Republic P-47D-25

[Narushima 3,307]

Is this why the P-47 had a 1/1 K/D ratio? Even though the pilots flying them had about 200 hours more training and were fighting 16 year old that barely knew how to take off. Not to mention the numerical superiority. Because it was so superior?

Here's the truth. When the P-47 came into Europe, it was found to be an equal match to the German fighters. The P-47 had it's uses, it was a good boom and zoom plane, with a fast zoom and good roll, but had a terrible maximum permissible dive speed (0.73 mach). It also couldn't turn worth a damn and was a sitting duck in a slow dog fight. The P-38 was even worst off, and was getting slaughtered. Then the P-51 came, and it changed a lot of things. It was fast, fairly maneuverable at mid-high speeds (although it tended to lock up at very high speeds). Although it couldn't turn with a 109, NACA test showed that it's turning capabilities were about equal to a FW 190 A model. The biggest advantage the P-51 had was range, meaning it could hit the Germans on their home turf.

But this was not the end. After the "big week", Germany was in a need of a new fighter, one that was surpass the P-51 and could take on high altitude bombers. And so the FW 190 D project was reinstated (from 1942) and the FW 190 D-9 was made. At that time nothing the allies had could touch it. Fast, extremely maneuverable (nothing could roll with it) and exceptional engine performance made it an extremely dangerous foe. Alas, there was not enough experienced pilots to fly them all. Later improvements on the D-9 led to the D-11, D-12 and D-13, with good high altitude performance and hydraulics (although they weren't really needed). And of course the Ta 152, believed by many to be the best ww2 prop fighter ever made.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Stona

[SnafuSnafu 1,437]

Is this why the P-47 had a 1/1 K/D ratio.

 

"3,752 air-to-air kills claimed in over 746,000 sorties of all types, at the cost of 3,499 P-47s to all causes in combat."

 

Note that this aircraft was also used in ground attack roles and most P47 losses in ETO were due to anti-aircraft fire in this role and thus has absolutely nothing to do with how good the fighter aircraft was in air to air combat, which was indeed very good specially the later models.

 

Of course surely with that knowledge air to air kill to loss ratio is not 1/1

 

Note that by the end of the war the remaining squadrons still flying P47s (56th FG) had amass a 5.3 to 1 K/L ratio.

 

Also, note that the D13 and Ta152 never saw any real combat, there were patrols made by theTa152 but had no confirmed kills that could be verified, these are extremely rare aircraft built in limited numbers in the dying days of WW2 and having the same/similar introduction dates as the F8F, F7F and P51H, which IMO are superior aircraft to the D13 and Ta152. Also, let's not forget the P47N and M, which were mass produced late war versions of the P47, which not only had the incredible dive and zoom of the P47 but were also great climbers, and at equal fuel state had better HP/W ratio than the FW190D9.

[Narushima 3,307]

"3,752 air-to-air kills claimed in over 746,000 sorties of all types, at the cost of 3,499 P-47s to all causes in combat."
 
Note that this aircraft was also used in ground attack roles and most P47 losses in ETO were due to anti-aircraft fire in this role and thus has absolutely nothing to do with how good the fighter aircraft was in air to air combat, which was indeed very good specially the later models.
 
Of course surely with that knowledge air to air kill to loss ratio is not 1/1
 
Note that by the end of the war the remaining squadrons still flying P47s (56th FG) had amass a 5.3 to 1 K/L ratio.
 
Also, note that the D13 and Ta152 never saw any real combat, there were patrols made by theTa152 but had no confirmed kills that could be verified, these are extremely rare aircraft built in limited numbers in the dying days of WW2 and having the same/similar introduction dates as the F8F, F7F and P51H, which IMO are superior aircraft to the D13 and Ta152. Also, let's not forget the P47N and M, which were mass produced late war versions of the P47, which not only had the incredible dive and zoom of the P47 but were also great climbers, and at equal fuel state had better HP/W ratio than the FW190D9.

I said 1/1 K/D ratio, didn't specify to what causes. Yeah some of them died to ground causes, but how many of their kills were bombers and attackers? If you only counted air kills and deaths, then all figters could in theory have a positive K/D ratio.

The Ta 152 saw action, and there's a report of a group of TA 152 encountering a group of Tempests. Outnumbered, they still managed to win. I think it was 2 tempest shot don for 0 ta 152 shot down (1 quit the fight due to mechanical difficulties).

And ofc you think these craft a superior to the D13 and Ta 151, otherwise you wouldn't be you. screw what historians thinks, screw the fact that the F8F and the P51H weren't actually good fighters (both with structural weaknesses, worse diving and zooming capabilities than their contemporaries), you're right, they're american made so they must be superior.

[RoflSeal 8,561]

Actually it was 3 Ta-152H vs 2 Tempests that were surprised whilst strafing a railway yard.

Both sides lost one aircraft

[Narushima 3,307]

Actually it was 3 Ta-152H vs 2 Tempests that were surprised whilst strafing a railway yard.

Both sides lost one aircraft

 

EDIT: nvm. There are conflicting testimonies on the whole thing.

[SnafuSnafu 1,437]

And ofc you think these craft a superior to the D13 and Ta 151, otherwise you wouldn't be you. screw what historians thinks, screw the fact that the F8F and the P51H weren't actually good fighters (both with structural weaknesses, worse diving and zooming capabilities than their contemporaries).

 

Oddly enough these 'structural' weakness arguments only exist in the forums and never on any actual historical data, hearsay to say the least, quite moronic to say the truth.

 

However, historical data puts the P51H (Even the 44-1 Mustang D) and Bearcat above the D13 and about the only thing the Ta-152 has over the F7F is service ceiling.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Stona

[Narushima 3,307]

Oddly enough these 'structural' weakness arguments only exist in the forums and never on any actual historical data, hearsay to say the least, quite moronic to say the truth.
 
However, historical data puts the P51H (Even the 44-1 Mustang D) and Bearcat above the D13 and about the only thing the Ta-152 has over the F7F is service ceiling.

Oddly enough, I thought you were an expert on murican craft. Funny how you don't know about their flaws, and only concentrate on their strengths. It's almost as if you weren't objective. But we all know that's not true right?

Historical data? What historical data would that be? The P-51H was fast, and that was it. When even the pilots that flew it said it wasn't combat worthy you start to wonder (what's that, you didn't read about that, oh, then it mustn't be true). The bearcat had about 200-300 more HP than the Dora, yet it had almost the same climb rate, worse top speed, worse dive and worse zoom climb. Only thing it had was turning ability (the Ta 152 could still turn with it though, and the Ta 152 had almost identical performance to the D-13 when the fuel in the wings was depleted).

And did you know that the Bearcat was an american copy of the FW 190. LeRoy Grumman himself said so. He was inspired by the 190 after he test flew a captured one in England.
Even so, it was a just a poor copy, nothing special.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Stona

[DSRT888 1,603]

Narushima's main argument to the P-51H is that it will break at 6Gs.

So therefore its not usable for combat.

However the P-51H was built to British standards. 

 

So I guess you could call Spitfires useless too. Which of course would be insane. 
 

[Narushima 3,307]

Narushima's main argument to the P-51H is that it will break at 6Gs.

So therefore its not usable for combat.

However the P-51H was built to British standards. 
 
So I guess you could call Spitfires useless too. Which of course would be insane.

Spitfires weren't built for high speed combat.

[RoflSeal 8,561]

As far as I know the Spitfires had an ultimate design load at 11-12G's

 

The minimum G-load for British aircraft was 8G anyway.

 

So if the P51H broke it's wings at 6G's, it would not be British standard.

 

 

And from Americas Hundred Thousand on the P-51H

 

"The structure of this model met the full 8.0 g positive flight maneuver load factor of the Air Force requirements at design weight..." 

 

P-51H was clearly able to exceed the 8G minimum of British standards.

[Narushima 3,307]

As far as I know the Spitfires had an ultimate design load at 11-12G's
 
The minimum G-load for British aircraft was 8G anyway.
 
So if the P51H broke it's wings at 6G's, it would not be British standard.
 
 
And from Americas Hundred Thousand on the P-51H
 
"The structure of this model met the full 8.0 g positive flight maneuver load factor of the Air Force requirements at design weight..." 
 
P-51H was clearly able to exceed the 8G minimum of British standards.

 
At what weight is that quote for?
 
The P-51D had a limit of 8G at 8000lb or less.
 
6,4 G at 10000lb if you calculate like the instructions on the graph say.
 

 
The H on the other hand had a heavier engine, and weight saving measures had to be taken. Weight was reduced from the structure itself, weakening it in the process.
 
Also, an article on the Bearcat if anyone is interested in this plane. Explains how and why it was designed after the FW 190:

[spoiler] 

It's fascinating what the mind remembers and what it doesn't. I can't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday, but some test flights stick in my mind as though they happened this afternoon. The flights in which I was paid to intentionally break large parts of the wing off Grumman Bearcats while in the air and then land minus more than 20 percent of the wing and half of the ailerons are among those. I remember every aspect of the Bearcat program in infinite detail. A few folks have marveled that I have such a retentive memory. But, when one was a 24-year-old bachelor who was paid for flying experimental fighters and hadn't yet discovered girls, such events are indelible in the mind's eye.

The concept of purposely blowing large portions of an aircraft's wing off in flight would appear to be pure insanity until you examine the nature of the time when the Bearcat was in its gestation period.

By late 1942, it had become clear to the Navy that the Grumman Hellcat was a great improvement in fighter performance when compared to the vaunted Japanese Zero fighter. But newer enemy aircraft that would have much increased horsepower and improved performance were being developed. All students of aerial warfare know that the fighting life of any weapon in wartime is limited, so a replacement for the Hellcat would be needed sooner rather than later.

Development of engines in mass production, like the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 2,000hp engine used in the Hellcat, could be easily synchronized with new aircraft design. However, it would have been, and was, on all too many occasions in WW II, imprudent to count on an experimental engine to come to fruition either in time or in sufficient quantity for a new aircraft design. The engine had to pass its first official, full-power, 150hour ground-test demonstration before it could even be considered for a new plane.
Passing that critical test was a very minimum requirement for an aircraft company or the government to give the go-ahead for mass production of a new engine or aircraft. It was clear that to get a further increase in performance, designers would have to produce smaller and lighter airplanes utilizing engines that were currently in production and hope for engine-performance improvements later on in their production runs.



In early 1943, Grumman officials were invited to England to see the captured fighters of the Axis powers and to fly some of them. The test team included: Leroy Grumman, president of Grumman and test pilot during and after WW I; Bud Gillies, vice president flight operations and a test pilot current in all American airplanes at that time; and Bob Hall, chief engineerexperimental, a famous test pilot of Grumman and other airplanes of the Gee Bee era.

Of all the airplanes they saw, they were most fascinated with the Focke-Wulf 190. It not only offered sprightly performance, but it also had excellent flight characteristics with a gross weight of 8,750 pounds and only 1,730hp. The Hellcat was 3,200 pounds heavier with just 270hp more. Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be. The only things the Fw 190 lacked were a good gunnery-lead computing angle of vision over the nose and a structure that would withstand carrier operations.

The Focke-Wulf impressed them so much they felt compelled to hurry home and put together an airplane of this gross weight in time for the water-injected Pratt & Whitney R-2800 C model engine of 2,400hp (War Emergency Power) to be installed. This would give our naval aviators a big performance increase over the newer Japanese fighters and would still retain the proven performance of the P&W R-2800 series production engines installed in the Hellcat.

The F8F design was started immediately on the trio's return. Mr. Grumman took a direct hand in its design. As the design progressed, it became obvious that meeting the 8,750-pound gross weight of the Focke-Wulf would be difficult. The structure required to withstand the loads encountered during carrier operations hadn't been required in the Fw 190 and would impose significant weight penalties on the new design.

Innovative measures were needed to meet the stringent goals that Mr. Grumman and his team were striving for. Many items considered standard equipment would have to be sacrificed, including a reduction in the number of guns from six to four, a reduction in fuel capacity from 250 gallons to 185 gallons and the elimination of the adjustable seat. The seat would be integral to the structure, and cushions or the parachute-either seat or backpack-would be used for seat adjustment The wing-fold mechanism would have to be simpler than the Hellcat's and would be moved to the outer portion of the wing to save weight. A single rather than a three-tank fuel system would simplify the airplane and reduce its weight.

Even with all this ingenuity, the bogey of 8,750 pounds was still unattainable. Finally, Pete Ehrlendsen, chief of structures, came up with a far-out but intriguing idea to save about 230 pounds of wing structure-a large chunk of the weight savings necessary to meet the goal.

Ehrlendsen remembered that during my Hellcat structural demonstration flights, I had four failures at the midpoint of the stabilizers when I pulled up into the "buffet boundary" to attain the needed G to meet the Navy requirements. No prior Grumman fighter had experienced this disastrous phenomenon. We later found out the Lockheed P-38 and the Republic P47 had experienced this buffet boundary, and the P-38 had lost complete tail sections, killing two pilots who were trying to meet the required demonstration G points. During subsequent squadron operational flying, Hellcat pilots had bent and even broken off stabilizers and elevators at mid-span when the airplane entered the same mysterious and unknown buffet boundary during high-G pullouts above 10,000 feet while fighting Zeros.

The stabilizers and the elevators fortunately either bent or broke at their mid-span iust outboard of the mid-span hinge. Bv breaking, the stabilizers unloaded themselves of their stress. More important, the remaining portions of the stabilizers were stronger because their span loading was reduced as the tail loads were now on a much shorter moment arm. The structural failure fortunately left enough of the tail feathers to fly the airplane home.

Ehrlendsen thought that if the F8F wing was designed to have an ultimate or breaking load of 7.5G at a controlled point about three feet inboard of the wingtip, the wing would relieve itself of the tip load, and the remainder of the wing structure would support an ultimate load of 13G, which was the standard ultimate load of fighters at that time. The wing area remaining after the tips had separated was calculated to be sufficient to make a safe carrier landing.

Ehrlendsen suggested a carefully designed rivet joint be made at half span of the outer folding wing panels. In addition, a break joint would be designed in the ailerons so the outer halves would detach when the wing panels broke off. This would leave half of the ailerons connected by two of the three hinges to the remaining wing structure and would provide adequate control for carrier landings.

It took a great deal of persuasion for the Navy to agree to such a novel design. However, wartime pressures dictated more and more climb performance, which in turn required greater power-to-weight ratios. Because of the Navy's operational experience with Grumman Ironworks airplanes, Grumman designers had an outstanding reputation with the Navy brass and pilots-so much so that the Navy finally agreed to the innovation.

A very detailed ground-test program proved the rivet joint would break as promised. One must realize that wing loads were merely estimated, and even those measured in a flight test were still not too accurate. Before the Navy approved the idea they required that Grumman make an experimental installation of this design on an F4F Wildcat Grumman had to pull the outboard portion of the wing and aileron off to demonstrate that the airplane was still flyable. At the same time, Grumman had to prove it was in the general area of the predicted flight loads and that the wingtips would come off at the required G-load.

A Wildcat was then rigged with the wingtip rivet joint and aileron severance capability. One of our test pilots, Carl Alber, demonstrated the viability of the theory in one flight early in 1944. Everything worked as predicted in the air, and the airplane demonstrated more than sufficient maneuverability for a satisfactory carrier landing at a speed not too much higher than the usual Wildcat approach speed. The Navy and Grumman were satisfied the F8F would be operationally satisfactory with such an installation.



Once the Bearcat flew, the Navy required Grumman to demonstrate takeoffs and landings with one wing panel removed at a time as well as with both wingtip panels removed. This requirement demonstrated that the airplane would not only fly in an acceptable manner, but it would also land safely aboard a carrier. It was my duty to fly those tests in one of our two experimental Bearcats, and although it was obvious there were minor asymmetrical lateral and directional flight deficiencies, the airplane was easily flyable and landable. It required only 15 degrees of flaps and a landing-speed increase of 19 knots. WW II carriers were very capable of handling those requirements. Both Grumman and the Navy were pleased with the results.

It would be easy to think such meager ground and air testing was insufficient for such a unique innovation. Remember, however, that high production rates were paramount. For instance, during a single month, March 1944, when the Bearcat was in its design and ground-test phase, Grumman delivered 620 Hellcats and 85 other airplanes, including the F7F and many amphibians. In the rush of the times, it seemed to Grumman and the Navy that the testing program was indeed sufficient. As you will see, in the process of getting Bearcats of squadron quantities to the Pacific theater asap, we underestimated the quality and quantity of our design and testing phase by an order of magnitude!

By early 1945, the F8F had entered the fleet. Immediately, pilots found it was indeed a great shot in the arm to have such startling performance because, as we had anticipated, the Japanese had introduced several airplanes with much improved performance over the Zeros. The timing of getting the Bearcat to the fleet was perfect. Not only was it an exciting airplane to fly (one could even see the Focke-Wulf heritage), but it was also 47 knots faster than the Hellcat, without water injection, and took off in 200 feet of carrier-deck space compared to the Hellcat's 325-feet requirement. It had an amazing rate of climb of 5,340 feet per minute, which was more than twice the Hellcat's!
It had the fastest rate of climb of any propeller-driven fighter in the War. Its rate of climb endeared it to the Navy pilots because getting on top of the enemy had been the criteria of aerial combat success ever since WW I. You can imagine that Navy aviators also heartily enjoyed that the F8F could easily outperform any and all Army Air Force fighters at the time!

After a few weeks of glowing operational reports on the Bearcat, word came back that a pilot had shed one of his two wingtips in a dive-bombing-run pullout and had augured in. Several similar occurrences followed, and the Navy and Grumman became greatly concerned. The wingtips weren't coming off as predicted, so Grumman hurriedly sent a team of engineers to visit the squadrons and study the remains of the aircraft to find out what had gone wrong. It became apparent that the severe vibrations the outer wing panels were subjected to during carrier landings and the very strong wing oscillation when the airplane was pulled up into the buffet boundary at altitude put strains on the special rivet joint that had not been predicted.
In the rush of getting the Bearcat into production and service, these strains hadn't even been considered. It was also discovered that the rivet joint was not getting the quality-control attention in production that it merited. Additionally, as the War ended, the Navy looked at
operational accidents with a much more critical attitude. The flight envelope of the Bearcat was severely restricted, and it was immediately removed from carrier operations.

The Navy and Grumman agreed that a better way to guarantee the wingtip separation was needed that did not depend on a rivet joint that took such a beating in those flight regimes. The repeated operational stresses on that critical area were wreaking havoc. Many ideas were suggested, but this one seemed to be the best: put a 12-inch strip of prima cord (an explosive rope used to detonate dynamite) just outboard of both wing-break joints, and have a set of electrical microswitches at both break joints. These microswitches would activate the other tip's explosive device at the instant the first wingtip came off. (We called them "ice-box" switches, which shows where we were in technical antiquity!) The ground tests were spectacular, to say the least. After several successful tests, we rigged up a Bearcat with this "Fourth of July" system, and I was sent off to do my job as a test pilot.

One of the tips was structured to come off at 5G and, according to theory, the ice-box microswitch in the other wing would electrically activate the prima cord and blow the other tip off at the same instant. Three hundred and twenty knots at 7,500 feet altitude in a 30-degree dive angle was selected as the demonstration point. To record the action, we had photographers in chase airplanes on both sides of my Bearcat. I pulled 6G to ensure the 5G rivet joint would fail and activate the other tip explosive.

Lo and behold, the genies of fate again urinated on the pillars of science. With an impressive flash of fire, smoke and debris, one weakened tip left the airplane as predicted at 5G, but the other remained as fixed to the wing as ever. From the cockpit, a Bearcat appears to be nothing more than a huge engine with tiny wings. However, to look out and see that not only has one short wing become even shorter, but also that the other one is full of holes gets your immediate attention.

One of my chase pilots came in and inspected the wing damage. He saw a large hole in the bottom surface, proving the prima cord had indeed fired, as predicted, but the wingtip had remained firmly attached even though the 12-inch hole was in the most critical stress area-the lower or tension area skin. Good old Grumman Ironworks! Fortunately, the 12-inch hole did not cause any aerodynamic disturbance as might have been expected, and I had already landed the F8F with single tips removed and was ready for the experience, so the landing was uneventful.

It was quite obvious during the debrief that there were a lot of very perplexed engineers. Finally, one non-program engineer timidly offered the suggestion that slipstream effects might not have been considered sufficiently. So, back to the old drawing board.

The project engineer suggested 26 inches of prima cord be used on the next flight after ground tests were run to check whether that amount of explosive would effect proper wingtip severance. On the next flight, when I pulled 6G, both tips departed as planned amid much smoke and debris flying off the airplane. Even though the prima cord had made a deafening explosion during ground tests, slipstream noises canceled out all of the explosion noise in the air. Both chase pilots were much more excited than I was by the visual effects; I hadn't seen them because my eyes were glued to the accelerometer in the cockpit.
They said it looked as if the airplane had blown up when both tips blew and the ailerons and wingtip sections departed the bird. There were two very smoky explosions as two wingtips and two aileron halves came off in very rapid succession along with much shattered metal. The wingtip ends were cleanly severed as hoped for. There weren't even small pieces of metal outboard of the end rib to suggest an explosion had done the surgery. The test was considered a great success by Grumman and the Navy.

A side note: we had stuffed the wing and ailerons sections with kapok so we'd be able to pick up the pieces from Long Island Sound. The wing pieces floated fine, but the aileron portions sank because their balance weights overcame the kapok's buoyancy.

We could now guarantee that both wing portions would come off simultaneously. With the advent of peace, however, the Navy asked us to do a complete flight-envelope demonstration instead of the one-shot demos we had previously done. Consequently, a program was developed that pulled the wingtips off at all speeds-from slow flight to the Bearcat's limit speed. For the final demonstration, the Navy required the wingtips be pulled off in a vertical dive. For an extended period of time, when I left for work in the morning, I knew I would spend my time blowing the wingtips off a Bearcat. Just another day in the office.

During the wingtip severance at 5G, I noticed the airplane pitched up one more G than I had tried to attain. Having been the structural demonstration pilot on the F4F, F6F, F7F and F8F, I had made hundreds of pull-ups and always came within one tenth of a G, so this excessive G bothered me. I spoke to the engineers about it, but they suggested I was probably nervous-strongly implying, as they usually did when they couldn't find an engineering answer, pilot error. I promptly and wrongly put this implication and phenomenon out of my mind.



We then beefed up both wingtip rivet joints to 7.5G (the Navy's required wing demonstration strength), armed the prima-cord devices and proceeded with the full-blown program. On the first pull-up, I aimed at 8G to be sure that one or the other riveted joints would fail. They came off with the usual fireworks, and after it was all over, I noticed the maximum G recorded was 9.5! I came back and stated emphatically that I couldn't have overshot by that much and, using some indelicate four-letter engineering terms, demanded an explanation from the aerodynamics department. After a little rethinking, one of the non-program aerodynamicists said of course the airplane would pitch up without the pilot's effort when the area, span and aspect ratio were changed so drastically. He proceeded to calculate that 9.5 was exactly what the airplane would have pitched up to-so much for pilot error!

I was exonerated, but I learned that engineers who have a proprietary interest in a program may not always think as objectively as professional test flying requires when the answer is not patently obvious. That hard experience stood by me during all my years as an experimental test pilot when I couldn't get rational answers that satisfied me. I began to seek two opinions long before it was an accepted practice in difficult medical diagnoses.

We finished the program without much ado, and the pitching problem was put in the handbook for future information (now that we had a satisfactory engineering explanation!). The Navy was happy with the Bearcat for full operational utilization and all aircraft were outfitted with the explosive devices.

But our travails weren't over-not by a long shot. As you might have guessed, the prima cord was actuated electrically but with all too few safeguards for ground maintenance. Shortly afterward, we received word from a squadron that during maintenance, there was a short circuit when making some electrical tests, and the wingtips of one airplane blew off on the hangar deck. One incident killed a "white hat."

The Navy said it had had enough of this weight-savings fiasco. Thev suggested that the wingtips be firmly bolted on and that the airplane's flight envelope be reduced to 4G. With the strains of carrier landings combined with pilots easily and frequently exceeding the 4G limit in air-to-ground bombing-attack practice runs and not reporting it, the Bearcat soon had wings coming off in the air-breaking at the root! A steelstrap fix was installed to give the Bearcat sufficient strength for carrier landings and 7.5G in the air, but the Bearcat was soon supplanted in operational squadrons by the much faster Grumman Panther and McDonnell Banshee jet fighters.

F8F-ls and -2s were used by the Blue Angels from 1946 to 1949, when they were replaced by the Grumman Panther. The Bearcat was put into the training command where it was used until 1953. In 1956, it was relegated to the Arizona storage fields where all airplanes, good and bad, eventually retire.

The structural weight savings of detachable wingtips was a great idea-theoretically, anyway. Unfortunately, its wartime testing, design and production just didn't allow enough time for pre-Navy shakedowns to pass the tests to duplicate the rigors of the real world. However, had the War continued and the Bearcat kept in the fighter air-to-air role for which it was designed, its performance would have made it a real winner. It would have had a great speed and climb advantage over the newer Japanese types it would have met in combat The Navy set a time-to-climb record with the Bearcat; this record, from a standing start to 10,000 feet, stood well into the era of Century-series jets. Even in 1989, the Bearcat, in racing configuration, made speeds better than 500mph when it was designed for only 414mph-not bad for an airplane that was hastily designed under wartime conditions over 55 years ago.

Looking back at all the aircraft I have been privileged to fly, I still put the Bearcat at or near the top of my list of favorites. It was absolutely wonderful to handle and had unbelievable performance. When a Navy pilot wrapped a Bearcat around him, he knew he was playing in a very fast lane with a very classy pussycat from the Grumman Ironworks. But every pussycat will occasionally show its claws! And so it was with the Grumman Bearcat.

 
[/spoiler]
http://www.amazon.com/Corky-Meyers-Flight-Journal-Corwin/dp/1580070930

[RoflSeal 8,561]

7470lbs, so about 20-30 minutes of fuel?

 

Also, those values are load limits, not structural limits.

Load limits i.e safety limit where over that, plastic deformation occurs, structural limits is the point where the wing snaps off.

[Narushima 3,307]

7470lbs, so about 20-30 minutes of fuel?
 
Also, those values are load limits, not structural limits.
Load limits i.e safety limit where over that, plastic deformation occurs, structural limits is the point where the wing snaps off.

7470lbs is very very light. The standard weight for a P-51H in fighter configuration would be 9501lb, and 11499lb in escort configuration.

Also the wings would rip off very fast after plastic deformation occurs, seeing how the P-51 was a heavy craft with low wing loading. The bearcat had the same problem, they solved it with detachable wing tips 8the tips would break off at 7,5 G, but that didn't work very well).

[RoflSeal 8,561]

Standard weight for the P-51D was 12,000lbs on escort config.

We both used the lightest possible weights of said aircraft.

 

 

With the current scenario of HB, we never take drop tanks, so escort config is useless, and we use 20-45 minutes of fuel so you can't use fighter configuration to compare.

 

Again, if high speed physics and G effects, especially on the pilot are added in correctly, in dogfights we will rarely see aircraft going over 6G's except in extreme circumstances, not the 15G turns most aircraft are seemingly able to do with ease currently.

 

 

Every aircraft ingame currently are complete UFO in this regard except the Dora's and P-38 as those aircraft have no elevator authority whatsoever, so you never black out in them.

[Narushima 3,307]

Standard weight for the P-51D was 12,000lbs on escort config.
We both used the lightest possible weights of said aircraft.
 
 
With the current scenario of HB, we never take drop tanks, so escort config is useless, and we use 20-45 minutes of fuel so you can't use fighter configuration to compare.
 
Again, if high speed physics and G effects, especially on the pilot are added in correctly, in dogfights we will rarely see aircraft going over 6G's except in extreme circumstances, not the 15G turns most aircraft are seemingly able to do with ease currently.
 
 
Every aircraft ingame currently are complete UFO in this regard except the Dora's and P-38 as those aircraft have no elevator authority whatsoever, so you never black out in them.

Indeed. High G loads were mostly a problem for dive bombers (which the Bearcat was also used for, ergo the detachable wing tips) but 6Gs is still in the limit of a dog fight. Pilots didn't like the P-51H due to that. They felt the aircraft wasn't strong enough for combat (although they preferred to fly it over the D) and that can be a big factor in a fight. Not to mention that P-51s were BnZ planes, meaning they dived a lot, and sometimes they went over the limit. Where the D might have survived, the H would have broken apart.

[Aceinthehole257 11,769]

(...)

 

You know we were arguing if the P-47 actually had both turbo- and supercharger. This apparently isn't the case since the designation is kinda misleading by today's standards. (Back in those days a turbo-supercharger meant just a turbocharger, whereas the designation for a turbo-supercharger today means that there is actually both super- and turbocharger).

 

 

Then all of a sudden you came in babbling something about "Just because the germans couldn't figure it out..... MERICA FACK YEAH!"

Talking about being immature...

Edited August 20, 2013 by Stona

[SnafuSnafu 1,437]

7470lbs, so about 20-30 minutes of fuel?

 

Also, those values are load limits, not structural limits.

Load limits i.e safety limit where over that, plastic deformation occurs, structural limits is the point where the wing snaps off.

 

8540 lbs at 100 gal of fuel

 

'load limit' at that weight is around 7.5 - 8 g

 

Structural limit is way far beyond this.

 

The only time where the P51H might encounter issues is at full weight value with wing tanks/bombs at around 10000 - 11,800 lbs, which at full weight value still has a hp/w ratio of .19 -.20, similar weight to a F4U1 Corsair at  similar HP output, but using the lighter structure of a P51 (that was further lightened with H) and thus at this weight one can still potentially thrash the aircraft about with ease albeit at very grave danger of structural damage.

 

However, the notion that the P51H is gimped because of this is very much a product of ignorance and hearsay.

[DSRT888 1,603]

Indeed. High G loads were mostly a problem for dive bombers (which the Bearcat was also used for, ergo the detachable wing tips) but 6Gs is still in the limit of a dog fight. Pilots didn't like the P-51H due to that. They felt the aircraft wasn't strong enough for combat (although they preferred to fly it over the D) and that can be a big factor in a fight. Not to mention that P-51s were BnZ planes, meaning they dived a lot, and sometimes they went over the limit. Where the D might have survived, the H would have broken apart.

Think about it. 

You're going 650 kph at 8000m and your IAS tells you you're going 400 IAS kph. 400 IAS is no where near your breaking point, so dive as fast as you want, but of course give your self some room to pull up. Now you're going 600 kph at 2000m and your IAS tells you you're going 550 IAS kph. 500 is closer to your breaking point, so assuming your in a good diving aircraft, but with a weaker structure than your past aircraft and you dare to do a high G pull out. Possible wing warpage or wings popping off. 

Now lets say we're playing War Thunder. You're in a D-12 and I'm in a P-51H. We are using the P-51H's Combat weight, 4322 Kg. So our aircraft about the same weight. My aircraft reaches 8000m in 6 minutes vs the D-12's 7.43 minutes. So I will easily be above you giving me the upper hand. Being above you allows me to easily dive you on at will. Forcing you to dive will mean that is one less aircraft I have to worry about fighting at 8000m. Now if I wanted to follow you in a dive I would have to worry about giving my self enough room to pull up without pulling too many Gs. We can keep doing this tell you have no more ALT to play around with.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg

[Narushima 3,307]

Think about it. 

You're going 650 kph at 8000m and your IAS tells you you're going 400 IAS kph. 400 IAS is no where near your breaking point, so dive as fast as you want, but of course give your self some room to pull up. Now you're going 600 kph at 2000m and your IAS tells you you're going 550 IAS kph. 500 is closer to your breaking point, so assuming your in a good diving aircraft, but with a weaker structure than your past aircraft and you dare to do a high G pull out. Possible wing warpage or wings popping off. 

Now lets say we're playing War Thunder. You're in a D-12 and I'm in a P-51H. We are using the P-51H's Combat weight, 4322 Kg. So our aircraft about the same weight. My aircraft reaches 8000m in 6 minutes vs the D-12's 7.43 minutes. So I will easily be above you giving me the upper hand. Being above you allows me to easily dive you on at will. Forcing you to dive will mean that is one less aircraft I have to worry about fighting at 8000m. Now if I wanted to follow you in a dive I would have to worry about giving my self enough room to pull up without pulling too many Gs. We can keep doing this tell you have no more ALT to play around with.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg

 

Air combat is not 2 dimensional. Every move you make you lose energy while the other guy can gain it. Being higher than you opponent is good, but it will not bring you victory automatically (unless you use mouse aim). The D-12 is more maneuverability than the P-51 at all speeds due to the P-51 laminar flow wing (which wasn't actually laminar, due to rough surface which created turbulence, but that's another story) which give the P-51 a very abrupt stall. NACA test show they both had almost identical turning ability, but the Dora had a much better roll rate (unlike previous version, all D-11+ 190s had hydraulic boosted control surfaces) which means the dora loses less energy when maneuvering (rolling at high speeds can drain energy really fast if any form of elevator is applied). The structural weakness of the P-51 also means that it will not be able to quickly zoom up after a bounce in case the pilot messes up the bounce (which can happen very quickly, unless mouse aim is involved) meaning the D-12 with it's 2x20mm and 1x30mm would have a nice window of opportunity to finish the fight quickly.

 

Also, you really think you will maintain that climb for the whole duration of the pre-fight climb? Climbing at full boost is one of the most taxing things for an aircraft engine, you'd be lucky to climb for more than 2 minutes on it. This does not yet seem to be implemented in WT, but when it will be you can expect the whole pre-fight full WEP climb nonsense you see now change dramatically.

[Stona_WT 72,761]

Guys, enugh. 

This topic is about P-47D-25

[Volksjaeger 944]

Volksjaeger, American engineering at it's best, it's why the 47 could outperform the 109 and the 190 in every facet except a vertical climb.  From the General Electric illustrated guide to turbo supercharges, "The P-47 had the largest fuselage for a single-engine fighter of the War, in large part because the fuselage had to be big enough to contain all of the ducting involved in using a special turbo-supercharger design, the turbo-supercharger was located in the rear of the fuselage, behind the pilot."

 

http://aviationshoppe.com/ge-usaaf-turbosuperchargers-a-74.html

 

Just because the Germans couldn't figure it out, doesn't mean the Americans couldn't. 

Wow is there a point here cause I couldn't find one? Wth are you talking about German ac for? What it did have was a single stage impeller internal to the engine (carb.).  Which is because it used a carb., and was to maintain just a constant pressure, which isn't a problem is systems without carbs..  It was just to maintain pressure, not exactly a supercharger as that involves intake from the outside, where in this case that role is filled by the turbocharger. 

[Cpt_Branko 9,698]

Hopefully I can get a answer on that gauge issue. It's on many minds who come from established sims and try to fly by the book.

 

This is one of my worries about FMs; why are gauges not showing correct readouts on some planes?

 

Are they still producing proper engine power? In case they are performing correctly, was the performance obtained by tweaking other parameters?

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

In one of the "fixes" post 1.31 they changed the Luftwaffe P-47 to have the same specs as the American version. I don't have the plane so I can't confirm through testing. However I was keeping an eye on the plane to see if any changes would be made. In the intial release of 1.31 the data card in game did change to show the inferior version Trojan listed. However later hot fix changed them to same stats we see on the American. It just wasn't added to any official patch notes.

i have it and honestly its climb and acceleration is faster than the American version.

[The_Elephant 1,777]

Don't forget it gets out dove by every 109 short of the E

[IsaacKum123 27]

I wanna why does War Thunder doesn't add the P 47N Thunderbolt. It is final version of the "Jug" which is much faster than the P 47D and also with larger fuel load.How the Hell can the P 47N does not appear in War Thunder.And I hope it can be placed in rank 11 if it appear.