Illustrated History Of Fighters, by Bill Gunston, Exter books, 1981, page 107, P-47N Thunderbolt Length: 36' 4"

Performance of the P-47N-5-RE included a maximum speed of 397 mph at 10,000 feet, 448 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 460 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2770 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2550 feet per minute at 20,000 feet. Range (clean) was 800 miles at 10,000 feet. Armanent included six or eight 0.50-inch machine guns with 500 rpg and two 1000-lb or three 500-lb bombs or ten 5-inch rockets. Weights were 11,000 pounds empty, 16,300 pounds normal loaded, and 20,700 pounds maximum. Dimension were wingspan 42 feet 7 inches, length 36 feet 4 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, and wing area 322 square feet.

Specifications of the P-47D-25-RE: One Pratt and Whitney R-2800-59 Double Wasp eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial, war emergency power of 2535 hp. Maximum speed was 429 mph at 30,000 feet, 406 mph at 20,000 feet, 375 mph at 10,000 feet, 350 mph at sea level. Initial climb rate was 2780 feet per minute. Climb rate at 30,000 feet was 1575 feet per minute. Service ceiling was 40,000 feet, and range was 950 miles at 10,000 feet. Range with maximum external fuel was 1800 miles at 10,000 feet at 195 mph. Weights were 10,700 pounds empty, 14,600 pounds normal loaded, and 17,500 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 40 feet 9 3/8 inches, length 36 feet 1 3/4 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, and wing area 300 square feet.

The above can be referenced @
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47.html

SPECIFICATIONS (P-47D)
Span: 40 ft. 9 in.
Length: 36 ft. 2 in.
Height: 14 ft. 8 in.
Weight: 17,500 lbs. max.
Armament: Six or eight .50 cal. machine guns and either ten rockets or 2,500 lb. of bombs
Engine: One Pratt & Whitney R-2800-59 of 2,430 hp.
Crew: One
Cost: $85,000

PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 433 mph.
Cruising speed: 350 mph.
Range: 1,030 miles
Service Ceiling: 42,000 ft.

The above information can be found @
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap.htm

The article & quote to which you refer provides info on the XP-47N, undergoing 'Factory' testing. The hype of this 'Factory' testing, wouldn't have allowed any other outcome than the one you quoted. You are quite right in pointing out the improvements in roll rate, and overall maneuverability the new wing brought to the Thunderbolt. However, consider the following... "the war in the Pacific required fighter ranges even greater than did operations over Germany. In pursuit of better long-range performance, in mid-1944 the third YP-47M prototype (42-27387) was fitted with a new "wet" wing of slightly larger span and area. The aircraft was redesignated XP-47N. For the first time in the Thunderbolt series fuel was carried in the wings, a 93 US gallon tank being fitted in each wing. When maximum external tankage was carried, this brought the total fuel load of the XP-47N up to an impressive 1266 US gallons. This fuel load make it possible for a range of 2350 miles to be achieved.

The new wing also incorporated larger ailerons and squared-off wingtips. These innovations enhanced the roll-rate of the Thunderbolt and improved the maneuverability. The dorsal fin behind the bubble canopy was somewhat larger than that on the P-47D. However, the increased fuel load increased the gross weight of the aircraft. In order to cope with the increased gross weight, the undercarriage of the XP-47N had to be strengthened, which increased the weight still further. The maximum weight rose to over 20,000 pounds."

The above in italicscan be referenced @
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_13.html (for you Sal)

Anyway... The XP-47N did not have the modified undercarriage, and structural enhancements of the P-47N production variants as the N's wet wings replaced the YP-47M's wings, that were attached to a D's loner body,at the savings of about 300 pounds (The difference in empty weights D/N). So I do not believe they could they have flown the XP-47N at anywhere near it's true 'combat' weight, during it's so called mock battles, or range tests; instead the XP-47 was flown at best, at the D's combat weight (but probably more like the M's pre-production 'combat weight'). Remember Sal, the loner YP-M was developed to demonstrate the ability of the -47 as a pure fighter, designed to catch 'buzz bombs'. You remove 3,000lbs from an aircraft (The difference in combat weights D/N), and this weight savings provided the XP-47N with a very serious advantage, do you agree?. Add to that, the power difference & well....

The reality of your article is that a mock battle/s between a 'hot roded' D vs a standard D netted in the standard D's loss, as planed. Any advantage the standard D had/s over the standard N, such as turn rate & climb, are lost in this 'demonstration'. In my tables all numbers are at 'combat' weight. The only weight were there is even a remote chance at a 'level playing field'.
The one thing we agree, at least for now, on is that the N was indeed quite different than the D. In reality the N indeed defeats the D. In my tables N indeed defeats the D. But we are not talking reality here, as the two never fought (F4U vs P47, or P47vs P47).So I'm taking this posture, D as opposed to N, for the following reasons... @ combat weight, on production versions, the D's superior turning rate & climb combined with it's level stall characteristic on my personal dogfighting scale, defeats the D's roll & speed advantage.

[Sal Monella]

Jon, I think you're looking at a typo as far as the dofference in length. I have never seen any lengthening of the fuselage referenced in any publication. If you can point out a reference to the lengthening of the fuselage that would support this length discrepency, I would concede.

I may have misunderstood your last post so please do not be upset if the following argument appears to mistate the points and argument you have raised.

As far as your assertion that both "D" and "N" models should be compared at "combat weight" because in your words, it would be "The only weight were there is even a remote chance at a 'level playing field', I ask that you consider the following:

The "D" and "N" models are designed with fundamentally different roles. The "N" is obviously an extreme range escort fighter. As far as comparing "combat weight" of both the "D" and "N" models, I don't think that that is a fair comparison as the fuel load of an "N" model in "combat load" configuration is supposed to carry the aircraft well, well beyond the range of a "D" model in its "combat weight" configuration. Put differently, the combat weight of an "N" model includes an enormous fuel load and weight not borne by the "D" model in the same configuration.

Now, for a proper apples to apples comparison of both aircraft fulfillng the same role, you would not use a far larger and heavier fuel load in only one aircraft and since it would be impossible to load up the "D" with internal fuel to match the "N", you must do the reverse or reduce the internal fuel load of the "N" to match the "D".

Under this scenario, where both aircraft can be loaded to actually perform in the same role, the performance of the "N" with the wider, squared off wings and "C" series engine far exceeds the performance of the "D" model. The climb rate you have quoted for the "N" for instance would instead be very close to the "M" model which is close to 3,800fpm at 5,000ft.

See the thread entitled Republic Aviation Performance Data - P-47"M" and P-47 "N" on page 4 of this forum.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2033

So, if we were to load up a "D" and an "N" model with the same amount of fuel, you would find that the performance of the "N" model far exceeds the "D" in every respect. (Combat weight configuration is with a full internal fuel load and the "N" model literally carried an additional 2,500lbs of internal fuel over and above what the "D" model carried.)

[lesofprimus]

So, if we were to load up a "D" and an "N" model with the same amount of fuel, you would find that the performance of the "N" model far exceeds the "D" in every respect.

I would agree with u Sal on that....

[Gnomey]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

I would agree with u Sal on that....

So would I.

[SUperflanker37]

I'm definitly a fan of the Corsair, from the simulators I've played at, the Corsair is just easier to fly, a bit speedier when it comes to responding to controls, and easier to maneuver. I suppose I'm just a fan of the lighter airframe.. don't get me wrong the P-47 was awesome too.. I just think it's better suited for a ground attack role than air-to-air.

[Nonskimmer]

I wouldn't be too quick to base an opinion solely on computer games. More often than not, they haven't been found to quite accurately depict the aircrafts' handling characteristics. Some of them don't even come close.

However if gaming is your passion, we do have a gaming section here on the forums. You can discuss IL-2 Sturmovik, CFS, European Air War, LOMAC, or anything else you wish.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed NS very well said.

[Nonskimmer]

Danke.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Bitte, Klein Problem.

[SUperflanker37]

yeah there are a good deal of games that arent realistic. have any of you flown before? hehe.. ill confess im only 14, so i really dont know a TON on what im talking about.. but it is an interest of mine

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No sims are realistic eneogh to recreat the whole flying experience.

I fly. I have a private pilots liscence and I crew Blackhawk helicopter for the US Army. I only have about 70 hours including my flight training in Cessnas and I have almost 1500 flight hours as a Crewchief in Blackhawks.

FBJ flies also. He has alot more flight experience than I do.

[lesofprimus]

And evan flies and glider flies and syscom flies and I used to fly ect ect ect.. lol

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

There are plenty of people on here with actual flight experience.

[JonJGoldberg]

Reply to Sal Monella >>>

Combat weight: Suppose for the moment we change 47 to 51 so that it is now a P-51D against a P-47N. Using your argument (of both aircraft fulfillng the same role, you would not use a far larger and heavier fuel load in only one aircraft and since it would be impossible to load up the "D" with internal fuel to match the "N", you must do the reverse or reduce the internal fuel load of the "N" to match the "D".) you feel it fair to apply yet another advantage to the ’47N. I think not. Rather start at combat weight. Too much fuel, OK, the lets put both fighters at 50% fuel. This to me seems more rational, & fair.

2”: I can not ‘quickly’ find reference as to why there is a 2” discrepancy in the data between P-47D & N lengths. You may be correct, they may indeed be typos. My memory; however seems to tell me that it was done to reset CG due to the increased mass behind CG of the wheels. However I repeat, unlike the 8” extension between B & C, where documents are easy to find, I can not find a document with a reason. Wish I could ask Alexander Kartveli.

Reply to all >>> I'm not getting into another sim debate here...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by JonJGoldberg

Reply to all >>> I'm not getting into another sim debate here...

Good because it has all been covered and disproven.