p47 question to the masters of SOH

[bearcat241]

No one here as any RL combat experience in the types discussed, so where's the expertise? Everything experientially detailed here has been from within the flight dynamics structure of a retail simulator, which we all know is not a very accurate modeler of RL physics nor aerodynamics. In fact many RL pilots with lots of stick time think this retail sim stuff is all a joke. You can't seriously use any simulator successes against the P47 to validate what you think may have actually happened in the skies over Europe.

I'm with Gecko on his point about the 56th. They're the real experts on the Jug's dogfighting capabilities and they scored mightily against the Luftwaffe, even after the Mustang became the predominant frontliner in Europe. Forget the final tally in the victories count and when the clock started ticking in the contest (`43 or `44, it doesn't matter). That's not the point here. Its how the counts where achieved. And common sense dictates that you can't attribute hundreds of aerial dogfighting kills to BnZ tactics alone. If your squadron gets into this amount of fighting, you're gonna see it all: BnZ, hot pursuit, turn and burn, whatever...And if one would read up on the personal combat exploits of the 56th's aces, one might get the clue that it wasn't all BnZ stuff either, as many believe to be the P47's only advantage in a fight. To be clear, when i say read their personal exploits i mean their own words, not just what a writer believed happened.

And then there were those other "P47 experts" in the PTO - the 348th - who ravaged the IJA and IJN air forces over PNG which were flying so-called "superior performers": Tony's, Zero's, Oscars, Tojo's, Franks, and George's. Flying early and mid-war razorback types, Col. Neel Kirby and his gang of P47 marauders tore through the Japanese right to the end of hostilities (although Kirby himself was KIA before the PNG campaign ended).

I enjoy the forum discussion atmosphere as much as the next guy, but sometimes i think that we as modern day kids forget our place when discussing historical aircraft performance and assume that our "second-hand" book knowledge and sim experience is a good sub for lack of real life combat experience.

 

[rocketred]

the most air ...in skys i ever got was in travel times .....and the fight for me was not puking in bad turbulence


i did once fly on the concorde in younger years , once ...was alike a sardine can but fast



rest is 747, dc8-stretch dc9, etc,,,,,,,,



my combatt experience is again nill , but i do talk to vets yearly on dday , and Remembrance Day .....and next is hobbit . trying ot play his missions is a skill to stay alive ....lol



many tks


missed my calling


i am a collector of ww2 films , bluray and blackwhite ...again still on the ground

 

[gecko]

Well, I don't think any of us is claiming any first hand expertise. But all this information would be rather pointless if we couldn't extrapolate from it something of a picture of what it was like and do our best to understand why.

I don't entirely agree with you in regards to sim flying. We've come a long ways in getting closer to having planes that handle accurately. True, much of the stuff you get off the shelf is complete garbage in regards to realism (thinking stock CFS3 flight models) but more recently some reasonably good 3rd party flight dynamics have become available. The only one I can (partially) vouch for myself is the AvHistory 4.0 L-5, which, having flown small, light, high wing aircraft in a number of weight configurations, handles the way I would expect a slightly smaller, slightly lighter high wing aircraft to fly. Obviously it gets much more complicated by the time you get to something like a P-47, and sims will never be a substitute for real world experience, but carefully chosen flight models (for CFS3, AvHistory 4.0 flight models are the most accurate) can give at least a fuzzy general idea of how a given aircraft would handle and so isn't entirely invalid in a discussion like this. For some more obscure aircraft with little written on them, there is little else to go on.

The first hand combat reports you mention I find to be a great source, and informed a lot of my postings here. My own goal in this thread is to understand how these reports mesh with some of the technical data greycap and others have brought forward, which knowing greycap, is probably well sourced.

I know much less about the Thunderbolt in the Pacific. Do you find in your reading a more common use of B and Z with the 348th than with the 56th? Given their opponents I would assume this to be the case, but I haven't read much about it.

Daniel

 

[bearcat241]

Well, I don't think any of us is claiming any first hand expertise. But all this information would be rather pointless if we couldn't extrapolate from it something of a picture of what it was like and do our best to understand why...I don't entirely agree with you in regards to sim flying. We've come a long ways in getting closer to having planes that handle accurately.

I feel you on this Daniel...all i'm saying is let's pull back more in our discussions and consider the limits of our assumptions and conclusions if all we have to go on is the performance produced by the flight modeling of an insufficient sim engine. Example: How many times have you attempted to execute an extreme aerial maneuver like an inverted vertical reversement within the speed parameters of an aircraft's "specified" combat turn radius and max G only to find that the sim doesn't give you the max control input and behavior that is historically possible for a particular type? The rudder kick is totally ineffective, the violent back stick / forward stick motion doesn't generate the snappy response known for the type and the torque roll is nil, even though the records may indicate that the type had monstrous torque. That's the sim's flight modeling holding you back, not necessarily the flight dynamics of the model itself. In order to compensate for this loss of input authority, you might find yourself fiddling with the air files and exaggerating the design beyond what the designer states as accurate, when the real culprit is the sim itself.

Moreover, when we talk about easily shooting down P47's or any other type in turning fights within the sim, let's also consider the flying skills of our victims - the AI engine. Is the AI engine flying the victim's model to the edge of its prescribed envelope in these engagements while also accounting for fuel and ammo weight like a good human pilot would? Never...for one the engine doesn't factor fuel and ammo weight for AI, nor does it consistently push the envelopes of its models. And besides, there are a lot more discrepancies in AI behavior that lead to easy kills in the sim than one would expect in real combat. Have you ever seen an AI opponent hold a 5g turn with you in WEP long enough to turn the tables and get on your six? You'll never see this sort because the AI don't use WEP for one and secondly the sim will always bring the opponent target out of the turn prematurely and execute some dumb maneuver that puts the target right where you expect it, every time!

Yes, we've come a long way in getting closer to accurate handling, but we're still a long way off in retail simulation. There's just so much physics and behavioral programming that can go into "affordable" retail simulation. And a lot of small, but critical stuff gets brushed aside in rushing a product to market. So your flight world environment is far from perfect. Now we find ourselves drawing from our experiences from within this environment to form what we consider to be respectable conclusions of historical performances and specs.

I know much less about the Thunderbolt in the Pacific. Do you find in your reading a more common use of B and Z with the 348th than with the 56th? Given their opponents I would assume this to be the case, but I haven't read much about it.

The 348th FG reportedly scored 396 victories overall in the PTO (and they reportedly also used some P51's in `45 in addition to their established service in P47's). We have no way of knowing how much of that can be attributed to BnZ tactics. In regards to your question, you would need to read up on the individual aces of the group to determine how they personally conducted business. But pure logic would suggest that if even in the unlikely event that 75% of these kills were all the result of BnZ tactics, that would still leave 99 to other aerial tactics. I'll just let you guys assume which...

DJ

 

[hairyspin]

This sort of discussion is always interesting, as much for the participants' presuppositions as for the facts and real-life accounts under debate. We unfortunately don't have the FM expertise of AvHistory for CFS3 any more - this was valuable both for their painstaking work on flight models and the consistency of their approach. Gregory of AvH was one who also complained about the limitations of the CFS3 simulation engine, but I don't think many complain about what he achieved by the time of the AvH 4.0 flight model. Not many flight models are of such quality - don't start on about the stock CFS3 flight models, it's all too horrible.

I also think the best comparison between CFS3 models would be in the hands of multiplayer users - no AI issues there!

Regarding dogfighting the biggest, heaviest fighter of WW2 - the Jug - against lightweight, agile Japanese fighters I can only offer the following: Spitfire V pilots got the better of Bf109 opponents in a dogfight, but the same aircraft against a Zero in a dogfight was toast. Whereas Spitfire Vs flown in B & Z combat against Zeros could and did get the advantage, once the already experienced pilots learned to fight that way.

Which brings me to the other factor in real combat flying: what I didn't know until recently was that a typical Japanese pilot in the early war years had something like 700 hours flying time before he was let loose in a combat squadron. As the war progressed their pilots were less and less highly trained (and experienced) and so easier meat to experienced Allied pilots. Germany had the same problem: by Operation Bodenplatte, Jan 1st 1945, when the Luftwaffe launched hundreds of fighters on a knockout ground-attack raid on Allied airfields: many couldn't even find their targets and the standard of shooting - on stationary targets - for many who did was lousy.

And all of our discussions so far implicitly assume combat between equally advantaged sides in set-piece encounters: it was very rarely like that! If one Hurricane could take on an entire Gruppe of Bf109Es, shoot down three or four without catching so much as a single bullet hole and return to tell the tale then Bearcat's signature was entirely true - If you're in a fair fight, you didn't plan it right!

(the pilot came upon the Gruppe from behind and above with the sun behind him, picked them off one by one - they never saw him, nor did anyone else...)

 

[Ivan]

Thunderbolt!

A lot of times, just looking at the raw statistics about an aircraft may be misleading. The reputation of the Thunderbolt for maneuverability is poor but this is based on its high wing loading.

I have the book "Warbird Buyers Guide" published by Motorbooks that describes a very extensive comparision between US fighter types. The results surprised me quite a lot.

From Memory:
The P-51D is more maneuverable than the P-47D. The difference is actually not much.
The P-47D rolls better than most US fighters and loses less of its roll rate when G-Loaded as in a turning fight.
The P-47D is much more precise as a gun platform than the P-51D;
If a pilot tries to fly both aircraft to make and HOLD a constant 4G turn, it is easier to do this in a P-47.

Now for some anecdotal evidence:
The book Genda's Blade describes an encounter between the N1K-2J Shiden Kai and the P-47. The Georges tried to fight Thunderbolts at medium to high altitude and were decisively beaten.

Robert Johnson flew his Thunderbolt against a Spitfire IX and used his roll rate (!) and zoom climb advantages to beat his unknown sparring partner.

The P-47N rolled better than the P-47D for some reason.

Off Topic:
The FW 190A has a reputation for poor maneuverability, but some unknown pilot flying one gave Eric Brown of the Royal Navy in a Spitfire a very hard time in a dogfight. The British test of Arnim Faber's early 190A against an early Spitfire IX claimed the 190A was more maneuverable except for turning circles.

Although the Corsair is a heavier plane than the P-51D, it also has a much larger wing, so wing loadings aren't that different. Also the P-51 uses a laminar flow airfoil that has a fairly low (around 1.2 max) Coefficient of Lift.

- Ivan.

 

[hairyspin]

Thanks for that Ivan! All goes to reinforce the combat pilot's approach - know your aircraft's strengths and use them; avoid its weaknesses.

 

[bearcat241]

The P-47N rolled better than the P-47D for some reason...

Clipped elliptical wings vs the original rounded designs and reshaped, slightly larger ailerons with upgraded aileron boosting, as i recall from specs. It also had longer legs which, along with drop tanks, allowed for long range B29 escorts, fighter sweeps, strikes and TOO strafing attacks deep into mainland Japan and eastern Asia from bases in the Okinawa Prefecture.

OT: The last "Ace in A Day" for the U.S. in WWII was reportedly 1/Lt. Oscar F. Perdomo, 464th FS, 507th FG stationed at Ie Shima/Okinawa province, flying P-47N-2 "Lil Meaties Meat Chopper" (nicknamed after his infant son). His 38 plane unit encountered a large group of Japanese aircraft over Korea and he shot down 5, including 4 Oscars in a twisting, turning furball. His account of that day didn't emphasize much BnZ stuff, mostly turn and burn it.

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/perdomo/perdomo.htm

Quote:

"Perdomo was a first lieutenant and a veteran of ten combat missions when on August 9, 1945 the United States dropped the world's second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan. The allies were still awaiting Japan’s response to the demand to surrender and the war continued, when on August 13, 1945 1st Lt. Perdomo, shot down four Nakajima “Oscar” fighters and one Yokosuka “Willow” Type 93 biplane trainer. This action took place near Keijo/Seoul, Korea when 38 Thunderbolts of the 507th Fighter Wing, USAAF, encountered approximately 50 enemy aircraft. It was Perdomo's last combat mission, and the five confirmed victories made him an “Ace in a Day” and thus the distinction of being the last “Ace” of the United States in World War II. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross and the Air Medal with one leaf cluster."

 

[rocketred]

excellent link on this Discussion .....
p-47


tks


joshua

 

[HouseHobbit]

A lot of times, just looking at the raw statistics about an aircraft may be misleading. The reputation of the Thunderbolt for maneuverability is poor but this is based on its high wing loading.

I have the book "Warbird Buyers Guide" published by Motorbooks that describes a very extensive comparision between US fighter types. The results surprised me quite a lot.

From Memory:
The P-51D is more maneuverable than the P-47D. The difference is actually not much.
The P-47D rolls better than most US fighters and loses less of its roll rate when G-Loaded as in a turning fight.
The P-47D is much more precise as a gun platform than the P-51D;
If a pilot tries to fly both aircraft to make and HOLD a constant 4G turn, it is easier to do this in a P-47.

Now for some anecdotal evidence:
The book Genda's Blade describes an encounter between the N1K-2J Shiden Kai and the P-47. The Georges tried to fight Thunderbolts at medium to high altitude and were decisively beaten.

Robert Johnson flew his Thunderbolt against a Spitfire IX and used his roll rate (!) and zoom climb advantages to beat his unknown sparring partner.

The P-47N rolled better than the P-47D for some reason.

Off Topic:
The FW 190A has a reputation for poor maneuverability, but some unknown pilot flying one gave Eric Brown of the Royal Navy in a Spitfire a very hard time in a dogfight. The British test of Arnim Faber's early 190A against an early Spitfire IX claimed the 190A was more maneuverable except for turning circles.

Although the Corsair is a heavier plane than the P-51D, it also has a much larger wing, so wing loadings aren't that different. Also the P-51 uses a laminar flow airfoil that has a fairly low (around 1.2 max) Coefficient of Lift.

- Ivan.

Thank you for this, it confirms much of what I have read about the P-47..
As a Young Hobbit reading the book "Thunderbolt" by Robert Johnson 56th Fighter Group..I was amazed..

I am a big fan of the P-47, if for no other reason the "Jug" did tend to get Home full of large Holes..

 

[gecko]

Just thought of something that hasn't been brought up yet. We've been comparing the P-47's performance with standard 109s and 190s. Particularly in the escort role, the aircraft they would have encountered would often be aircraft modified with extra armor and cannons as bomber destroyers. In most cases these changes resulted in severely limited dogfighting performance and may have leveled the turn-and-burn playing field for the P-47 considerably.

Also, P-47Ms and especially Ns were a whole different animal from D and C models, much better in every respect.

 

[rocketred]

well said

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwariiaircraft/p/p47.htm


Dubbed the "Thunderbolt," the P-47 entered service with the 56th Fighter Group in November 1942. Initially derided for its size by British pilots, the P-47 proved effective as a high-altitude escort and during fighter sweeps, as well as showed that it could out-dive any fighter in Europe. Conversely, it lacked the fuel capacity for longe-range escort duties and the low-altitude maneuverability of its German opponents.

By mid-1943, improved variants of the P-47C became available which possessed external fuel tanks to improve range and a longer fuselage for great maneuverability. Work on the aircraft continued as the war progressed with the arrival of the P-47D. Constructed in twenty-one variants, 12,602 P-47Ds were built during the course of the war. Early models of the P-47 possessed a tall fuselage spine and a "razorback" canopy configuration. This resulted in poor rear visibility and efforts were made to fit variants of the P-47D with "bubble" canopies.

This proved successful and the bubble canopy was used on some subsequent models. Two other notable editions of the aircraft were the P-47M and P-47N. The former was equipped with a 2,800 hp engine and modified for use in downing V-1 "buzz bombs" and German jets. A total of 130 were built and many suffered from a variety of engine problems. The final production model of the aircraft, the P-47N was intended as an escort for B-29 Superfortresses in the Pacific. Possessing an extended range and improved engine, 1,816 were built before the end of the war.

 

[Ivan]

The FW 190As tended to get extra cannon and such, but they weren't very good past about 20,000 feet anyway. The Me 109s generally ended up as the escorts. The FW 190A-9 didn't do so badly up high, but there were not very many of those. The A-9s also tended to not be equipped with the outboard cannon so they would also be lighter.

Now as far as maneuverability / turning is concerned, The British tested a captured Me 109G-6 / R-6 (The cannon boat with the underwing gun pods) against the Mustang (unknown mark) and the 109 was more maneuverable though it didn't have the speed straight line performance. This is the source for the often quoted 386 mph Me 109G. Later models had better engines and were quite a bit faster and presumably even more maneuverable since they would have had more thrust to offset energy loss in a turning fight.

- Ivan.

 

[gecko]

Interesting, every source I've read on /R6 equipped 109s commented on its negative effect on handling. Do you have any sources that compare it with a stock G-6?