PDA

View Full Version : D9 in 1942



mynameisroland
05-05-2005, 06:39 AM
The Jumo 213 was in mass production in 1942, Fw test versions flew equipped with the engine in the same year. If the Fw D9 was in serial production in 1943 equipping squadrons of experienced pilots with fuel to use The USAAF Eighth would be in big trouble Imao.

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-05-2005, 06:46 AM
mkay

robban75
05-05-2005, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Jumo 213 was in mass production in 1942, Fw test versions flew equipped with the engine in the same year. If the Fw D9 was in serial production in 1943 equipping squadrons of experienced pilots with fuel to use The USAAF Eighth would be in big trouble Imao.

The RLM made sure that there were no Fw 190D's entering service in 1943.
And yes, the D version would have been a nasty shock no doubt. It was tough adversary in 1945 as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
05-05-2005, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Jumo 213 was in mass production in 1942, Fw test versions flew equipped with the engine in the same year. If the Fw D9 was in serial production in 1943 equipping squadrons of experienced pilots with fuel to use The USAAF Eighth would be in big trouble Imao.
No doubt a whole host of mismanagement meant that it would enter service later.

p1ngu666
05-05-2005, 07:20 AM
thought it was mr tank? he didnt want a smelly old jumo, he wanted the db engines?

mynameisroland
05-05-2005, 07:36 AM
I think it was both Herr Tank and the RLM, Tank was a DB603 devote and thr RLM thought that the USAAF air offensive would never reach such strength as to actually harm their industry.

Performance levels for the D9 were exceptional for 1942/43 era. With the benefit or hindsight (isnt that greathttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) and no official harrassment and ideal situation for the Luftwaffe would have been to develop D9 for exclusive use on the Western front the A series production could have switched almost soley to the F and G series ground attack ( great fighter though the A series were themselves )models to help fight the massed Soviet Tank Armies on the Eastern front. With the 109 fullfilling the fighter requirement on the eastern and med fronts.

After all according to the Soviets the Messer was a much better fighter than the Fw 190 ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

JG53Frankyboy
05-05-2005, 08:35 AM
sry, but the Jumo213 was far from massproduktion in 1942 !
anf the tests of this engine in Fw190 were in 1943 - there were a lot of work to do to get this combination combat ready.

stathem
05-05-2005, 09:17 AM
And the first Griffon engined Spit flew in 1941 - so can we extrapolate from that and say "if MkXIV's had been in serial production in 1942 etc etc"

No. As Frankyboy pointed out, these things take time.

What about, if the Brits who commissioned the Mustang had ensured it used the Merlin from the start? or the Westland Whirlwind? The list goes on and on..

mynameisroland
05-05-2005, 09:43 AM
The Jumo 213 was in production in the Ju 88 bomber in 1942, the reason it wasnt used for fighers was that bomber production wasnt ceased in favour of fighter production until 1944.

If you read up on the Fw series it becomes apparant that the only reason D9 was not in service earlier was RLM denial that there was a need for the type and Tank's insistence that there was - so long as it was powered by the DB603 engine (itself prioritised for twins and bomber aircraft production) Ever wondered why the D9 was refered to as having a 'bombers' engine?

There were no major aerodynamic or over heating problems in the conversion. The Jumo had no turbo supercharger that required plumbing ect , or radiators that required being faired in to the wings or fuselage. Instead it had an annular cooler which meant that no modification to the Fw 190 was really necessary except for lengthening the fuselage aft of the cockpit. What major difficulties have you read about the development of the D9 ? Im interested to know. I have read that it was essentially developed in 1942, passed over for two years for other varients which didnt actually work and then in 1944 they bit the bullet and decided to produce it.

The point of my post remains that D9 in 1942/43 was a very viable alternative to existing Fw's. Ofcourse Mustang and Spit XIV were also test flown , I do not dispute this, what I would like to say though is that the British for whatever reason could not produce enough of the XIV and have it enter squadron service in numbers before the end of WW2 for a design that was started in 1941/42.Im not and expert or well read in Spitfire development. The D9 was developed tested , proving successful and then ignored for 2 years!

Regarding the Mustang I would suggest that the D9 is more than capable of fighting it on equal if not better terms. In 43 Germany would have the luxury of experienced pilots with the West playing catch up again. It would give noob pilots a chance to gain some experience.

stathem
05-05-2005, 11:22 AM
Well the most obvious problem is the one you mentioned - the RLM ignoring it. Command decsions are part of the process, which was my point. You also ignore the time needed for tooling for mass production. The XIV went into production in Autumn 1943 but it was spring 1944 before it reached units. Essentially developed and combat ready are two vastly different things.

The first Griffon Spit was actually the XII - in combat service and catching FW Jabos over the South of England in early '43. But it only had a single stage blower and was inferior to the IX over 20,000' and since by then most of the fighting was over France at altitude there was no need for large numbers of them. The 2-Stage 65 was ready by Spring '43 but, probably because the British were too busy knocking out Spits which could do the job perfectly well, didn't enter service for another year.

And as for the Mustang, can you imagine the effect of that entering service in numbers with the Merlin in early '42. Lancs on daylight raids?

BuzzU
05-05-2005, 11:38 AM
What if's count for nothing.

Except maybe idle chatter on a game forum 60 years later.

darkhorizon11
05-05-2005, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
What if's count for nothing.

Except maybe idle chatter on a game forum 60 years later.

I couldn't disagree more! If we argue and whine enough with our WHAT IFS we may create a tear in the space time continum changing history causing the D9 to be used in 1942 justifying this thread!

Okay guys this isn't funny anymore I need my ridelin where is it?

LEXX_Luthor
05-05-2005, 06:26 PM
I give official webboard Approval to this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

My campaign idea requires Luftwaffe to have possibly available (if needed) a fairly long range high altitude escort fighter in early 1943 -- something to get a step above the MiG~3U interceptors. Bf~109Z could be useful a little later--but I would "rather not" go with the Z. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This idea assumes Germany at least stays in a somewhat offensive posture on the Eastern Front, allowing Luftwaffe the freedom to conduct long range large scale bombings of fairly deep targets. For a MiG~3U successor, the I~185 M71 seems "okay" but for high altitude I am looking at Spit~14 for MiG I~224...Ta~152H should become available too.

BuzzU
05-05-2005, 06:28 PM
Ok if I use the F-15?

RedNeckerson
05-05-2005, 06:57 PM
RLM wasted valuable DB engines on aircraft like the HE-219 and ME-410.

Two Doras for the price of one HE-219, I'll take that any day.

RLM indecision greatly delayed the Do-335 as well.

irR4tiOn4L
05-06-2005, 11:19 AM
'what if's' tend to be a lot more important when actually making decisions, rather than reflecting on them later.

Unfortunately thats when they seem to most be ignored.

JG53Frankyboy
05-06-2005, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by RedNeckerson:
RLM wasted valuable DB engines on aircraft like the HE-219 and ME-410.

Two Doras for the price of one HE-219, I'll take that any day.

RLM indecision greatly delayed the Do-335 as well.

lets hunt some Lancasters in the dark night with Doras http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BigKahuna_GS
05-06-2005, 02:18 PM
S!

I think that different wartime outcome scenarios are interesting. All those assination attempts on Hilter, what if one succeded ?
D-Day failing ?

I think the biggest mis-management of aircraft was the 262. What an impact that plane would of made in Germanys home defense against bomber raids if utilized correctly.

Another thing that is often forgotten is that most 8th AF groups were operating their planes over boosted. P47 groups were getting P47M performance out of many of their planes in late 43' through 44':

56thFG
Robert Johnson's P47

As to the speed of his P-47; Pratt & Whitney tech reps were largely
responsible for giving Gould the secrets of horsepower production in the
R-2800. Engines with the same wastegate modifications were tested at P&W and produced in excess of 2,700 hp on the dynometer, and did so for hundreds of hours at full throttle. The later "C" series R-2800 (used in the P-47M and N) generated 3,600 hp during similar endurance testing. It should not be a surprise that a P-47D-5-RE should attain similar speeds to the P-47M with 2,800 hp with slightly greater drag. Gould also filled all gaps in seams and waxed Johnson's Jug to reduce parasite drag.

By the Spring of 1944, there wasn't a P-47 in the 56th that hadn't been
field modified like Johnson's. Ask any of the surviving crew chiefs. When
150 octane fuel became available in early '44, 72" MAP became the standard
for combat operations. While this setting was never incorporated into the
standard issue pilot's manual, it is easily found in 8th AF Fighter Command
technical bulletins and operational instructions.

R.Johnson--Sure. My second Jug, a D-5 was the best P-47 that I ever flew, and I flew them all, including the P-47M which the 56th got near the end of the war.

CCJ: What made this one Thunderbolt so fast?

RSJ: Several things. My crew sanded every joint smooth, and waxed it to a high gloss. Factory technical reps showed my crew chief, Pappy Gould, how to adjust the wastegates to keep the boost pressure higher than normal. My D-5, which I named Lucky, had water injection. I never used the water injection in combat. I didn't need it. From time to time I'd switch it on, push the throttle up to 72" of manifold pressure and the head rest would smack me from behind. I would let her run for a few minutes just for the fun of it.

CCJ: 72 inches!? Did you ever take note of your airspeed during one of those runs?

RSJ: Of course.

CCJ: And....... how fast did it go?

RSJ: I've seen just over 300 at altitude.

CCJ: 300 indicated?

RSJ: Yes.

CCJ: What was your altitude?

RSJ: I guess it was right around 32,000 feet.

CCJ: Geez, thats well over 450 mph!

RSJ: Oh, I figure closer to 470.

CCJ: What ever happened to Lucky?

RSJ: She was lost in a mid-air collision over the North Sea. I don't recall the pilot's name who was flying her on that ramrod. I was very upset. Lucky got at least 24 enemy aircraft and was the best Jug I ever flew. She was trouble free and I never had a single abort while flying her.


_______________

LEXX_Luthor
05-06-2005, 05:51 PM
609::
I think the biggest mis-management of aircraft was the 262. What an impact that plane would of made in Germanys home defense against bomber raids if utilized correctly.
I found recently that is a popular Myth made out of some Truths. It turns out only the first few 262s in France flew as bombers, all (or almost all) other 262s later manufactured were used as interceptors. This means 262 was used correctly except the very first missions -- when it was still numerically unable to effect the war even if it was used as interceptor.

The story of 262 problems is a story of jet engine development problems. The engines are the only thing that "delayed" 262. Hitler's bomber was only used for a short time by a very few aircraft that did not impact any success 262 could have had as interceptor.

And http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif this brings back that 50 page thread we buried on Me~262 being possibly available by at least late 1943. Assume a campaign generator has random engine development factors. So this could be possible, and very interesting if so.

mynameisroland
05-06-2005, 06:11 PM
info reg the P47 over boosted is a very interesting read.

I dont think it stands unique, Mustangs rec the same treatment in Pacific and also in Europe. RAF had over boosted Spits and Tempests and the Stock Fw D9 had filled in joints and waxed wings and surfaces. Thats factory fresh models were talking here!

I think in BoB we should see small variations between different planes of the smae type as almost certainly Erich Hartmanns 109 was a better performer than some new kids 109 fresh out of flying school and wet behind the ears. Though it would be cool to have this on line and montered by admins so that online 'aces' were rewarded by better AC performance. Even if this quantified by a mystery factor of 5 - 7 % performance variable programmed randomly between planes. It would be cool and reflect reality. Ofcourse Red Army planes would have a -5/-20% variable for being so crappily put together from rolls of old carpet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Reg this thread , It reminds me of the What if on the 262 we had a while back. Difference is Fw flew, was tested , used working components already in service and was an entirely feasible proposition.

D9 was arguably best WW2 piston engined fighter across the board. It was great in 44 it would have been something else in 42

rgr

p1ngu666
05-06-2005, 06:12 PM
well, the me262 made a really good fighter bomber, cos so fast http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. also 2a had 2 mk108s, so could have been used to hunt bombers too, abit less effectivly but hey http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

stathem
05-06-2005, 07:02 PM
What if..?

The British goverment had recognised the potential of Sir Frank Whittle's work in 1930 and
a) kept the patents secret
and
b) poured money into his turbojet development like other, more "terratorially aquisative" nations did with their jet developments

Ruy Horta
05-07-2005, 04:22 AM
Roland,

One question, did you read:

Focke-Wulf Fw 190 "Long Nose"
An illustrated history of the Fw 190 D series
Dietmar Hermann
Schiffer Publishing, 2003
ISBN 0-7643-1876-4
Hard Cover, 206p

It really answers most if not all of your questions.

Could a superior inline Fw 190 been produced earlier, perhaps a little, but not dramatically so.

BigKahuna_GS
05-07-2005, 05:04 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Lex--I found recently that is a popular Myth made out of some Truths. It turns out only the first few 262s in France flew as bombers, all (or almost all) other 262s later manufactured were used as interceptors. This means 262 was used correctly except the very first missions -- when it was still numerically unable to effect the war even if it was used as interceptor.
__________________________________________________ _________________________



What I had read Lex was that there was unneccassary delays caused by designing the 262 into a fighter-bomber. When there isnt a clear vision of what the mission parameters are for an aircraft design, there is lots of stumbling around in the dark. I agree that the 262 would not of changed the outcome of the war, that die was already cast. The only thing that could of caused a reversal of fortunes for Germany would be if they had their own ("Fat Man & Little Boy") to bomb with. The best the 262 would have done would be to prolong the war if it had come out sooner.



__________________________________________________ __________________
mynameisroland --D9 was arguably best WW2 piston engined fighter across the board. It was great in 44 it would have been something else in 42
__________________________________________________ ________________________


The 109s & 190s were good planes. The biggest knock againt them was their short legs.

Gunther Rall:
Now the big difference, talking about the airplanes we confronted. The Americans came in P-47 or P-38 or -P51. Their engines flew 7 hours with internal tank fuel, not external tank. We, and all continental aircraft, including the Spitfires, all the French planes, flew 1 hour 20. We had an external tank, but you had to drop the tank because it reduced mobility.
This was a tremendous handicap against the Americans.


The P47M at 470mph TAS/490mph overboosted at 33,000ft would have been the fastest prop fighter in the ETO. Then there is this :
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Corsair2.jpg
Since the end of the Second World War, there has raged a continuous debate over which was the best overall fighter aircraft to emerge from the conflict. This debate shows no sign of abating to this day. From the school boys of the mid nineteen forties to the aviation scholars of the 1990€s, P-51 advocates argue their case with Spitfire men and Lightning defenders, and so goes the debate forever..........

Or, does it?

While these debates certainly do not lack for passion, they frequently lack accurate analysis of the aircraft in question. There is some solid evidence that strongly supports the argument that the Chance Vought F4U-4 Corsair was the finest all around fighter of the war. Certainly it qualifies as the best fighter/bomber.

In terms of maneuverability, all models of the Corsair were first rate. The F4U-4 was better than the F4U-1 series. Why? More power and better performance in the vertical regime. Very few fighters, even pure fighters such as the Yak-3 could hang with an -4 maneuvering in the vertical. Its terrific climbing ability combined with very light and sensitive controls made for a hard fighter to beat anytime the fight went vertical.

Ease of flight.The Corsair was much less a handful than the P-51 when flown into an accelerated stall, although it was by no means as forgiving as the F6F Hellcat. Torque roll was no worse than most of its high power contemporaries.

The F4U also rolled well. When rolling in conjunction with powerplant torque, in other words, rolling left, it was among the very fastest rolling fighters of the war. In the inventory of American fighters, only the P-47N rolled faster, and only by 6 degrees/second.


Turning to dive acceleration, we find the F4U-4 and Mustang in a near dead heat. Both the P-47D and P-38L easily out distance the Corsair and P-51D in a dive. Still, these two accelerate better than the opposition from Japan and Germany. Moreover, both the Corsair and the Mustang have relatively high critical Mach numbers allowing them to attain very high speeds in prolonged dives before running into compressibility difficulty. With the exception of early model P-38€s, it was almost always a mistake to attempt to evade American fighters by trying to dive away. This goes for early war fighters as well, such as the P-40 and F4F Wildcat.


When we look at the turn rates of WWII fighters we stumble upon several factors that determine how well a fighter can turn. Aside from the technical aspects such as wing area and wing loading, we find that some fighters are far more maneuverable at low speeds than at higher velocities. This was very common with Japanese designs. At speeds above 250 mph, the A6M Zero and the Ki-43 Hayabusa (Oscar) could not roll worth a nickel. But at 150 mph, they were two of the most dangerous fighters ever to take wing. It did not take long for Allied pilots to learn to avoid low speed turning duels with the Japanese. Once this rule was established, the light weight dogfighters were hopelessly outclassed by the much faster opposition.

Over Europe, things were somewhat different. The Luftwaffe flew fast, heavily armed aircraft that were not especially suited to low speed turning fights. The Allies had in their inventory the Spitfire, which was very adept at turning fights. The Americans had the P-47, P-38 and P-51. All of which were very fast and at least a match for the German fighters in maneuverability. Especially the P-38 which could out-turn anything the Luftwaffe had and could give the Spitfire pilot pause to consider his own mortality.
With the exception of these last two, there was nothing in western Europe that could hang with the F4U-4. Even when including the Soviets, only the Yak-3 could hope to survive a one on one with the Corsair. To do so, the Yak would have to expertly flown. Furthermore, the Yak-3 was strictly a low to medium altitude fighter. Above 20,000 ft its power dropped off rapidly, as did its maneuverability. The Yak-3 in question had better be powered by the Klimov M107A engine and not the low output M105. Otherwise, the speed difference is too great to overcome.

Maneuverability: The F4U-4 was one of the very best. According to Jeffrey Ethell: "Of all World War II fighters, the Corsair was probably the finest in air-to-air combat for a balance of maneuverability and responsiveness. The -4, the last wartime version is considered by many pilots who have flown the entire line to be the best of them all€¦.." Indeed, the F4U-4 had few, if any equals at the business of ACM (air combat maneuvering).

Ease of flight: Despite gaining the nickname of "Ensign Eliminator", the F4U series tendency to roll under torque was no more difficult to handle than any other high powered fighter of the era. Some who have flown both the Corsair and the Mustang state without hesitation that the P-51 exhibited a greater propensity to roll on its back than did the F4U.

Moreover, the Corsair was a far more forgiving aircraft when entering a stall. Although it would drop its right wing abruptly, the aircraft gave plenty of advanced warning of an impending stall by entering a pronounced buffeting about 6-7 mph before the wing dropped. The P-51, however, gave no warning of an impending stall. When it did stall, it was with a total loss of pilot control, rolling inverted with a severe aileron snatch. Recovery usually used up 500 ft or more of altitude. It was not uncommon for Mustangs to spin out of tight turns during dogfights. The F4U could also be flown at speeds more than 30 mph slower than that at which the Mustang stalled. In other words, the P-51 could not hope to follow a Corsair in a low speed turning fight.
Advantage: F4U-4

Finally there is an area in which the P-51 cannot compete at all. The F4U was designed to operate from an aircraft carrier. What this provides for is a utility that is unmatched by the better land based fighters of WWII. The ability to operate at sea or from shore can never be over-valued.
Obvious advantage: F4U-4

In conclusion, it would be hard, no, impossible to dismiss the F4U-4 as the leading candidate for the "best fighter/bomber of WWII". Furthermore, there is strong evidence that it very well may be the best piston engine fighter (to see combat) period. Certainly, everyone can agree on this: The F4U-4 Corsair was at the pinnacle of WWII piston engine technology and performance. When people debate the relative merits of the great fighter aircraft of WWII, they would be remiss in not acknowledging the F4U-4 as one of the very best, and in the educated opinion of many, "the best" fighter aircraft to fly into combat in World War II.


_______

CUJO_1970
05-07-2005, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
The P47M at 470mph TAS/490mph overboosted at 33,000ft would have been the fastest prop fighter in the ETO.


The Do-335, Ta-152, and the late D-series were as fast as any actual P-47 operating in the ETO. So there really wasn't any big technical advance there.

Your 490mph P-47 squadron is a myth I'm afraid, there is nothing that supports it for in-service Thunderbolt groups at any point in the war regardless of 150 grade fuel or wastegate adjustments.

the 56th FG did experiment with stripping down some P-47s by taking out guns and armour to try and lighten them and protect against some of the Nitro-injected 109s that were bouncing them on a few occasions from greater altitudes.

Only the very highly modified XP-47J was capable of 493mph under test conditions and it would have required Republic to do a 70 per cent re-tool to get it into production. In short, it was much different than any in-service P-47.


The Ta-152 had a higher service ceiling and was more maneuverable at extreme altitudes than any P-47 Thunderbolt, so the only real advantage for the Thunderbolt is that it was produced in much greater numbers because of the war situation. And more and better trained pilots overall in the 8th AF.

I sure dont see any real technical advance there however.

You don't seem to know much about the high cruising speeds and long ranges the late German piston engine fighters were capable of? THe Do-335 could go over 1,300 miles on internal fuel alone. No external tanks.

So for the primarily defensive role the German fighters were forced into, this is really more than sufficient.

Increasing range and adding droptanks is not some magical mystery science patented by the 8th AF.

On similar fuel loads, the Ta-152 had much greater range than the P-47 Thunderbolt because it was vastly more fuel efficient than the P-47. The P-47 was an incredibly inneficient aircraft, and could suck down as much as 330 gallons per hour at full military power for the late models.

A much better aircraft than any P-47 for long-range fighter work is the P-51H.

All of them however, including the Ta-152 and P-51H, F-4U4, were on the verge of obsolescence forced upon them by German and British jet technology and high-speed airframe design.

BigKahuna_GS
05-07-2005, 11:29 AM
S!


__________________________________________________ ________________________
Cujo---The Do-335, Ta-152, and the late D-series were as fast as any actual P-47 operating in the ETO. So there really wasn't any big technical advance there.Your 490mph P-47 squadron is a myth I'm afraid
Only the very highly modified XP-47J was capable of 493mph
You don't seem to know much about the high cruising speeds and long ranges the late German piston engine fighters were capable of? THe Do-335 could go over 1,300 miles on internal fuel alone. No external tanks.
Increasing range and adding droptanks is not some magical mystery science patented by the 8th AF.
On similar fuel loads, the Ta-152 had much greater range than the P-47 A much better aircraft than any P-47 for long-range fighter work is the P-51H.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Hya Cujo, well you covered alot of territory here and I'm sorry to say most of it is inaccurate. First of all I never mentioned drop tanks. If you look at the Gunther Rall quote it was about combat range on INTERNAL FUEL. Rall talks about german A/C needing drop tanks to extend range, but having to drop them to manuever.

Gunther Rall:
Now the big difference, talking about the airplanes we confronted. The Americans came in P-47 or P-38 or -P51. Their engines flew 7 hours with internal tank fuel, not external tank. We, and all continental aircraft, including the Spitfires, all the French planes, flew 1 hour 20. We had an external tank, but you had to drop the tank because it reduced mobility.
This was a tremendous handicap against the Americans.

No the 8th AF did not invent drop tanks-never said anything remotely like this, didnt even mention drop tanks--you did. The Japanese were using drop tanks in the PTO from the beginning. It was a common practice.

The only magical mystery science is you trying to compare short range German aircraft combat radious to American long range fighters. I think I'll take Rall's opinon over yours.


http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic7.html

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/xp-47j.JPG
The XP-47M was, essentially, developed collaterally with the XP-47J. The J was fitted with a high output version of the P&W R-2800. Specifically, the R-2800-57. This engine made 2,800 hp @ 2,800 rpm at 35,000 feet. This is in War Emergency Power. The aircraft actually attained 507 mph at an altitude of 34,300 feet. 2,800 hp is 133% of rated power. At military power (100%), the XP-47J could sustain 470 mph. 435 mph was attained at 81% of it's rated power (1,700 hp). All performance figures were obtained at 34,300 feet. The J model was an especially good climbing fighter too. It had a climb rate at sea level of 4,900 fpm. At 20,000 feet, it was still rocketing up at 4,400 fpm, and got there in 4 minutes, 15 seconds. Time to 30,000 feet was only 6 minutes, 45 seconds. Now that's an interceptor! Yet it had a usable range of 1,075 miles. Rather impressive performance. Nor was this a stripped down hotrod. It was fully armed and carried ballast in the wings equal to 267 rds per gun. The aircraft was flown to a height of 46,500 feet and was capable of a bit more.

You gave the incorrect max speed on the XP47J-see above.


http://home.att.net/~historyzone/P-47M56fg.JPG
Right out of the starting gate, the XP-47M the horse to beat in terms of speed. The XP-47M proved to be nearly as fast as the XP-47J. 488 mph was obtained on at least one flight. The official maximum speed is 470 mph. However, over-boosting the engine could tweak another 15 to 20 mph out of the big fighter. Some may find this next tidbit hard to swallow, however, the test documents still exist.

During durability testing of the C series R-2800 by Republic, it was decided to find out at what manifold pressure and carburetor temperature caused detonation. The technicians at Republic ran the engine at extreme boost pressures that produced 3,600 hp! But wait, it gets even more amazing. They ran it at 3,600 hp for 250 hours, without any failure! This was with common 100 octane avgas. No special fuels were used. Granted, the engines were largely used up, but survived without a single component failure. Try this with Rolls Royce Merlin or Allison V-1710 and see what happens.

Upon the USAAF being informed of the XP-47M, three YP-47M development aircraft were immediately ordered. These were built using P-47D-27-RE fighters straight off the production line. Having already logged hundreds of flights with the XP-47M, beginning in mid 1943, Republic had a big leg up in terms of development time. Actual production P-47M fighters used the P-47D-30-RE as the basic airframe.

The new M models also suffered a fair amount of teething troubles. The P-47M was the fastest propeller driven fighter to see combat service in any Air Force in the ETO. Capable of speeds up to 475 mph, the M was a true "hotrod".


Heres your P47M speed myth for you read above-. 488mph on one flight and capable of going 15-20mph overboosted. 470 + 15/20 = 485-490mph TAS
Myth Buster !


Internal Fuel Loads

The Mustang carried 269 gallons of internal fuel. That compares to 106 gallons for the 109G10, or 170 gallons for the 190A8, or 138 gallons for the 190D9, or 102 gallons for the Spitfire IX.

As the P-51D carried more fuel, it could fly longer, and burn more, as it burned its larger fuel load, its wingloading improved proportionately more than its opponents.

At 50 % fuel remaining, the P-51D had a wingloading of 40.34 lbs per Sq/ft. It still had a radius of 225 miles.

At 50% fuel remaining, the 109G10 had a wingloading of 41.27 lbs per Sq/ft. It had a radius of 65 miles.

At 50% fuel remaining, the 190D9 had a wingloading of 46.3 lbs per Sq/ft, and a radius of 87.5 miles.

At 50% fuel remaining, the 190A8 had a wingloading of 47.0 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 82.5 miles.


At 25% fuel remaining, the P-51D had a wingloading of 38.6 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 112.5 miles. Notice that the P-51€s radius with 25% fuel is nearly as good as the G10 at full fuel load.

At 25% fuel remaining, the 109G10 had a wingloading of 40.4 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 32.5 miles.

At 25% fuel remaining, the 190A8 had a wingloading of 45.8 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 40.1 miles.

At 25% fuel remaining, the 190D9 had a wingloading of 45 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 43.7 miles.


At 25%fuel the German fighters better be returning to base, but the P-51 can still fly for a considerable distance. Equally important, the Mustang now has better wingloading, it stall speed is much better, rollrate better, high speed stall better, etc.


As for the Do-335 or P51H, I thought we were talking about aircraft that actually saw combat in WW2 ?
Jets made piston engine fighters obsolete ? Ya think ?


____

Aaron_GT
05-07-2005, 01:18 PM
488 mph was obtained on at least one flight. The official maximum speed is 470 mph. However, over-boosting the engine could tweak another 15 to 20 mph out of the big fighter.

(Playing Devil's Advocate...)

Kahuna - weren't there issues with the pitot tubes in the P47 giving innaccurate readings around 500mph+? (This came up in the supersonic P47 thread a couple of weeks ago). In other words are the figures of late P47D and P47M performance with overboosted engines necessarily 100% reliable, or are instances of instrumentation problems possibly mixed in? What corrections did Republic apply, or was the pitot issue fixed?

(no word from P&W yet, by the way?)

BigKahuna_GS
05-07-2005, 02:09 PM
[quote
Aaron
weren't there issues with the pitot tubes in the P47 giving innaccurate readings around 500mph+? (This came up in the supersonic P47 thread a couple of weeks ago). In other words are the figures of late P47D and P47M performance with overboosted engines necessarily 100% reliable, or are instances of instrumentation problems possibly mixed in? What corrections did Republic apply, or was the pitot issue fixed?[/quote]



I am not familiar with any pitot tube problems Republic might have been experiencing. Considering just how many of their aircraft could hit these speeds (XP47J, P47M, P47N) it sounds highly unlikely that there were errors in speed. Also, Robert Johnson's overboosted P47D-5 was hitting around 470mph at 33,000ft in late 43'. The 56th FG as a whole did over-boosting like Johnson's plane with similar results.

With so many differnt P47 models/pilots over a 2-year plus time frame hitting these high speeds I seriously doubt there was any pitot tube malfuntion. There was also unofficial races between P51Ds vs P47Ms with the P47M running away easily.

Can you post the Supersonic P47 Thread link ?

No WW2 plane, let alone prop plane was able to go supersonic. When the sound barrier was first broken during a dive test by the XP-86 Sabre there was a speed phenomenon called "Mach Jump".

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/xf86-6.JPG
Flying over Rogers Dry Lake on November 13, 1947, the XP-86 with George Welch at the controls would be officially measured at Mach 1.04 by NACA's Radar Theodolite. The tremendous speed of the Sabre had the potential to cause the Air Force great embarrassment.

I started at about 290 knots€, Welch explained. €œIn no time I€m at 350. I€m still going down, and I€m still accelerating, but the airspeed indicator seems stuck like there€s some kind of obstruction in the pitot tube, I push over a little steeper and by this time I€m going through 30,000 feet. All of a sudden, the airspeed needle flips to 440 knots. The aircraft feels fine, no funny noises, no vibration. Wanted to roll to the left, but no big deal. Still, I leveled out at 25,000 and came back on the power. The airspeed needle flicked back to 390. Whadya think?€

€œWhat did the flight recorder look like?€

€œIt wasn€t on the flight card, I was just feeling it out, so I wasn€t running the camera. Anyway, there wasn€t anything wrong with the airspeed system. They checked it out after I landed.€

Horkey guessed that Welch had run into a previously unknown Mach effect. Indeed he had. What Welch had observed was a phenomenon that would later be called, €œMach jump€. Today, €œMach jump€ is generally considered solid evidence of speeds in excess of Mach 1. Of course, on October 1, 1947, no had ever seen it before.


__________

CUJO_1970
05-07-2005, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!


Hya Cujo, well you covered alot of territory here and I'm sorry to say most of it is inaccurate.


Actually Kahuna, you can be sure that not a single word of it is innaccurate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And I'm sorry to say, but the XP-47J as interesting a "hot-rod" as it was, likely never once broke 500mph - unless it was in a dive.

The original engine in the XP-47J self-destructed after 10 hours of flight time on 26 Nov. 1943

It was several months of changes and testing later that Republic "claimed" the 504mph that gets bandied about on 5 August 1944.

However, this speed was never achieved by USAAF testing - not even once -

Michael O'Leary writes in his article "Heavyweight From Farmingdale":

"Republic claimed 504mph on 5 August 1944 at 34,450ft. Later USAAF testing only managed to get 493mph and it is thought that the Republic claim could have been innaccurate because of faulty instruments."

The XP-47J also had very little in common with any in-service P-47 as evidenced by the fact that Republic would have to do a 70 per cent re-tool of their assembly lines to begin production.

It is interesting however, that Republic wanted to use fan-assisted cooling for the R-2800 like BMW used on the BMW801.


And please don't use Gunther Rall out of context to claim the P-47s he faced in Europe had anything near a 7-1/2 endurance on internal fuel alone. It had nothing near it.

In fact, please don't quote Gunther Rall out of context any more to claim that any fighter, including the P-51 and P-38 had anywhere near a 7-1/2 hour endurance on internal fuel alone.

From Roger Freeman's Mighty Eighth War manual:

Range, internal fuel only -

P-38F - 425 miles

P-38H - 300 miles

P-38J - 450 miles

P-47D - 400 miles (early D)

P-47D - 590 miles (late D)

P-47M - 530 miles

P-51B - 700 miles

P-51D - 700 miles

===================

I hate to break the bad news to you, but the FW190A series had a range of 644 miles _on internal fuel alone_

So, the only USAAF aircraft in the ETO with greater range_on internal fuel_ than the FW190A is the P-51 Mustang and only by 56 miles.




The only magical mystery science is you trying to compare short range German aircraft combat radious to American long range fighters. I think I'll take Rall's opinon over yours.

Again, please don't take Gunther Rall's quotes out of context. He was not speaking of internal fuel alone when he made the comment about 7-1/2 hours.



The aircraft actually attained 507 mph at an altitude of 34,300 feet.

Highly unlikely and never happened in USAAF testing. ^See above^




Nor was this a stripped down hotrod. It was fully armed and carried ballast in the wings equal to 267 rds per gun.


Sorry, Kahuna, but a stripped down hotrod is exactly what it was.(Not that there is anything wrong with that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

It had an overboosted engine with a custom-built turbo-supercharger. It had it's airframe weight reduced, it had it's armament reduced, it had it's ammo load reduced.

Republic tried to streamline the cowling as well:

"...the cooling fan was intended to produce a long, slim nacelle which would cut down on the large, flat drag-producing surface of the R-2800 engine" -Michael O'Leary, Heavyeight From Farmingdale

(The cooling fan is interesting, as is Hap Arnold's order to US engine makers to copy German direct-injection systems)

In short, the only problem with the XP-47J is when people try to substitute it's performance with actual in-service P-47 Thunderbolts.




You gave the incorrect max speed on the XP47J-see above.

No, I gave the correct highest speed reached in USAAF testing of 493mph - sorry. You gave the incorrect top speed that was likely the result of faulty instruments.^see above^



Right out of the starting gate, the XP-47M the horse to beat in terms of speed.

Hmmm...I'd say the real horses to beat in terms of speed were the Me-262 and Arado 234.

As far as speed for piston engine fighters were concerned, the P-47M was very fast (even if highly unreliable) being similar in speed to the late D-series Focke-Wulfs and the Ta-152. (Not to mention the Do-335)




During durability testing of the C series R-2800 by Republic, it was decided to find out at what manifold pressure and carburetor temperature caused detonation. The technicians at Republic ran the engine at extreme boost pressures that produced 3,600 hp! But wait, it gets even more amazing. They ran it at 3,600 hp for 250 hours, without any failure! This was with common 100 octane avgas. No special fuels were used. Granted, the engines were largely used up, but survived without a single component failure.


Quite impressive, really.




Try this with Rolls Royce Merlin or Allison V-1710 and see what happens.

Hmmm...I'm not sure about inline V engines, but most high-performance radials of the day, under the same static condidtions and with a constant flow of charge cooled air like Frank Walker used in his R-2800 test would probably bear similar results.



The new M models also suffered a fair amount of teething troubles.

An understatement. If you have 8th AF historian Roger Freeman's unit history of the 56th FG, read the chapter entitled:

"Winter Blues with the P-47M"



Internal Fuel Loads


(SNIP...)


As far as the information regarding internal fuel loads that you cut and pasted from another forum member without giving him credit, they are largely innacurate due to comparing the Mustang at economical cruise speeds and the German fighters at high speed cruise, among other things.

Care to add the P-38 and P-47 to that faulty internal fuel equation?

For example, FW190A-8 with 50 per cent fuel remaining and a "radius of 82.5 miles" is complete nonesense - sorry.

You obviously don't know what the economical cruise range of the 109 series is either I'm afraid. I'll try to get _allied_ range charts for the 109 that show your cut and paste information to be innaccurate - if I decide I want to go through the trouble, or I don't forget. (I don't have it on my HD I don't think)

Sorry for the long post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Aaron_GT
05-07-2005, 04:14 PM
I am not familiar with any pitot tube problems Republic might have been experiencing. Considering just how many of their aircraft could hit these speeds (XP47J, P47M, P47N) it sounds highly unlikely that there were errors in speed.

The supersonic P47 thread was on the ORR a couple of weeks ago. Some pilots reported the P47 going supersonic in dives, but it was an issue with the pitot. Issues with pitot tubes giving inaccurate readings at high speed due to additional pressure effects (separation as parts of the airflow, although not the plane, got to transonic speeds) making the normal IAS to TAS conversions incorrect were pretty normal. The RAF, in their tests, often published standard TAS and then additionally corrected TAS figures. It is entirely possible that the Republic figure is accurate, represents a faulty instrument, or an uncorrected TAS (and the USAAF one a corrected TAS), or none of the above. Who knows.

BigKahuna_GS
05-08-2005, 12:27 PM
S!


Cujo your response is so choped up and duleted I dont know where to begin.

First try reading "Republic€s P-47 Thunderbolt: "Seversky to Victory.€
by Warren M Bodie. Bodie is the premire authority on P47 information his background includes over 50years in the aeronautical field as a engineer at Lockheed, and historical writer.

This will clear up all your incorrect data on the P47.

You keep repeating data that was common knowledge. The XPJ47 was that- an Experimental Plane that did not see combat. The P47M did see combat and was extremely fast for a piston powered aircraft 470mph-490mph overboosted TAS.

Second Rall was never misquoted. I gave the link so read the whole interview. Either you are chosing to disagree with Rall or simply not acknowledging what he said. Which is it?

I'll take Ralls opinon over yours any day of the week.

Why do you keep mixing up data ?

Especially data between piston and jet powered aircraft. Hmm -I think you have another agenda, one that is not reality based.

____________________



Aaron you have me confused. Are you saying the pitot tube in the sim is malfunctioning or the real pitot tube on P47s in WW2 ?


___

Ruy Horta
05-08-2005, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
An understatement. If you have 8th AF historian Roger Freeman's unit history of the 56th FG, read the chapter entitled:

"Winter Blues with the P-47M"

Thanks for the (unintended) book tip.

Just ordered my copy of:

Wolfpack Warriors
The Story Of World War II€s Most Successful Fighter Outfit
Roger A. Freeman

Somehow missed that one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

CUJO_1970
05-08-2005, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

Cujo your response is so choped up and duleted
I dont know where to begin.


Sometimes replies can appear this way when they are hard to digest, or simply don't fit what we want to believe.




This will clear up all your incorrect data on the P47.


Sorry, it won't clear up a single thing, because nothing I wrote about the P-47 was incorrect.

In fact, if anything at all that I wrote regarding the P-47 is incorrect then please prove it to be so instead of making childish replies. I'll be glad to have the information http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



You keep repeating data that was common knowledge. The XPJ47 was that- an Experimental Plane that did not see combat.


And sorry, but you keep repeating data that is false for the XP-47J. Primarily that it was a 500+mph aircraft. It wasn't.

Probably, you simply did not know that the XP-47J never once reached the speed Republic claimed for it and that the Republic data was regarded as the result of faulty instruments. The 500+ mph P-47 is a myth that will likely die a slow, painful death.

I am happy however, that I could add to your knowledge of the P-47 Thunderbolt.




The P47M did see combat and was extremely fast for a piston powered aircraft 470mph-490mph overboosted TAS.

I would like to see some real proof of 56th getting 490mph out of their P-47Ms.

In fact, I really do believe it is yet another P-47 myth.

I believe this for a number of reasons.

1. The P-47M was an extremely unreliable aircraft, rushed into service long before they were ready.

2. 8th AF historian Roger Freeman writes in "The Mighty Eighth War Manual" that the P-47M could exceed 460mph for short periods only. 490mph is a pretty big stretch - it's going to take much more than just a wastegate adjustment.

3. The stripped down, highly modified XP-47J only barely exceeded 490mph in USAAF testing. So it simply doesn't seem realistic that a heavier, draggier in-service P-47M is going to reach 490mph simply by some "overboosting" done
in England.

And then there is the fuel efficiency. These late P-47s were already sucking down as much as 330 gallons per hour at full WEP. It leaves precious little time to reach that claimed 490mph mark.




Either you are chosing to disagree with Rall or simply not acknowledging what he said. Which is it?


Let me be quite clear and say that I am in fact disagreeing with Rall.

Specifically this which you quoted, and is in fact, wrong:

Gunther Rall:
"Now the big difference, talking about the airplanes we confronted. The Americans came in P-47 or P-38 or -P51. Their engines flew 7 hours with internal tank fuel, not external tank."

Here, Gunther Rall is simply incorrect - he is after all only human. He clearly states that aircraft like the P-47, P-38, and P-51 flew for 7-1/2 on internal fuel - "not external tank"

In fact not a single one of them could do it and I already pointed this out to you in my earlier post.




I'll take Ralls opinon over yours any day of the week.

It's not about opinions. It's about the truth. Mr. Rall was simply incorrect about the range capabilities of US fighters on internal fuel.




I think you have another agenda, one that is not reality based.


Pot===>Kettle===>Black http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

BigKahuna_GS
05-08-2005, 04:52 PM
Cujo wrote:
From Roger Freeman's Mighty Eighth War manual:
Range, internal fuel only -
P-38F - 425 miles
P-38H - 300 miles
P-38J - 450 miles
P-47D - 400 miles (early D)
P-47D - 590 miles (late D)
P-47M - 530 miles
P-51B - 700 miles
P-51D - 700 miles

===================
I hate to break the bad news to you, but the FW190A series had a range of 644 miles _on internal fuel alone_
So, the only USAAF aircraft in the ETO with greater range_on internal fuel_ than the FW190A is the P-51 Mustang and only by 56 miles.
__________________________________________________ _______________________



Cujo --talk about taking things out of context. Combat radius tests can be broken down into several different ways; climb to and from the target and the permitted combat time at the target. Many of the ranges can incorperate 30min plus of full throttle time while at the target. All these factors reduce combat radius. So depending upon "how" the combat radius test is catorgorized and broken down it can completely change the given combat radius for an aircraft.

Why do you think Rall said the combat radius of german fighters was inferior to US fighters ?

Rall--"This was a tremendous handicap against the Americans."


For you to say that german fighter planes could fly farther from point A to B is simply wrong. So by using your logic then, the 190A series would have had a farther combat radius and been a better longe range escort fighter then the P38 and P47. Absoultly incorrect.

Here are some correct flight ranges for early P38s for example with and without drop tanks:

Standerd flight technique was to fly at 1600rpm in auto-lean mixture at 185mph IAS with higher manifold pressures. Usual fuel consumption was 70gal per hour.

P38E,F,G,H

Normal Range----------------------1,300 miles
with 2x 150 gal drop tanks--------2,200 miles
with 2x 300 gal drop tanks--------3,200 miles

P38J-5-LO internal fuel capacity 540gal internal fuel.
With external tanks 900gal.
Combat radius with a provided 15min of aircombat was 11hrs.
Fuel capcity subject to whether the P38J had the 55gal or the 62gal leading edge tanks.

P38L-5-LO maximum fuel capacity with external tanks 1,030gal.
Combat radius with a provided 15min of aircombat was 12.5hrs.

The Lockheed P38 Lightning
pgs:122,232
Warren Bodie



The principal model of the Thunderbolt in use at the time was the P-47D. These included several different sub-models of the D. It should be mentioned that there were no less than 21 individual sub-models of the P-47D alone. These included the P-47D-25-RE that began arriving in the ETO in May of 1944. The -25 was considerably different in appearance as compared to the previously manufactured models. The fuselage had been cut down behind the cockpit and a new bubble type of canopy replaced the old framed glass that had remained essentially unchanged since the YP-43. The new canopy presented the pilots with an unparalleled view outside of the aircraft. It did, however, actually cause an increase in drag, which reduced the maximum speed of the fighter by about 6 mph. On the positive side, the new Thunderbolt arrived with 100 gallons greater internal fuel capacity. This brought the total internal fuel load to 370 gallons. Finally, the P-47 had the range to fly as far as Berlin.


And by the way that was Buzzsaw's Fuel load vs Wing loading & combat range data in my earlier post. Wasn't trying to claim it as my own.

__

CUJO_1970
05-08-2005, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Thanks for the (unintended) book tip.

Just ordered my copy of:

Wolfpack Warriors
The Story Of World War II€s Most Successful Fighter Outfit
Roger A. Freeman

Somehow missed that one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Hi Ruy, you're welcome http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I wish I had enough extra money to buy all the books on my list http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

I think you'll enjoy Freeman's book, he is a great source of information on the 8th AF.

Never mentions a 490mph P-47M though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

BigKahuna_GS
05-08-2005, 05:16 PM
S1




Cujo--I think you'll enjoy Freeman's book, he is a great source of information on the 8th AF.
Never mentions a 490mph P-47M though



Freeman is an excellent author but he tends to paint in broad strokes becuase he is covering alot of information. For finer technical information on the P47 read :

"Republic€s P-47 Thunderbolt: "Seversky to Victory.€

You will be enlightned


__

wayno7777
05-08-2005, 09:18 PM
Freeman also has a book out called "Zemke's Wolfpack". Recommened. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Trink_Afri-Cola
05-09-2005, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
Ok if I use the F-15?
Lacks vision and style.

ImpStarDuece
05-09-2005, 10:42 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CUJO_1970:

I would like to see some real proof of 56th getting 490mph out of their P-47Ms.

In fact, I really do believe it is yet another P-47 myth.

I believe this for a number of reasons.

1. The P-47M was an extremely unreliable aircraft, rushed into service long before they were ready.

2. 8th AF historian Roger Freeman writes in "The Mighty Eighth War Manual" that the P-47M could exceed 460mph for short periods only. 490mph is a pretty big stretch - it's going to take much more than just a wastegate adjustment.

3. The stripped down, highly modified XP-47J only barely exceeded 490mph in USAAF testing. So it simply doesn't seem realistic that a heavier, draggier in-service P-47M is going to reach 490mph simply by some "overboosting" done
in England.

And then there is the fuel efficiency. These late P-47s were already sucking down as much as 330 gallons per hour at full WEP. It leaves precious little time to reach that claimed 490mph mark.


QUOTE]


While I doubt that the P-47M was pushing 490-500, I don't doubt that it was pushed well beyond the officialy published maximum speeds. Almost every interview with P-47 pilots, whether on the C, D or M, I have read or heard mentions that ground crews significantly overboosted the PW-2800. One pilot mentioned that his crew chief came to him and he was given the choice of mechanical reliability or more speed. As a young pilot looking to survive combat over Europe and he took his chances with the overboosting. If I can dig up the interview the same guy also reports beating FW-190s in a climb off the deck and into the saftey of some cloud cover, something he claimed he would of been unable to do in a 'stock' P-47.

As for the M being unreliable that is more the fault of the logistics services that transported the engines to England than the airplane or engines themselves. The R-2800-Cs were incorrectly stowed, poorly sealed for transport and not properly checked upon arrival in England. The sea journey had caused fouling and other problems.

The engine problems in the P-47Ms first appeared in mid to late January 1945 and were resolved by very early March. Even then the problems were only found with the inital 45 or so aircraft shipped. Most of the 56th reverted back to P-47-D30s with paddle bladed props and boosted engines, good enough to keep them competitive, but certain individuals operated their personally allocated P-47Ms all through the January-May period, with no problems.

The main reason for the grounding was so that ground crews could take apart and inspect the engines so as to be sure that they were 100% reliable. Officially the P-47Ms were 'off the books' for less than 2 months, hardly "extreemly unreliable".


US single engined fighters seriously out-ranged their German counterparts. Yes, this was achieved on external fuel, not internal as Rall incorrectly points out. However, P-51 and P-38 combat radius was superior to the absolute shuttle range of the 190, to suggest that the 190 has a combat radius 90% of that of a P-51 and greater than a P-38 is a little ridiclous.

I think you are mixing up ferry or transport range; the distance that a plane could fly between two points, with combat range; the distance that a fighter could travel, expect to see combat and then return home.

To take a 3rd paty aircraft the Spitfire had and absolute range of 1000-1200 km, more if you include the MkVIII with increased internal tankage. However the combat range for the Spitfire was something in the order of 350-400 km, very much smaller than its absolute range. Combat radius is usually between 30-40% of absolute range, depending on the mission profile. You regularly hear of 7-8 hour P-51 and P-38 missions, the same cant be said for the 190. Particularly not with that big BMW 801 up front.

mynameisroland
05-10-2005, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Roland,

One question, did you read:

Focke-Wulf Fw 190 "Long Nose"
An illustrated history of the Fw 190 D series
Dietmar Hermann
Schiffer Publishing, 2003
ISBN 0-7643-1876-4
Hard Cover, 206p

It really answers most if not all of your questions.

Could a superior inline Fw 190 been produced earlier, perhaps a little, but not dramatically so.

Hi , thansk for the informative reply , can you please shed a little light behind the book and the problems behind an earlier introduction of the D9 series? I have read many sources that state the problems were almost entirely stubborness of the RLM and Tank himself there were no technical hurdles that reqired 2 years plus to iron out. The time between first testing and production was wasted making dozens of sub types rather than refining the stock D9.

BigKahuna_GS
05-10-2005, 11:34 AM
S!


Nice post Impstar !

__

The mechanical problems the P47M was experiencing were traced back to incorrect shipping/frieght methods comming accross the Alantic. It seems corrision and rust from salt was taking place on some engine parts.

I never posted that the P47M was doing 490-500mph speeds. However I dont think speeds above what the this plane was rated at would be out of line-above the 470mph listed.

Take a look at Robert Johnson's P47 from the 56th FG overboosted P47D-5 doing 470mph at alt with a less powerful engine and a less aerodynamic airframe:

As to the speed of his P-47; Pratt & Whitney tech reps were largely
responsible for giving Gould the secrets of horsepower production in the
R-2800. Engines with the same wastegate modifications were tested at P&W andproduced in excess of 2,700 hp on the dynometer, and did so for hundreds ofhours at full throttle. The later "C" series R-2800 (used in the P-47M and N) generated 3,600 hp during similar endurance testing. It should not be a surprise that a P-47D-5-RE should attain similar speeds to the P-47M with 2,800 hp with slightly greater drag. Gould also filled all gaps in seams and waxed Johnson's Jug to reduce parasite drag.

By the Spring of 1944, there wasn't a P-47 in the 56th that hadn't been
field modified like Johnson's. Ask any of the surviving crew chiefs. When
150 octane fuel became available in early '44, 72" MAP became the standard
for combat operations. While this setting was never incorporated into the
standard issue pilot's manual, it is easily found in 8th AF Fighter Command
technical bulletins and operational instructions.

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

RSJ: It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities. Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.


RSJ: Sure. My second Jug, a D-5 was the best P-47 that I ever flew, and I flew them all, including the P-47M which the 56th got near the end of the war.

CCJ: What made this one Thunderbolt so fast?

RSJ: Several things. My crew sanded every joint smooth, and waxed it to a high gloss. Factory technical reps showed my crew chief, Pappy Gould, how to adjust the wastegates to keep the boost pressure higher than normal. My D-5, which I named Lucky, had water injection. I never used the water injection in combat. I didn't need it. From time to time I'd switch it on, push the throttle up to 72" of manifold pressure and the head rest would smack me from behind. I would let her run for a few minutes just for the fun of it.

CCJ: 72 inches!? Did you ever take note of your airspeed during one of those runs?

RSJ: Of course.

CCJ: And....... how fast did it go?

RSJ: I've seen just over 300 at altitude.

CCJ: 300 indicated?

RSJ: Yes.

CCJ: What was your altitude?

RSJ: I guess it was right around 32,000 feet.

CCJ: Geez, thats well over 450 mph!

RSJ: Oh, I figure closer to 470.

CCJ: What ever happened to Lucky?

RSJ: She was lost in a mid-air collision over the North Sea. I don't recall the pilot's name who was flying her on that ramrod. I was very upset. Lucky got at least 24 enemy aircraft and was the best Jug I ever flew. She was trouble free and I never had a single abort while flying her.

_______


Look at the endurance figures for the P38J & L including combat time at full throttle. There is no way a 190 could even come close to matching these.


P38J-5-LO internal fuel capacity 540gal internal fuel.
With external tanks 900gal.
Combat radius with a provided 15min of aircombat was 11hrs.
Fuel capcity subject to whether the P38J had the 55gal or the 62gal leading edge tanks.

P38L-5-LO maximum fuel capacity with external tanks 1,030gal.
Combat radius with a provided 15min of aircombat was 12.5hrs.

The Lockheed P38 Lightning
pgs:122,232
Warren Bodie[/quote]


____

HellToupee
05-10-2005, 08:26 PM
why not compare to 190 G series which were long range variants, with more fuel tanks and provisions for wing drop tanks.

Also dosnt the p38j have 405 gallons of internal fuel.

BigKahuna_GS
05-11-2005, 07:04 PM
S!

P38J-5-LO internal fuel capacity 540gal internal fuel. With external tanks 900gal.
Combat radius with a provided 15min of aircombat was 11hrs.
Fuel capcity subject to whether the P38J had the 55gal or the 62gal leading edge tanks.



The P38J had leading edge wing tanks which brought the amount of internal fuel up to 540gals.