P-47M fastest operational prop-plane of WWII
Buz...@oldwarbirds.com
piston-engined fighter during WWII. The debates revolved around the
P51-H, P-47M, FM-2(modified F-4U) Corsair and the awesome F-8 Bearcat.
The P-38? LOL. Based on lengthy research, the P-51H was not yet in
service at the end of the war and the Bearcat barely became operational
as hostilities ceased. Also, the non-operational FM-2 was not much
faster than any P-51s. I do not have what I consider "reliable" figures
for the D-Mustang (437mph), H-Mustang (460mph) or Bearcat (445mph), but
neither was as fast as the P-47M by any credible Army Air Force
records. At 470mph, it appears the P-47M was a seriously awesome
aircraft and definitely the fastest OPERATIONAL prop-driven plane (the
P-47N was close at 467mph). As far as boom&zoom fighters go, it had
more boom (armament) and more zoom than any other fighter. As requested
by several folks way back when, here is what I found:
The P-47M was a "hot-rod" version of the P-47D-40, getting an updated
P&W 18 cyl radial Republic-rated at around 2500/3000hp standard (many
sources are terribly incorrect about this), but regularly operated at
3200+hp with in-the-field tweaking of mixture & turbo boost by Republic
reps and ground crews. This engine had fuel/ignition problems PRIOR to
this "tweaking" (I guess that fixed it). The P-47M was officially
clocked at 470mph at 30,000 as is from the factory, but was frequently
flown (in 1944-45 by the 56th FG, Zemke's Wolfpack) at over 500mph
(3200HP) when at altitude, enough to easily zoom & overtake the ME-262
jet fighter. According to P-47 aces Bob Johnson and Francis "Gabby"
Gabreski (the highest aces in Europe, no less), the M could out-roll and
out-circle the P-51s,FW-190s and ME-109s at every altitude. Not bad for
an 8-ton flying tank! In addition, the M had a climb rate of over 4000
fpm (WOW...yes...that's correct), much much higher than the early
P-47C. BTW, I found out a P-47D-25 w/ an updated paddle blade prop
could climb easily with any Mustang (and hang close to my beloved
Bearcat when in post-war test trials). Obviously, at 8+ tons and
double-skin construction, NO plane could catch a P-47 in a dive without
tearing itself apart. Does anybody have any evidence showing
otherwise? I guess I have to admire and salute this amazing pug-nosed
Republic Beast, maybe the greatest fighter-bomber of WWII based on her
performance & record. But the Bearcat's prettier!
BigCat Buzzard (the Grumman-lover)
"Radials Rock"
Bob Andrew
Buz...@oldwarbirds.com wrote:
> I have seen several debates regarding the fastest, operational,
> piston-engined fighter during WWII. The debates revolved around the
> P51-H, P-47M, FM-2(modified F-4U) Corsair and the awesome F-8 Bearcat.
> <snip>
The FM-2 was the last model of the Wildcat, the F2G-1 was a Goodyear-built
Corsair with the 3000hp Pratt and Whitney, maybe that's what you mean here.
It had a bubble canopy, and I don't think it made it into service before VJ
day, so it would be out of the running. BTW, how do the Ta-152 and the
Do-335 measure up? I think the Pfiel topped out around 470 mph and the
Ta-152 was no slouch either.
> At 470mph, it appears the P-47M was a seriously awesome
> aircraft and definitely the fastest OPERATIONAL prop-driven plane (the
> P-47N was close at 467mph). As far as boom&zoom fighters go, it had
> more boom (armament) and more zoom than any other fighter. As requested
> by several folks way back when, here is what I found:
> <snip>
It seems it was an awesome plane, but they only built 130 of them before
moving
on to the P-47N. The M was a D with the more powerful (and therefore more
thirsty)
engine, so it must have paid for all that speed with reduced range, at a
time when range
was a primary consideration for new fighters. Maybe that's why they went on
to the N,
which was basically an M with new, 'wet' wings, giving it the range of a
P-51 with even more speed. They built over 1600 N's.
> <snip>
> BTW, I found out a P-47D-25 w/ an updated paddle blade prop
> could climb easily with any Mustang (and hang close to my beloved
> Bearcat when in post-war test trials).
I've heard this kind of thing before, but according to the 'book', the
maximum
rate of climb of the P47D was about 2600 fpm, not even close to a P-51, and
about 2000 fpm slower than a Bearcat. Maybe with the field modification for
overboosting the
manifold pressure, and with no ammo and low fuel it could live up to this
claim,
but I doubt most operational P-47D's could even come close. ROC is mostly
about
power-to-weight ratio, and the Jug was not blessed in this area.
<snip>
wal...@oneimage.com
>Question for "Buzzard": I saw Bearcats transiting Big Spring TX
Air Patch while was refueling etc T28s and T33s as a corporal-
even got to sit in the seat once. They always showed the USAF how
they could get airborne in a minimum runTO and then climb like a
rocket on takeoff - do you have any standard day TO and climb data?
What was the time from brake release to 10000?
I always wanted to fly one of those impressive birds.
Walt BJ ftr plt ret
C.C. Jordan
"Planes and Pilots of WWII" online WWII aviation magazine
at:
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html
Click on the article title: Republic's High Speed P-47M.
Best regards,
C.C. Jordan
Now online - "Terrorflieger" by Verne Woods
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/index.html
The "Planes and Pilots of WWII" website.
An online WWII aviation history magazine.
Where veterans can publish their memories
on their own webpage.Veterans are encouraged
to submit articles, stories and essays by
e-mail. Write me for details, or click on
the "Submission guidelines" link on the index
page of the website. A member of the WWII
Web-ring.
Richard B Wright
Rich
STL, Mo
>
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Tom Cosgrave
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote in message ...
>
>Oh gosh no. The '335 wasn't even the fastest of the German types.
The Pfeil (Arrow) was a slug. Heavy weapons and armor, but no screamer in
terms of speed.
Fastest German prop a/c would maybe be the TA-152??
Fastest Allied a/c would be the Grumman Bearcat or Ryan Fireball.
Tom
--
Tom Cosgrave t...@indigo.ie
"There's an angel on my shoulder, In my hand a sword of gold"
Houses of the Holy - Led Zeppelin
Sarah-K :- http://www.sarah.org/
The Corrs Links Page :- http://www.thecorrs.org/links/corrs.htm
José Herculano
>Fastest Allied a/c would be the Grumman Bearcat or Ryan Fireball.
The Fireball is no prop plane. It is a mixed-propulsion bird (prop and jet).
The Tigercat was faster than the Bearcat. But none can be quoted as truly
operational in WWII.
José Herculano
_____________________________
http://www.almansur.com/aviation/
Tom Cosgrave
José Herculano wrote in message <6u6i8i$l...@brown.telepac.pt>...
>The Fireball is no prop plane. It is a mixed-propulsion bird (prop and
jet).
>The Tigercat was faster than the Bearcat. But none can be quoted as truly
>operational in WWII.
Oh yeah, forgot the Tigercat. I was being liberal about the Fireball, I know
it had a mixed engine setup.
DManton300
I always thought the Tempest was well up there speed wise-guess i'll have to
check it out!
regards
Drewe
Finally got my web page going! Find me at
http://members.aol.com/dmanton300/index.html
"Better the pride that decides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"
José Herculano
>Fastest Allied a/c would be the Grumman Bearcat or Ryan Fireball.
The Fireball is no prop plane. It is a mixed-propulsion bird (prop and jet).
The Tigercat was faster than the Bearcat. But none can be quoted as truly
operational in WWII.
José Herculano
_____________________________
http://www.almansur.com/aviation/
wal...@oneimage.com
>>My sources indicate that of the USAAF planes that did not make
it into service it's a toss-up between the XP47J and the XP72 for
speed. J was a close-cowled late R2800 and the '72 a 4360 bird
like the F2G.
Agtabby
Geeze this thread about the fastest "operational prop plane of WWII" has
already been argued endlessly. I don't think there is a definite answerHere is
my conclusion.
There were several planes that topped 450 mph, but they did not a lot of
action. Also remember that measuring top speed has several inaccuracies, so
differences of 10 mph don't mean much.
As far as I can tell the Do335 topped out about 470 and saw a little action.
Yes the P47J topped 500 mph, but saw zero action, nor did the P72 (A P47 with a
28 cylinder R4360) see any action. The P51H *might* have seen a little
action, and topped out at about 480 mph. The Ta152 had a pretty high top
speed, I think > 450, and saw significant action
The F8F Bearcat was a truly amazing prop fighter, maybe the best, but no
production model could top 450, it really excelled in climb (>5000 fpm) and
manuevering. A modified F8F now holds the prop speed record at 528 mph, but
this is *very* modified, different engine etc. The F7F Tigercat could do about
450 but did not see any real action.
The US had many promising prop fighters, but they were not pushed - why? We
already had numerical superiority, and proven designs like the 437 mph P51D
were doing just fine. Established designs made in great numbers have many
advantages. Also, by this time it was obvious that jet propulsion was the wave
of the future. In Korea we used the slower P51D even though the P51H was
faster and in use in some guard units. Both planes were no match for a jet,
but the P51D was better for ground attack. Likewise the F4U corsair was
chosen over the "better" fighter, the F8F, because what we really needed was
ground attack.
Andrew
Felger Carbon
<19980921193132...@ng15.aol.com>...
>
> I always thought the Tempest was well up there speed wise-guess i'll
have to
> check it out!
What's unstated so far in this thread is that a plane that's fastest at one
altitude may be not nearly the fastest at a different altitude.
For instance, I think the Tempest was the fastest low-level prop plane of
WWII. But at high altitudes, forget it.
Some other airplane may have been fastest at 15,000 feet, yet another at
24,000, and I've seen some high numbers at 42,000 feet for some
late-arriving aircraft that did not fight in significant numbers in WWII
(if they fought in WWII at all).
Anyhoo, the jet engine was used in combat in WWII and put paid to prop
aircraft development.
Emmanuel Gustin
>altitude may be not nearly the fastest at a different altitude.
Just so. If you have a Java-enabled browser you can see some
data at
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/perf/speed.html
and
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/perf/perf.html
where I created interactive charts of the speed of fighter aircraft.
Emmanuel Gustin
ly...@cdsnet.net
Wich is also why they wanted to replace the p-51 with P-47 in korea
but there were none to go around
Jukka Kauppinen
--
Jukka O. Kauppinen jukka.k...@mikrobitti.fi ICQ: 1848 793
Journalist Mail: MikroBitti, Jukka O. Kauppinen,
MikroBitti Kornetintie 8, 00380 HELSINKI, FINLAND
Tel/fax +358-17-824 225 or fax +358-9-120 5747
GSM +358-40-730 0036
http://mikrobitti.fi/~jukkak
http://www.mikrobitti.fi
The best-selling computer magazine in Scandinavia
Jukka Kauppinen
:
: The Pfeil (Arrow) was a slug. Heavy weapons and armor, but no screamer in
: terms of speed.
: Fastest German prop a/c would maybe be the TA-152??
No screamer in speed? What's this then?
Do 335A-1 at 6400m doing 763 km/h
Ta 152H-1 at 10,500m did 695 mk/h
Same plane with GM1 boosting at 12,500m did 760 km/h
I wouldn't even dare to claim Do 335 as a "slow slug".
Totally opposite.
jok
Agtabby
>Wich is also why they wanted to replace the p-51 with P-47 in korea
>but there were none to go around
I've heard the same thing, that the P47 would have been a better plane in Korea
but they were all gone.
The P51 was a great fighter, but in Korea that did not matter, jets ruled. In
ground attack I would think I'd rather have a P&W R2800 up front, to reduce the
chances of being shot down.
I read an excellent article in a ~1950 aviation mag about Korean air war. The
jets of that era simply did not have enough range and endurance, the air force
had to turn to the F51 and F82. That was about all they had.
Question: why didn't they just use corsairs for this duty, or am I missing
something?
Andrew
Iskandar Taib
Agtabby <agt...@aol.com> wrote:
>jets of that era simply did not have enough range and endurance, the air force
>had to turn to the F51 and F82. That was about all they had.
>
>Question: why didn't they just use corsairs for this duty, or am I missing
>something?
Because they'd have to beg the Navy for some? ^_^;;
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: nt...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Home page: http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/iskandar/isk2.html
wal...@oneimage.com
>In article <19980922222240...@ng09.aol.com>,>Agtabby <agt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>jets of that era simply did not have enough range and endurance, the air force
>>had to turn to the F51 and F82. That was about all they had.
>>>>Question: why didn't they just use corsairs for this duty, or am I missing
>>something?
Not so. Simply because the Corsair didn't and couldn't have the range of the 51 or the
82. Bigger engine 2800 cu in vs 1650 for a 51, and inch for inch the liquid cooled
engines are more economical the air cooled engines beacsue they can run higher
compression ratios due to more uniform cooling esp around the valves.
Walt Bj ftr plt ret
Jeff Jay
>
> Not so. Simply because the Corsair didn't and couldn't have the range of the 51 or the
> 82. Bigger engine 2800 cu in vs 1650 for a 51, and inch for inch the liquid cooled
> engines are more economical the air cooled engines beacsue they can run higher
> compression ratios due to more uniform cooling esp around the valves.
> Walt Bj ftr plt ret
Not quite so. Range was never an issue for the corsair in Korea. First
look at a map. From either carriers or land bases, the points of
fighting support were often as little as 10 to 75 miles away -- loiter
time was the issue and the corsairs could do that very well -- know a
F4U-4B pilot out of Korea(he's got the pics to prove it) and he says
they would often, after dropping their main ordinance, let the inches of
manifold pressure go way down and the speed bleed off --basically idling
-- and the big R-2800 would just sip gas as they flew lazy cirles in
designated cover areas for hours (he says it got very boring actually)
-- the range of the -4 and-5 with drop tanks, which they invariably
carried in Korea, was very substantial. Also the -4B and -5/-5 could
deliver 20mm cannon fire to ground targets, making heavier targets
vulnerable to destruction. This particular pilot said that some mustang
pilots he drank with (the Navy and Air Force often flew from the same
fields) branded themselves cannon fodder and would have given up
anything to have traded their birds for a corsair or Skyraider -- the
radials were just so much more durable and the airframes of either were
of heavier construction. As for why the air force did not fly these
planes -- can we say interservice rivalry/tradition together? Also, the
Navy was using just about all the reserve of these types available.
Some thoughts,
Jeff
Ben Flight
propellor-driven aircraft?
The Soviet Tu-20/95/142 must surely be faster than this, and I know that
Republic produced a version of the F-84 Thunder-something back in the 1950s
pushed along by a supersonic propellor which must surely have been able to
top this speed.
Does anybody know ?
ly...@cdsnet.net a écrit dans l'article
<3607fb8...@news.internetcds.com>...
> On 22 Sep 1998 05:30:47 GMT, agt...@aol.com (Agtabby) wrote:
>
> >
> >manuevering. A modified F8F now holds the prop speed record at 528 mph,
but
> >this is *very* modified, different engine etc. ...
C.C. Jordan
Perhaps the original queation should have been: "What was the fastest
piston engine fighter?"
Actually the Tu-95 has about the same top speed as the P-47J, 507 mph.
The Republic XP-72 had the potential to be even faster. However, the
program was killed before any production aircraft were ordered.
Nonetheless, the #2 prototype reached an amazing 480 mph at sea level
and promised 510+ mph at critical altitude. All in all, a real powerhouse of a
piston engine fighter. It was certainly the best looking variation of the
Thunderbolt theme.
John Campbell
>
> Seeing this statement made me wonder: What is / was the fastest
> propellor-driven aircraft?
>
> The Soviet Tu-20/95/142 must surely be faster than this, and I know that
> Republic produced a version of the F-84 Thunder-something back in the 1950s
> pushed along by a supersonic propellor which must surely have been able to
> top this speed.
Dont have a reference handy but AFAIK there was a B47 (?) used for
flight
testing a turboprop in the 50's which got to 597 mph on prop power alone
I am not aware of any release of the XF84H Thunderscreech figures but
maybe
it wasn't flown enough for them to give it a go. The prop noise was
described
as causing acute nausea at several hundred yards
JC
(remove the obvious for reply)
Bejewelled
CC wrote:
>The Republic XP-72 had the potential to be even faster. However, the
>program was killed before any production aircraft were ordered.
>
>Nonetheless, the #2 prototype reached an amazing 480 mph at sea level
>and promised 510+ mph at critical altitude. All in all, a real powerhouse of
>a
>piston engine fighter. It was certainly the best looking variation of the
>Thunderbolt theme.
I can't believe 480/SL from what was still pretty much a Thunderbolt. A P-47D
got around 350 at SL using 2300HP. To go 37% faster, you need 1.37cubed times
the power. 1.37cubed is around 2.5. Times the 2300, that gives almost 6000HP
required from the 4360. If the 72 was a little cleaner, that would be countered
by reduced prop efficiency (the prototypes didn't get the intended prop). Looks
like a typo or a PR job. Remembering the AAF never got the 47J to duplicate the
504mph Republic claimed.
This is not to say the -72 and -47J weren't very fast, just that the figures
are suspect.
FWIW, I've written some hints on comparing WW2 fighters, which I'll append
here. Some technical knowledge required, any objections to be emailed to
me......
--------------------
When you are looking at maximum speeds for WWII aircraft, a good reference is
essential. A top speed with no altitude is only half the story, especially for
a piston-engined aircraft. Your reference should tell you what supercharging
the engine employed, and its rated altitude in each gear where applicable. For
a multi-speed supercharger the max speed should be given in each gear too. If
there is a War Emergency Rating, water injection, MW50 or GM-1, the conditions
under which they apply should be quoted. Example: The FW-190A had a BMW-801D
engine typically quoted as having 2100hp with boost and a top speed quoted as,
say, 408mph at 18700ft. That engine had 1440hp at that height. The 2100 was
probably only available with MW50 at a very much lower height. So our reference
hasn't actually given a speed/power/height combination we can use to estimate
the drag. If we had those three data simultaneously for one condition of flight
(doesn't even have to be at max speed), we could work out (approximately)
pretty much the entire envelope, speed, climb, ceiling, the works.
It would be nice if the reference book gave the source of the speed data too.
Very few do. Ideally we are looking for data produced by the country's flight
test establishment, Rechlin, Wright Field, Pax river or Boscombe Down etc,
rather than manufacturer's data, which can be optimistic. (Or just PR, the
390mph/20,000ft of the Bell XP-39 being a case
in point. It seems no such test result can now be found...) For late-war
fighters the ASI system could not be trusted at high mach. Test establishments
had the means to measure more accurately. Occasionally you find personal
histories which make speed claims on behalf of the aircraft the author flew.
They're fine as background data, but be aware that they
are not a basis for comparison between aircraft because of uncontrolled
conditions and inability to calibrate the ASI for high mach. Also the boost
pressure used in the field may not match engine limitations.
Once you get some good data, you still need to be aware of national standards
for presentation of the data. Sometimes the zero-speed critical altitude of
the engine is used as the datum altitude for top
speed. In fact the engine gets some benefit from ram air and has more power
when at top speed than when going slow. This can give a max achieved top speed
some 2-3000ft above the zero-speed critical altitude,
depending on the pressure recovery in the induction system, at typical speeds
and heights for a fighter. If the engine critical height and the height quoted
for top speed are the same, that raises a question of what
standard is being used. Sometimes the national standard is to give speeds at
fixed heights. Beware of round numbers, it's not likely that the top speed is
achieved at some exact multiple of 5000ft or
1000meters. (It helps to learn what one system's round numbers are expressed in
the other units, 1000meters=3280ft,600kph=373mph). Look for
aircraft types with the same engine to get their top speeds at similar heights.
If they don't, within a thousand feet or so, there is a question to be
answered. (Check that it IS the same engine, the R-2800 in a P-47 is turbo'ed
and tops out at 30,000ft ish, in a F4U it is two-stage mechanical with three
effective gears and has three max speed points up to around 24,000+).
Anyhow, given a speed/height which is a maximum in that supercharger gear, you
can infer some things about speeds at other heights. Above that point,
the aircraft will be slower progressively unless the gear is changed or it has
GM-1 or another LOX or NO boost system. Both power and form drag decrease with
air density, at say 3% per 1000ft at 20,000, but induced drag increases as
density decreases, and as the aircraft goes slower, so although it may be only
5-10% of drag at rated alt, it soon goes way up.
Below the rated alt, the power is constant with height (unless there is a gear
change or WER boost is allowed) but form drag increases with density
(induced drag decreases, but from a small figure) so the aircraft goes slower.
By about 3-4 mph per 1000ft, (the plot is a straight line) depending on
aircraft characteristics (tends to be less for turbo types
or where the supercharger drive is hydraulic, DB60x engines or the Allison in
the P-63 or P-82). If the data doesn't match this, there's a question to be
answered. An small increase in power (in a new mark of the same airframe) of X%
should produce a max speed increase of X/3 %.
If the data doesn't match this, did the engine have a rated height change too?
Did extra guns or weight change the drag?
If two similar types with similar power at similar heights don't compare
closely, there's a question. There is no magic in aviation, just physics. There
must be a reason why. WW2 fighters were nearly all very similar. Low-wing
single-engine monoplanes with aspect ratio around 6, 1000-2000 hp piston
engine, 150-300 sq ft wing area, 30-40 ft span, that
description probably covers at least 80% of 300,000+ fighters built 1936-1945.
Adrian Camp.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> FWIW, I've written some hints on comparing WW2 fighters, which I'll append
> here. Some technical knowledge required, any objections to be emailed to
> me......
Maybe This is too simple, but there really are only two measures of
"speed" that are meaningful: TAS and ground speed, in level flight.
One accepts that temperature/altitude have an effect on an aircraft's
speed - and the other one is what matters getting from one place to
the other. ( Like from one WW II airfield to a target...)
Everything else is merely a theoretical exercise for those with lots
of time on their hands.
--
- John T., former MSgt, USAF - and member of the 1st, 4th, 15th
36th, 50th, 56th, 86th, and 388th ( Korat Dive Toss )
Tactical Fighter Wings.
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3227
C.C. Jordan
>
>
>CC wrote:
>>The Republic XP-72 had the potential to be even faster. However, the
>>program was killed before any production aircraft were ordered.
>>
>>Nonetheless, the #2 prototype reached an amazing 480 mph at sea level
>>and promised 510+ mph at critical altitude. All in all, a real powerhouse of
>>a
>>piston engine fighter. It was certainly the best looking variation of the
>>Thunderbolt theme.
> I can't believe 480/SL from what was still pretty much a Thunderbolt. A P-47D
>got around 350 at SL using 2300HP. To go 37% faster, you need 1.37cubed times
>the power. 1.37cubed is around 2.5. Times the 2300, that gives almost 6000HP
>required from the 4360. If the 72 was a little cleaner, that would be countered
>by reduced prop efficiency (the prototypes didn't get the intended prop). Looks
>like a typo or a PR job. Remembering the AAF never got the 47J to duplicate the
>504mph Republic claimed.
>This is not to say the -72 and -47J weren't very fast, just that the figures
>are suspect.
According to test pilot Carl Bellinger, 480 mph is the correct number.
Warren Bodie quotes Bellinger's figure twice. Bodie is a very careful
researcher. Bellinger is a very reliable source.
Apparently this is recorded in both the aircraft and pilot log books.
However, my memory did confuse which prototype recorded that speed,
as it was the #1 proto, not the #2. As to drag reduction: Republic reported
a 16.92 % reduction in overall drag. Much of this is due to the exceptionally
clean engine installation. In general, more attention to detail was exhibited
in these prototypes than was seen on the production line. Every irregularity
on the plane's surface was sanded smooth or filled (not "filed"). This certainly
contributed to drag reduction, but could not be expected to be seen in normal
production.
Prototype #1 received a 4 bladed prop (manufacturer is no longer known) of
far greater diameter than normally fitted to a P-47. It appears to be between
14 and 15 feet in diameter. It was fitted with a large spinner. You might find
it interesting that the frontal area of the XP-72's cowling was actually less
than that of the Fw-190 and fractionally greater than the Ta-152. A remarkable
achievement for such a large radial.
Number two (36599) was fitted with a Curtiss 6 bladed contra-rotating prop.
This propeller caused significant problems with rudder lock and destablizing
woes that were directly traced to the prop. It seems that kicking full rudder
deflection resulted in the rudder locking in that position. The pilot was then
required to pull off power and trim the pitch to get the rudder to unlock. This
was obviously not a problem you would want to encounter while side-slipping
down on a crosswind final.
As to sea level performance: I have figures (from Republic's archives) that show
that the P-47D-10-RE could pull 355 mph@2,000 bhp (100% MIL power).
The P-47D-25-RE was a bit slower at 351 mph. Some combat pilots have reported
that over 370 mph could be attained in WEP, skimming tree tops over France.
The USAAF reported 484 mph in testing the P-47J. They also admit not being able
to attain maximum power due to exhaust manifold problems. The Army's final
report does, however, conclude that a maximum speed of 507 mph was projected
for a full power run. Republic, on the other hand, issued it's test report and
(report No.51, Jan. 1945) claimed a maximum speed of 502 mph @ 2,800 bhp
at 24,500 ft. It is apparent that the USAAF understood why they were unable to
exceed 500 mph and were more optimistic than Republic about the P-47J's
max speed at full power.
As to the balance of Adrian's excellent post:
You make some excellent points. Much of the data published on the flight
performace of WWII aircraft (actually all aircraft) does not mention the
specific conditions required to obtain this performance level. Typically,
when this data is used to compare aircraft, it has limited value. Most
fans of the Fw-190A are unaware that the plane's performance above
25,000 feet was anything but inspiring and don't realize that at these
altitudes it suffered a big disadvantage to the P-47, Mustang and Spitfire
Mk IX, all of whom performed their best at this altitude or higher.
The same goes for the Fw-190D-9. Sure it was fast. The question is, at what
altitude and for what duration? At 30 to 35,000 it was markedly inferior to the
P-47D or P-38L. Let's face it, aerial combat generally took place at, or above
the altitude of the bomber formations. This meant that the Fw-190 series was
forced to fight well above it's best altitude. The only common fighter the
Luftwaffe had that performed it's best this high up was the Me-109. And,
this fighter was generally outclassed by the opposition.
Fighters like the F6F and F4U-1 made their best speeds below 25,000 ft
(the exception is the F4U-4) and their supercharger installation was not
really suited for combat over Europe. That is why the P-47 had a turbocharger.
It made it's maximum power from sea level to 35,000 feet. Even the P-51
suffered from the common malady of the 2 speed, 2 stage supercharger
of having non-constant power output.
Truly, it is important to understand the full performance envelope of the
various fighter aircraft to properly apply comparisons.
My best regards,
Regnirps
I just happened to speak today with my friend who flew P47's and he recalled a
story that got me thinking. He once dove from escort altitude on a Fw-190 that
was lower and had more of a head start than he thought. He hit the compression
wall I think they called it then. No control and the stick banged his hands and
knees. Fortunetly he did not panic and knew the recommended proceedure -- he
did 105 missions so I think he must be the kind of guy who always remembers the
recomended proceedure -- which was DO NOT cut power (seems the nose drops and
things get worse and most likely end in a fatal bail out). He said you wait
till you get down into thinker air and control comes back, then back off a
little. Obviously this has to do with very high mach number and it brings up
two questions.
1) Would a full flying elevator have made a difference in these planes and
2) How many of the WWII fighters could take the stress of being so close to
mach 1 that the shock wave has creeped up on the elevator hinge area? (or
whatever it is that happens)
Well and of course, just how high a dive speed would this have been?
Charlie Springer
PS. Did you know that at least the guys in 1943 did a month of gunnery school
in worn out Spitfires in England?
dog...@gmail.com
Dean Markley
> Hey people there.s footage out there of all the air battles from both sides the German fighters lost the very best of the German fighters lost if a German fighter could outrun any u.s. playing why would it lose a fight a faster plane chooses where and when to fight if you want to look at a plane the United States should have stayed working on look at the Curtis xp-55
Keith Willshaw
hiding from Covid 19.
There is also the little issue of the fact that the P-47M only entered
service in March 1945 when the Luftwaffe was basically out of fighters,
fuel and pilots. In fact the only fully operational fighter units were
using the Me 262 jet and Me 163 as they had almost run out of Avgas.
As for the Curtiss XP-55 it was already obsolete. the way ahead lay with
jet aircraft such as the Lockheed P-80 which was 100 mph faster.
Jim Wilkins
"Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:r5fnld$v5$1...@dont-email.me...
been rushed into earlier service if necessary?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Vampire
"On 20 September 1943, the first DH.100 prototype, serial number
LZ548/G, conducted its maiden flight..."
Keith Willshaw
>
> There used to be an ex-Swiss DH100 flying around here. Could they have
> been rushed into earlier service if necessary?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Vampire
> "On 20 September 1943, the first DH.100 prototype, serial number
> LZ548/G, conducted its maiden flight..."
>
>
come off the production lines in April 1945 and were used for testing
and preparing for squadron service. The main bottleneck was engine
production. This was originalyl designated the Halford H-1, The first 2
prototypes were delivered in Jutly 1943. One went to De Havilland for
the Vampire prototype and the second was shipped to Lockheed for the
P-80 prototype. The Vampire like the Mosquito was a wooden aircraft and
so could be produced by woodworking shops using plywood.
Halford like Frank Whittle's power jets company really had neither the
resources or the experience to mass produce the engine so De Havilland
bought them out and set up its own engine group with Frank Halford in
charge renaming the engine as the De Havilland Goblin. He was more
realistic than Whittle and was quite happy about it.
In the USA the intent was to have Allis-Chalmers produce the engine as
the J36 but they had production problems and Lockheed used the Allison
J33 instead.
The end of the war meant production of piston engined fighters fell but
over 3200 Vampire were produced in the UK and 1100 or so in other
countries under license. They were operated by most Nato air forces
except the US and Spain and of course served with the Swiss Air Force
The Vampire was successfully operated from an aircraft carrier in
December 1945, the pilot being Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown who went on
to test fly almost all the early jets including the Me 262, He 162 and
the rocket powered Me 163.
The Vampire was a good interceptor but its range was relatively short so
it couldnt have been used to escort bombers over a long distance and was
not suitable for use as a night fighter.
The Gloster Meteor did of course see service in WW2 mainly being used to
intercept Flying Bombs and a radar equipped night fighter variant was
produced as was a naval version with folding wings. It was also used in
training USAAF bomber and escort crews in order to help them develop
methods to defend against the German jet fighters in Oct 1944.
By March 1945 the Meteor was conducting fighter sweeps from Dutch
airfields over German occupied territory. There was nothing encountered
in the air but they did destroy 46 aircraft on the ground. Thet didnt
lose any aircraft but a few were damaged by allied AAA who mistook them
for Me 262's
Dean Markley
Stephen Harding
68 y.o) and not yet dead.
COVID-19 doesn't have a chance against me given how I eluded those
Krauts over Germany in my personally modified, "look ahead" P-39K
(although it was an H in '43) with Merlin engines and hydraulic boosted
controls. I figured out compressibility and had the Fowler Flaps (don't
know why they didn't call them "Harding Flaps") on my personally
modified Lightning.
Didn't Gabreski get shot down shooting up a German airfield while flying
an M?
SMH
Jim Wilkins
news:r5j13d$jmc$1...@dont-email.me...
number of them, flown by experts, were lost to Allied prop fighters.
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/german-262s-shot-down.34553/
"after studying this very interesting question for over 25 years have
come up with about 125 262's and Arado 234/Me 163's shot down."
Jeff Crowell
> Although the Me-262 and Me-163 were easily the fastest, a significant
> number of them, flown by experts, were lost to Allied prop fighters.
land... when they were unable to quickly accelerate back up to useful
fighting speeds.
Good to see some of you old pharts still kicking, I seem to have become
the baby of the group at 61...
Jeff
--
Passerby: "I see you have a pistol. Are you expecting trouble?"
Me: "No, ma'am. If I was expecting trouble, I'd have my rifle."
Jim Wilkins
news:e6458ee5-7689-4938...@googlegroups.com...
Dean Markley
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:r5j8e4$clp$1...@dont-email.me...
> number of them, flown by experts, were lost to Allied prop fighters.
down Me262's? The Germans tended to field the opposite,
experienced pilots tended to mishandle the throttles, treating the
jets as piston engines. The more novice pilots had experience
only on the jets and so handled the throttles more correctly.
It took time for experienced pilots to transition.
> https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/german-262s-shot-down.34553/
> "after studying this very interesting question for over 25 years have come
> up with about 125 262's and Arado 234/Me 163's shot down."
but higher, numbers, western allies
"To start off with allied claims against Me262s. Allied fighter kill claims
against Me262s appear reasonable, with 188 claimed versus 89 losses
listed to fighters and 75 listed as shot down or lost to enemy aircraft, a
total 164."
Then comes a relative handful of Ar234 claims.
A tentative list of RAF jet claims is in my 17 December 2008 post in
the "USAAF Me-262 Kill Record, WW2?" thread.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Peter Stickney
> On 25/03/2020 21:03, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
>
>> There used to be an ex-Swiss DH100 flying around here. Could they have
>> been rushed into earlier service if necessary?
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Vampire "On 20 September
>> 1943, the first DH.100 prototype, serial number LZ548/G, conducted its
>> maiden flight..."
them, at least in Canada, and I think in the other English-speaking users
was "Kiddie Car". While not able to stand up to the MiG-15, they were
the best introduction to jet operations that they era could produce -
Great to fly, simple to maintain, and effective within its capabilities.
Like all Brit fighters (Well, European fighters in general, she was
seriously short-ranged - it was said that if you pulled off the drop
tanks and replaced them with 1000# bombs, your sortie radius was to the
end of the runway.
But, like almost all Brit fighters of the day, they could fly high.
One of my Uncles was a B-47 guy in the early/mid '50s. When they staged
through the UK, they'd arrive at their typical cruising altitude of about
40,000', and as often as not, there'd be a pair of Vampires or Venoms way
above them. Of course, the B-47s were cruising faster than they could
fly...
--
Peter Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee