Discussion in 'Engineering Retrospective' started by _strafe_, May 26, 2007.
P47 x FW190
same as in FH ;p
^^ What he said.
16 june, 1943?????
26000 ft? 6000 ft?
P-47 was only deployed three months before the report was written.
P-47s were doing rhubarb missions in the beginning of their deployment.
They were B models, not as handy at low alt as later D models. Had not the new Propellor.
Had not yet developed a doctrine of NEVER DOGFIGHT. Had not yet developed the doctrine of BREAK OFF THE FIGHT AT 10000FT.
Had not yet developed Wolfpack Tactics.
And a 190 a8 at 26000 ft?? Not the best alt for a 190 a8 [or a4 more likely]. So how is it the 190 can climb better? Simple - as it said in the report, it could climb steeper.
The report, as quoted, seems rather tentative, good starting point for the Eagle Squadron's guys, who had to fly them and were prone to forget they weren't in Spitfires anymore......
No, what he said! ^^ No, really ... good post, biles, I agree.
moved for saving
Re: P47 x FW190
Information: Republic P-43 Lancer
Here's some information on an aircraft I don't suggest for inclusion.
It's the Republic P-43 Lancer that saw action in low numbers with the Chinese Air Force and Chennault's Flying Tigers.
Here's an estimate of P-43 performance, compared to P-40E performance because that was the other fighter type the Flying Tigers were using:
When calculating P-43 performance, I noticed that the Freehost P-47 turns much too quickly.
If the P-43, which has a similar wing as the P-47, had the same clmax as the Freehost P-47, it would be as good a turner as the Yak-3.
The P-43 in reality was a heavy, underpowered fighter, and I'm sure it came nowhere near the manoeuvrability of the Yak-3. Maybe it was comparable to the MiG-3 at best.
Here's more on the P-43:
1.64R2: P-47 Thunderbolt Variants
I'd like to suggest to add some more Thunderbolt variants, or at least make a different selection than the C and D we have now.
Here are my candidates:
- P-47D-5RE: Razorback, toothpick propeller, water injection, 1 x 500 lbs bomb*
- P-47D-15RE: Same as D-5RE, but underwing racks for 2 x 1000 lbs (-> slower speed even with empty racks)
- P-47D-25RE: First bubbletop, increased internal fuel
- P-47D-30RE: Same as D-25RE, but adds dive flaps and rockets
* We can use our P-47C model for this. The real P-47C had inferior engine cooling and no water injection and was much inferior to the P-47C we have now.
Is this possible?
- P-47D-5, D-15, D-25: Poor elevator control and nose-down tendency in fast dives
- P-47D-30: Good elevator control and flies straight in a dive
I'd also like to suggest to use the P-40 rear view for the razorback P-47!
The current turn rate of the P-47D (1 km, WEP, 100% fuel) is too high. I tested it in 1.64R2 and got a sustained turn circle time of 23.2 s. At 14500 lbs weight, that yields a clmax of 1.55. I don't have real life data, but as a thin high-speed wing, it should be good for perhaps 1.20 only. That would yield a circle time of 25.7 s.
(I calculated performance of the P-43A-1 "Lancer" with clmax 1.55. This gave me a 3.3 t aircraft with just 1200 HP turning as fast as the Yak-3!)
I'm not sure yet about engine power. This is my current information:
- P-47C: 2000 HP for 5 min, 1625 HP normal*
- P-47D-5RE: 2300 HP for 5 min, 2000 HP for 15 min, 1625 normal
- P-47D-15RE: 2300 HP for 5 min, 2000 HP for 15 min, 1625 normal
- P-47D-25RE: 2535 HP for 5 min, 2000 HP for 15 min, 1625 normal
- P-47D-30RE: 2535 HP for 5 min, 2000 HP for 15 min, 1625 normal
* You can see that it has 2000 HP as WEP, 1625 HP as 100%. For the others, we can make it 2300/2535 HP WEP, 2000 HP normal, so the P-47C is a lame duck in comparison.
(The first P-47D entered combat only a month later than the P-47C. It didn't have water injection intially, but it probably could run 2000 HP for 15 min.)
Some guesswork involved everywhere
Re: P47 x FW190
"....It's the Republic P-43 Lancer that saw action in low numbers with the Chinese Air Force and Chennault's Flying Tigers. ...."
The AVG did NOT use these planes in combat. A few were being ferried and a few were being tested and even though some pilots wanted to keep them as they had better high alt performance Gen Chenault did not approve the plane and they were returned to the Chinese.
The Australian Air Force used most of the P-43 with a certain success.
As for using this model in FH; Oh great another flying turd for the red side.
Do the Reds a favour and make it a Gold plane.
Re: P47 x FW190
>Gen Chenault did not approve the plane and they were returned to the Chinese.
If you follow the link I provided, you will find a well-researched article by Richard Dunn, quoting from contemporary documents that contradict your statement.
>As for using this model in FH; Oh great another flying turd for the red side.
It's your party, so you can cry if you want to.
>If you follow the link I provided, you will find a well-researched article by Richard Dunn, quoting from contemporary documents that contradict your statement.
that contradict's the book chennault wrote in 1949, Way of a Fighter. long story short, fuel hogs not welcome in china. great book detailing all sorts of things you never expected happening in china before & during the war
>that contradict's the book chennault wrote in 1949, Way of a Fighter.
Sounds like an interesting book, but Dunn actually describes P-43 combat missions and in the footnotes provides the wartime sources. Hard to beat that, I say. I haven't read Chennault's book, but it wouldn't be the first of the immediate post-war publications that would have to be corrected in some details due to later research.
Re: P47 x FW190
How much Yak-3 turn time in your calculation?
Re: P47 x FW190
>How much Yak-3 turn time in your calculation?
I believe I didn't calculate the Yak-3 turn time, but compared it to a figure from Freehost or real-life testing.
(The original posts were made 2005 on beta forum, I don't remember the details.)
> Sounds like an interesting book, but Dunn actually describes P-43 combat
> missions and in the footnotes provides the wartime sources. Hard to beat
> that, I say. I haven't read Chennault's book, but it wouldn't be the first of
> the immediate post-war publications that would have to be corrected in
>some details due to later research.
while i would normaly agree with you that a tertiary source is far more likely to be accurate than primary, in this case it is different.
the information that flowed out of china was skewed by the turf battles & power struggles that were ongoing therein.
then it was archived and now published.
once again chinese history vexes the westerner, or maybe not.
>while i would normaly agree with you that a tertiary source is far more likely to be accurate than primary, in this case it is different.
Sounds to me as if you didn't actually try to follow the foot notes.
But actually from an engineering retrospective point of view, it's not particularly interesting whether the type was employed or not, so believe what you want.
col. r. l. scott flew it over mt. everest.
got in trouble with the nepalese over that.
Separate names with a comma.