p47 question to the masters of SOH

[rocketred]

have question on p47...verison in maw, eto, cfs3


like the p51- the firepower version is excellent and imho works like a charm in flight characticies


now the p47 is there one from some era the masters would agree is far superior as air file for dog fighting and bobmber protection over any other ...


tks


joshua

 

[greycap.raf]

No. Simple as that. The only real strength of the P-47 is its high speed, both in level flight and in a dive, but in a turning fight it's inferior to any other late war Allied aircraft. Even a P-40 easily out-turns it and while the P-40 admittedly is a better aircraft than its reputation says it still gives a good picture of the dogfighting capabilities of the Jug. As long as you can fight on your own terms - which means strictly hit and run - a P-47M will keep you alive but unfortunately it keeps most of the enemies alive too. You can get one from AvHistory.

The mentioned FP Mustang then, I have no doubts about it handling well but I also have no doubts about the AvH version being a lot more realistic and as long as AvH models are available they should (in my opinion at least) be used as the yardstick.

 

[ndicki]

No. Simple as that. The only real strength of the P-47 is its high speed, both in level flight and in a dive, but in a turning fight it's inferior to any other late war Allied aircraft. Even a P-40 easily out-turns it and while the P-40 admittedly is a better aircraft than its reputation says it still gives a good picture of the dogfighting capabilities of the Jug. As long as you can fight on your own terms - which means strictly hit and run - a P-47M will keep you alive but unfortunately it keeps most of the enemies alive too. You can get one from AvHistory.

The mentioned FP Mustang then, I have no doubts about it handling well but I also have no doubts about the AvH version being a lot more realistic and as long as AvH models are available they should (in my opinion at least) be used as the yardstick.

Rene has just explained most of the reasons behind the RAF's refusal to deploy Thunderbolts in Europe, especially since there was little it could do that we wanted it to do that the Typhoon and Tempest couldn't do as well or better... In the Far East, it made a useful bomb-carrier since the Jap Army Air Corps had more-or-less gone home by then, but that was about all.

In CFS, if you've got a Bf109G-10 or K-4 and a P-47 pilot opposite who tries to dogfight you, you've got another kill to paint on your rudder despite the fact that late 109s are not all that nimble either. In real life, as Rene says, the P-47s tried not to stop to play.

 

[BeauBrummie]

They must have had fun escorting B-17's over Europe then! Question, how did it compare to the P-38 Lightning in combat? I haven't done much flying of US fighters as this post shows.

 

[hairyspin]

Boom & zoom. The Jug dived like a piano from a tall building; it also zoom climbed like a Kiwi on a bungee. Add to this its excellent high-altitude performance - that is, its speed at altitude and maximum ceiling - and you can see the strengths its pilots would fight from when escorting daylight raids over occupied Europe and Germany. Get high up and dive on the Bf and Fws then get back up there fast to do it all again. Just don't exceed the velocity never to be exceeded (Vne) in a dive or the only thing you'll hit is the ground - just like the USAF discovered and another reason the P-51 was a better escort fighter: it had a higher Vne. The P-38 had similar strengths - and a similar Vne.

But dogfighting? Forget it!


Vne: don't exceed this speed or you lose elevator authority and can't pull out of your high-speed dive. It's the effects of near-supersonic airflow over parts of the control surfaces and is known as compression.

 

[gecko]

Well, I've spent som time in the 'bolt, mainly the C model, and with very careful flying and energy management I can do OK with the 109s and 190s, even in a turn fight. But once the fight has reached the deck and no more altitude for speed trading can be done it's best to get out, build up speed and altitude and then return.

Seems borne out by early ETO combat experiences with the jug. Reading up on 4th FG (formerly the Eagle squadrons) actions, these were pilots who had just been flying Spitfires (must have been a rude shock to have to fly something as big and ugly as a P-47 after cutting their teeth on Spits!) and only knew turn fighting. It seems they held their own still mainly using turning tactics, although undoubtably modified to better use the P-47's speed and diving abilities. Still, they were never happy with it, and wouldn't be till the got Mustangs.

P-38 I have spent less time with, but a similar story, although it climbs much better than the P-47. The thing I have a hard time with is the lack of visibility to the sides very frustrating to lose a bandit in those huge blind spots. Real pilots in the ETO found them horribly cold without a nice warm engine in front of the cockpit to keep them warm.

 

[BeauBrummie]

Thanks guys very illuminating!

 

[rocketred]

for me ive noticed , using a p47 on escort missions .... i get great accuracy and hits when they - the huns" climb upward and i shot above there cockpit on slant ..... nails em great the problem is i must change in missions using a p47 , the skill levels , so im the ace and there the trainees...


the p38- versions i like if the model using has good turn rate and speed ,


joshau

 

[ndicki]

The best thing you can say for Lightnings is that the pilot's coffin is likely to weigh even less than it usually does. Once in a decent dive, compressibility problems meant that you'd stay in a dive all the way to the deck and beyond, hence the lightness of the pilot's coffin. This problem was never really solved, although a redesign and bodge-job aftermarket dive-flap kit were introduced which made the thing significantly less lethal.

Another example of the armed forces being expected to do the job despite the fact of their equipment being dangerously sub-par. The Typhoon also comes to mind, but the difference is that there, the problems were solved.

I can't remember which one it was, but one of the Fighter Chaps described an episode where an American pilot, complete with attendant Lightning, began to brag in the mess about the superiority of his aircraft over the Spitfire. A match was hastily arranged, and the result was exactly as you would expect. The American then returned duly chastened to his kith and kin.



Don't give me a P-38 with props that counter-rotate
They'll loop, roll and spin but they'll soon auger in
Don't give me a P-38!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S0tZZnNDjM&feature=plcp

 

[gecko]

On the Thunderbolt, it is also interesting to note that both the top scoring unit in air-to-air victories in the USAAF (56th FG), and the top scoring USAAF ace in the ETO (Gabreski) scored all their kills in P-47s. So it had to be doing something right. Don't get me wrong though, I'd still pick a Spit or Mustang over a P-47 any day.

I'd say it's a stretch to call the P-38 dangerously sub-par...equal to a Spit, not a chance (what was he thinking?!) but still capable, albeit less well suited to the ETO than other areas. And don't forget, it could still out-dive most aircraft and remain within safe speeds, it was just easy to exceed them and run into trouble.

As I think about it, there seems to be a theme running with US aircraft in terms of their acceptance or rejection in various air forces. Some has a bad name with American forces (e.g. P-39, Buffalo, and initially the P-51) but were used with a fair amount of success by other countries (Finland, Britain, Russia), while the Brits rejected a lot of American equipment that was later to see a good deal of success in American hands.

 

[ndicki]

On the Thunderbolt, it is also interesting to note that both the top scoring unit in air-to-air victories in the USAAF (56th FG), and the top scoring USAAF ace in the ETO (Gabreski) scored all their kills in P-47s. So it had to be doing something right.

Perhaps it's just that they were there longer? They started in April 1943 and retained their Thunderbolts through till the end. The Merlin Mustang didn't enter operational service with the USAAF until late 1943. The earlier Allison-engined types were generally used for reconnaissance and ground attack. And let's just say that it might have been politically sensitive if the highest-scoring USAAF squadron had been flying Spitfires...

As I think about it, there seems to be a theme running with US aircraft in terms of their acceptance or rejection in various air forces. Some has a bad name with American forces (e.g. P-39, Buffalo, and initially the P-51) but were used with a fair amount of success by other countries (Finland, Britain, Russia), while the Brits rejected a lot of American equipment that was later to see a good deal of success in American hands.

Different air forces, different visions of how to do the job, different situations and different needs. That's one reason why it's essential to train against other people's armed forces; the 'mirror effect' can invalidate many of the lessons learnt in training against your own forces.

Obviously, American aircraft were 'on offer' to other air forces as a result of the volume of production capacity. That was not necessarily the case for aircraft produced by other nations, so this isn't a tirade against things American in particular! Simply a counterpoint to what I feel is often excessive veneration of certain US-built types.

On the other hand, you'll rarely hear me saying anything seriously detrimental about the Mustang III/IV or Boston, for example!

 

[gecko]

Perhaps it's just that they were there longer? They started in April 1943 and retained their Thunderbolts through till the end. The Merlin Mustang didn't enter operational service with the USAAF until late 1943. The earlier Allison-engined types were generally used for reconnaissance and ground attack. And let's just say that it might have been politically sensitive if the highest-scoring USAAF squadron had been flying Spitfires...

Time certainly played into the high score, but there were other units with similar service history and score. They were neck and neck at the end with the 4th FG which flew Spitfires, P-47s and P-51s over its history, with most of their kills in the Mustang. The 4th actually scored the most overall, but this included ground kills. This says to me that in experienced hands, both aircraft fared similarly in a dogfight - granted that by the end German pilot skill was increasingly becoming a factor in high scores. (BTW, I have no idea why this is, as from my understanding the Mustang should have had it by a mile in terms of dogfighting, but there the numbers stand...)

Spitfires were of course used in the USAAF early on (and for quite some time in the PR role), but there does seem to have been some pressure to get all the American pilots flying American-built aircraft, and against the wishes of the pilots themselves too. Later on though I think it came down to the fact that the 8th AF wanted something with more range than a Spitfire, and could get such aircraft in massive quantities.

Different air forces, different visions of how to do the job, different situations and different needs. That's one reason why it's essential to train against other people's armed forces; the 'mirror effect' can invalidate many of the lessons learnt in training against your own forces.

Obviously, American aircraft were 'on offer' to other air forces as a result of the volume of production capacity. That was not necessarily the case for aircraft produced by other nations, so this isn't a tirade against things American in particular! Simply a counterpoint to what I feel is often excessive veneration of certain US-built types.

On the other hand, you'll rarely hear me saying anything seriously detrimental about the Mustang III/IV or Boston, for example!

Not worried about a tirade, just enjoying the discussion. I totally concur on your point on excessive (and I would add uninformed) veneration. I can't tell you how many times I've been to airshows and heard some bystander make the most ridiculous statements, like "...the Mustang was good, but you know that Navy Corsair had that big powerful Merlin engine and could beat anything the Germans had!" Right...:mixedsmi:

 

[greycap.raf]

This says to me that in experienced hands, both aircraft fared similarly in a dogfight - granted that by the end German pilot skill was increasingly becoming a factor in high scores. (BTW, I have no idea why this is, as from my understanding the Mustang should have had it by a mile in terms of dogfighting, but there the numbers stand...)

I'd say that "experience" is the key word here, seeing that there were far more P-51 units than P-47 units the majority of freshly trained pilots went to the P-51 units while the veteran pilots flying the P-47 remained in theirs, keeping the average level of experience high. An average pilot flying a P-51 is certainly no better than an ace flying a P-47 and average pilots made up most of the P-51 units. Not to mention that most of the escort work wasn't dogfighting but hitting the intercepting enemy from a superior altitude and the P-47 had more firepower as well as better high altitude performance than the P-51 as already discussed.

I can't tell you how many times I've been to airshows and heard some bystander make the most ridiculous statements, like "...the Mustang was good, but you know that Navy Corsair had that big powerful Merlin engine and could beat anything the Germans had!" Right...:mixedsmi:

The Corsair is always a good one to pull into the discussion, of course it didn't have a Merlin but seriously speaking there was very little a P-51 could do but the F4U couldn't. It was equally fast, had an equally long range, was highly manoeuvrable especially at high altitude and speed... it could do almost be said that it had the good qualities of the P-47 and P-51 combined. I believe it would have done just as well as the P-51 if it had been used as an escort fighter and additionally brought home all those pilots who fell for a crippled coolant system.

 

[gecko]

I'd say that "experience" is the key word here, seeing that there were far more P-51 units than P-47 units the majority of freshly trained pilots went to the P-51 units while the veteran pilots flying the P-47 remained in theirs, keeping the average level of experience high. An average pilot flying a P-51 is certainly no better than an ace flying a P-47 and average pilots made up most of the P-51 units. Not to mention that most of the escort work wasn't dogfighting but hitting the intercepting enemy from a superior altitude and the P-47 had more firepower as well as better high altitude performance than the P-51 as already discussed.

In my example though, experience was quite comparable between the two units mentioned. The 4th was very experienced, with some members still around late in the war having experience dating from the unit's RAF days. And next to the 4th, the 56th was the longest serving 8th AF fighter unit. So I don't see it as a case of "average" vs. "ace". Both were among the best in the USAAF.

The Corsair is always a good one to pull into the discussion, of course it didn't have a Merlin but seriously speaking there was very little a P-51 could do but the F4U couldn't. It was equally fast, had an equally long range, was highly manoeuvrable especially at high altitude and speed... it could do almost be said that it had the good qualities of the P-47 and P-51 combined. I believe it would have done just as well as the P-51 if it had been used as an escort fighter and additionally brought home all those pilots who fell for a crippled coolant system.

I'm not as familiar with the handling of the Corsair, but I've flown the 4.0 AvHistory models of both the P-51 and Corsair and the Corsair handles like a truck in comparison. I can turn fight a Zero (carefully) in a Mustang, but it's suicide in a Corsair, so I'm not understanding your point on maneuverability. Your other points make a lot of since - especially about the coolant system, way too many Mustangs were lost due to one hole in the coolant tank. Not a problem in a Corsair or P-47.

 

[HouseHobbit]

The P-47 is one of those love it or hate it aircraft i guess..
They well well Known to bring home pilots that would have dropped most fighters into the ground..
Very well armed, and equal to the task at hand without Question..
Was most likely the Very best Ground attack fighter the allies had..
Heck the massive numbers of P-47's on D-day and afterwards did a Job on the Germans and there armor..
And as a escort they did a job on the Germans too..Lots of German aircraft ended there lives in the gun sight of the P-47..
I am able in CFS3 to down any aircraft using a P-47, But I do fly using the strength's the aircraft has..
Great for Boom and Zoom..
And that with the eight.50 cal m2 machine guns makes for a very deadly bird..

The Brits hail the Spit, the Germans the Bf 109/Fw190 and the Americans the Mustang
All I can down in a P-47 using the right tactics

And I am sorry to say the 56th did down some Spits with P-47's with Rookie pilots none the less too..
So what's that say about Spits and P-47's??

Me, I fly what I have using the best tactics for that aircraft..

And NO One has a Prettier P-47 either..

 

[rocketred]

My Brilliant Friend is a rich, intense, and generous-hearted story about two friends

p47 and spitfire

 

[greycap.raf]

I'm not as familiar with the handling of the Corsair, but I've flown the 4.0 AvHistory models of both the P-51 and Corsair and the Corsair handles like a truck in comparison. I can turn fight a Zero (carefully) in a Mustang, but it's suicide in a Corsair, so I'm not understanding your point on maneuverability.

Manoeuvrability is more than turning at low speeds, and turning at low speeds is the only thing that matters when tangling with a Zero. The Corsair has better roll rate than the Mustang - the very reason why Fw 190 was such a threat to Spitfires despite turning like a barn door - and I just conducted a turning test with a 4.00 series P-51D (the fuselage tank placed to the correct lateral position instead of the CoG the droppable tank places it at) and a 4.00 series F4U-4. Both aircraft were pulled into a hard left turn of 360 degrees at 10.000 feet from 350 mph and 300 mph TAS. The times were 16 and 18 seconds respectively for the Mustang, and 15 and 16 seconds for the Corsair. Admittedly the Corsair suffers at low speeds due to its weight but at high speed it's every bit as good as the Mustang.

I am able in CFS3 to down any aircraft using a P-47, But I do fly using the strength's the aircraft has..

The problem is that in CFS3 I can down a Me 262 with a Gladiator, and a Yak-9 with a Blenheim bomber. The AI simply doesn't have a clue about air combat for most of the time.

 

[swpierce]

The problem is that in CFS3 I can down a Me 262 with a Gladiator, and a Yak-9 with a Blenheim bomber. The AI simply doesn't have a clue about air combat for most of the time.

Alas, that is the limitation of CFS3 AI. Tactics, which is so important in actual air combat, cannot be accurately replicated. The only tactic it knows is the close-in dogfight and you can never surprise the enemy with the boom-and-zoom, he always know you're coming.

 

[gecko]

Yes very true. 262s are particularly easy to down because the AI won't fly 'em right. And boom and zoom is hard to use yourself because they can still snipe you at long range as you climb away and can often climb better than you since they lack a fuel load.

 

[swpierce]

Yes very true. 262s are particularly easy to down because the AI won't fly 'em right. And boom and zoom is hard to use yourself because they can still snipe you at long range as you climb away and can often climb better than you since they lack a fuel load.

They lack a fuel load???? Well, that explains the impression I've always had that they have been able to coax out a better climb than I expect. I had always assumed that the AI was just more adept at adjusting the mixture, prop, cowl flaps than I was doing.