Best Fighter Plane Of The War?

[jimbotosome]

(adamcotton @ Oct 13 2005, 05:55 AM) [post=39969]One other thing: the Jug was a 7.5 ton aircraft with a 2,300-2,430 hp engine; the Spitfire XIV weighed under 5 tons and had nearly 2,100 hp - it is a simple matter of power to weight ratios......how could the Jug outclimb the Spitfire XIV? Answer: it couldn't! The Spitfire XIV was widely acknowledged as the best allied air superiority fighter above 20,000 feet. That is not national bias, it is a matter of physics, engineering, and aerodynamics....and recorded fact..

As for no British historian writing a complimentary book on the Jug, you should read Roger Freeman's book devoted to the subject - or did you think he was an American?

The Spitfire XIV and Tempest V were the principal opponents of the V-1 (610 Spitfire XIV Sqn alone was credited with destruction of no less than fifty of them!); Mustangs and Thunderbolts played a minor part, and in fact most types were eventually offically forbidden to chase "Divers" lest they compromised the efforts of the faster Tempests and Spit XIVs. By night, Mosquitoes became the principal V 1 Hunters.

Personally, I think both the P-51 and P-47 wonderful aircraft, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. The same is true of the Spitfire. Nothing could match the Jug's firepower or load carrying capability in the ground attack role, but it is facile to state it could dogfight with A spitfire XIV on equal terms , or outclimb it... [/b]

Well, first of all the P-47D had 2800 hp, but that’s not the main factor. The main factor of engine output is torque. I will explain it in a sec.

Second, I wouldn’t advise you to take a career in aviation engineering because the factors of climb have to do less with aerodynamics than with propeller efficiency and torque. Drag has little effect on climb since the rate of climb is relatively slow just as drag has little effect on a slow moving car. It’s a factor but a very minor one. The only significant aerodynamic factor is the lift characteristic of the plane (wing curvature) and length which the Jug would have significant advantage because of it significantly bigger wings and thickness of wing and the fact it can overcome the additional ambient drag of wing curve better. But the propeller efficiency, by far, has most affect. This is why you have adjustable propellers on planes with between 2-5 blades. Propeller efficiency is the greatest aspect in climbing especially when you get above 12000 feet where the air thins out and props get less “bite” to pull the aircraft up. The Jugs were famous for (as you have seen me post here often) their “four blade, paddle props” which is what took it from a decent fighter to a superiority fighter. It was not a “gee look how pretty the Jug’s prop is” statement but rather an attempt to point out that it is the prop that produces thrust drag, weight and load, not horsepower. The prop has to be matched to the powerband of the engine meaning we are talking about torque. The engine has characteristics (due to many factors) where the powerband peaks at a certain RPM. In general, the more the torque an engine puts out (there is no gearing in an airplane) the larger the prop and the faster the RPMs it can move. The number of blades creates more resistance but also allows more bite. In addition, the length of the prop at RPMs that exceed the speed of sound begin to reduce its efficiency so there is a optimum size of the prop. You couldn’t put the Jug’s prop on the Spitfire or Mustang, the Merlins/Griffons couldn’t turn it. It would twist the crank in two when you revved it up. The pitch of the prop can be adjusted to take advantage of the torque for maximum “pull” at maximum RPM during a climb, or most efficient RPM at cruise speed.

It takes an engine with a lot of torque to turn a prop that large. In a climb, torque is far more important than horsepower. 18 cylinder Radial engines produce more torque than inline engines for a given horsepower rating because they have a shorter crankshaft and there is far less “twisting” and the fact that they fire in phases of 20 degrees rather than 30 degrees like 12 cylinder engine causes the power band to be smoother. In addition the inline engine needs a large flywheel to counteract the effect of the load at the other end of the driveshaft. Torque is why your car can go faster at the same RPMs. The gearing (rear end and transmission) takes advantage of torque by moving the powerband just as the right propeller does on a plane. This is why the Jug could make better use of its horsepower than the Spit could and why it was so much faster in straight and level flight, dive and climb. The only advantage a Spitfire had was turning radius which was because of aerodynamics. But the Jug was NOT used for dog fighting. It was used to shoot down the enemy not to see how close it could get to him and out turn him. Most of the few air-to-air kills of the Jugs came because they tried to use that tactic as inexperienced pilots with a plane where the tactics had not yet evolved. It was not the best tactic for that plane. Dog fighting was what you had to settle for if you couldn’t outrun your enemy. This is also why virtually any detailed description of the Jug in WWII always makes the comment that few jugs were shot down by enemy planes but rather that flak was the enemy of the P-47.

The Spitfire Mk 22 was the first plane that could climb with the Jugs at the same spec 4900 fpm and it did not come out until Dec 45 and the US had stopped Jug development then for preference to the P-80 which was a jet and had no concern about propeller efficiency.

Don’t know who Roger Freeman is. I bet he gives the gratuitous “the P-47 was a good fighter/bomber, but it was no Spitfire” commentary that seems so prevalent despite the fact that the Jug was unequivocally faster and could take a far better beating than the Spitfire. In the midst of contrarian beliefs like I see here, I can only conclude that this belief is based in the fact that the Jug was not made in England. Had it have been a British plane, you most of you would be falling all over yourselves to try to sing it praises.

Also, the P-47Ms were brought to England for the sole reason of a request by England to attack the V1s since the Spits were not fast enough to be effective as the M models were. They were not used for other roles.

Also, I wouldn't say a Spit was better than a Jug at altitude. The Jug's role as a superiority fighter went up greatly as altitude rose. The Jugs could get to 46500 feet and there had its greatest advantages over other aircraft and why the climb and dive technique was so effective in preventing air-to-air kills. Six of the top ten Allied fighter aces flew Jugs and the top ten Jug aces all survived the war. No other plane (not even the ME-262) could say that.

[jimbotosome]

(Gnomey @ Oct 13 2005, 07:10 AM) [post=39970]I disagree jimbotosome. The 262 had 4 30mm MK108's and the was a JU-88 Night-Fighter that had 8(!) 20mm 151/20's. Other German night fighters had 4 20mm 151/20's, 2 30mm MK108's and 15mm MG's, although twin engined they where still fighters and much more heavily armed that the Jug. The Jugs 8 50 cals where not in my opinion the heaviest armourment of any fighter of the war.
[/b]

We had this discussion earlier. Cannons have several disadvantages. First they have a very short range which means you must get in close. The trajectory on cannon rounds were terrible. This is why a cannon was preferred for hitting bombers and why if you use them in a dog fight, you must get in close which reduces your ability to take out the enemy. Planes flying 50 cals could take advantage of deflection shooting. Planes using cannons could not. The rate of decay on the cannon round’s trajectory is too large.

The ME-262 was not used as a fighter. It was used as a bomber interceptor. Mk108s were shot down so fast that most people didn’t even know they were in the war. The JU-88 was a bomber. If you are going to compare it to bombers, then the B-17 had between 10 and 11 – (depending on the model) 50 cals so it gets the best rating since it shot down more fighters than any of the other planes. The fighters you mention were not the kind used in fights with other fighters. The additional weight would reduce their maneuverability and make them vulnerable to lightly armed fighters.

There is no such thing as armament if you don’t get a chance to shoot yours. It would be like comparing the destructive power of a C-130 Spectre Gunship to a FY-22 Raptor. Lots more firepower in the Spectre. They have different roles. In a battle to shoot down the other, which would you rather be in?

[jimbotosome]

(adamcotton @ Oct 13 2005, 08:01 AM) [post=39971]Well said Gomey!

There also seems to be this notion that the P-47 was an incredibly complex, difficult aircraft to fly. Certainly, its size must have been intimidating, particularly for an inexperienced pilot, but suggesting that the RAF eschewed it because they had too few pilots to risk on such a hot rod is absurd.....

The RAF DID in fact use the Jug - in the Far East - where it replaced Hurricanes in the ground attack role against the Japanese from 1944. Moreover, in his book "Tangmere: Fighter Station Supreme", W/Cdr H.R. "Dizzy" Allen writes of an impromptu test flight he made in a P-47 from Halesworth in Suffolk, and was astonished to find, on landing, the fuss he had caused among the Americans who pointed out that no USAAF pilot was allowed to take a Jug aloft until they had completed an extensive ground course on its systems, etc. Allen had found the Jug a breeze to fly - a sentiment echoed by the pilots of 8th Fighter Command themselves (certainly in all the books I've read on the subject!).
[/b]

The fact of the problems in training is without question. If you were a pilot you wouldn’t question the risks of young and inexperienced pilots flying high performance and complex aircraft. It is like riding a bike versus driving a car in a Formula One race. No Formula One driver would have a problem getting into another type of race car and would say that the complexity of driving it compared to the 10 year old on the bike was exaggerated. Everything is relative. 1700 planes lost in training and landing accidents. Experienced pilots American or British could certainly fly the plane. Quotes like those of "Dizzy" Allen remind me of the saying we have in the aviation world. "There are old pilots. There are bold pilots. But, there are no old bold pilots". Also, illustrative of this is the fact that the rates of fatal accidents goes down as the hours of pilots climb to 400, but after 800 hours they begin to go back up. There is no "boast" (which ironically should not have been posted here since it simply is not the "English Way", remember?) that impresses any other pilot that understands the risks of flying regardless of skill levels especially aircraft you are not familiar with. I could fly a plane I was not checked out in, but my chance of having an accident would go up exponentially and why it is illegal and unwise to do so. Years ago when I was in training, I would remember reading about pilots with a lots of experience "buying the farm" and would cause great concern. It was not until I learned that cockiness and flying goes together about as well as alcohol and flying. In aviation, bold and stupid are synonymous. But, for the most part, veterans were not the US had since the length of a pilot’s tenure was about 6-8 months. The US had relatively inexperience pilots and still maintained a better survival rate. This is yet another irony to me why the Jug’s prowess is snubbed by the “spitzophrenia” that is rampant on this forum.

(adamcotton @ Oct 13 2005, 08:01 AM) [post=39971]I think that a part of the problem is that Americans are not exactly noted for their propensity to understatement - which is a uniquely British trait - and consequently use superlatives and exaggeration more often than their British counterparts. Don't get me wrong: I am not knocking Americans, I love the place and the people, but sometimes one must be objective.
[/b]

Funny, you sound like American’s talking about Brits. The fact that the Spitfire was slower than the Jug in straight and level flight, dive and climb, shot down fewer planes, could be brought down with a good pistol, lost more pilots per sortie and less than a third the kill ratio and was confined to France and you still insist the Spitfire was a better fighter is anything but objective to me. But then again, what do I know, I am simply an American imbued with superlatives and exaggeration more so than my “objective” counterparts from the UK.

[adamcotton]

Dear jimbotosome,

The P-47 is obviously something of a sacred cow to you, but just because we don't all subscribe to your religon, is that any reason to resort to caustic, even sarcastic comments? In fact, you are becoming increasingly aggressive in putting forth your viewpoint....

This is supposed to be an academic forum where people with similar interests can exchange viewpoints and knowledge in an adult fashion without rancour. Above all, it is supposed to be fun!!! I think you need to "take a chill pill" and relax, and stop assuming that every Brit who argues contrary to you has something against Americans. I don't know how thoroughly you have read others' postings, but if you take the time to read mine again you will see that, personally, I am a great fan of the USA. Maybe that has something to do with being married to an ex-pat American.....

Also, you are obviously a trained pilot and rightly feel that gives you a certain amount of authority. Less justifiably, you evidently also feel it gives you the right to lecture ad nauseum on engines and aewrodynamics. I would suggest that to inform is laudable; to lecture is patronizing - and your little dissertation on the engine/propellor characteristics of the P-47 was just that!

You may be interested to know that I am also a qualified pilot. I am also a freelance aviation journalist/historian, and have published articles in Pilot and Flyer magazines, as well WW2 pilot biographies in Aeroplane. I therefore also feel qualified to comment. I would remind you that there are other qualified pilots on this site too, and many more simply with vast knowledge of their subject, so their opinions should be treated with the same respect you rightly expect yours to be shown....

I took particular offence at your suggestion that in pursuing their policy of area bombing by night, the RAF was no better than the Nazis in attacking unarmed civilians, whilst similataneously offering the USAAF's "precision" daylight bombing campaign as a model of moral rectitude. The way Americans see themselves and their place in the world has much to do with the myth-making of Hollywood, so few in the USA would believe the truth of what happened during the year or so leading up to D-Day, and the implicit "guilt" of the Amercian strategic and tactical bomber force. It was essential that as much as possible of the French road/rail infrastructure, communications, ammunition dumps, storage warehouses, etc, were destroyed so as to deny the Germans the chance to rapidly reinforce their positions in the invasion areas, and give the invasion the best chance to succeed. However, as most of these key targets were located within French towns and villages, that could not be accomplished without loss of French civilian life. (The Norden bombsight was good, but not so good it could, as so often claimed, "drop a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet"). Eisenhower ordered it to go ahead anyway, justifying it by saying it was essential to "protect our boys on the beaches as much as we can". Why is it that protecting "American boys" always seems to involving the populations of other countries suffering?

Anyway - and I relate this as an example of the outrage this caused in French circles - Free French Spitfire pilot Pierre Clostermann, having witnessed at first hand an American bomber attack on a town in Normandy shortly after the invasion, had to be forcibly restrained from clambering into his Spitfire and taking off to hunt them down. The full story can be found in the unabridged re-issue of his auto-biography, "The Big Show". But, lest Jimbotosome you should think either he or I am making the story up, American writer and ex WW2 GI Captain, Paul Fussell, tells the same story of Eisnenhower's contentious edict and the resultant loss of French civilian life in his book, "The Boys' Crusade", which I strongly recommend. So, I don't think the USAAF can be entirely absolved from guilt, do you?

I am not going to waste any more time arguing the toss over the P-47. You have so many of your facts wrong it becomes tedious to correct them all. Reference to any authoritative history book could set you straight. "Target Berlin: 6th March, 1944", by Jeffery Ethell and Alfred Price is a good place to start, or any one of the plethora of books Roger Freeman has written over the years - THE most pre-eminent biographer of the 8th AAF and all its units and equipment (cant believe you haven't heard of him!). He is a huge fan of the 8AAF, even though he's British - I don't think you'll find he saying anything disparaging about the Jug at all.

Roger and out.

Adam

[jimbotosome]

(adamcotton @ Oct 14 2005, 07:03 AM) [post=40036]The P-47 is obviously something of a sacred cow to you, but just because we don't all subscribe to your religon, is that any reason to resort to caustic, even sarcastic comments? In fact, you are becoming increasingly aggressive in putting forth your viewpoint....[/b]

Dear adam,
This forum is the glass house of sacred cow fighter planes more specifically the Spitfire where some are so fanatical they would suggest it should still be in use today, heck you can't turn a page or scroll down one without seeing a spitfire bitmap. So please save the throwing stones of rhetoric at my house for that’s taking hypocrisy way “over the top” and as it was recently stated that the English never boast but are kings of the understatement, which is why I made the “sarcastic” comments, as so many of you do as well from time to time. What we have here are opinions on the best fighter plane of WWII which if you look at the polls is heavily loaded toward the Spitfire. Go to an American forum and you would see few votes for the spits. Does this mean American’s don’t know airplanes enough to recognize the “superiority of the Spitfire”? No, but they are not biased that way. But then again I would be countering mustang-mania there instead of spitzophrenia. As far as your insistence of my obsession with the P-47, remember, I am the only advocate of it here and therefore the only one that would counter the claims of the Spit that are outrageous too. This site could just about be renamed www.spitfirefanatics.uk.

(adamcotton @ Oct 14 2005, 07:03 AM) [post=40036]This is supposed to be an academic forum where people with similar interests can exchange viewpoints and knowledge in an adult fashion without rancour. Above all, it is supposed to be fun!!! I think you need to "take a chill pill" and relax, and stop assuming that every Brit who argues contrary to you has something against Americans. I don't know how thoroughly you have read others' postings, but if you take the time to read mine again you will see that, personally, I am a great fan of the USA. Maybe that has something to do with being married to an ex-pat American.....

Also, you are obviously a trained pilot and rightly feel that gives you a certain amount of authority. Less justifiably, you evidently also feel it gives you the right to lecture ad nauseum on engines and aewrodynamics. I would suggest that to inform is laudable; to lecture is patronizing - and your little dissertation on the engine/propellor characteristics of the P-47 was just that!

You may be interested to know that I am also a qualified pilot. I am also a freelance aviation journalist/historian, and have published articles in Pilot and Flyer magazines, as well WW2 pilot biographies in Aeroplane. I therefore also feel qualified to comment. I would remind you that there are other qualified pilots on this site too, and many more simply with vast knowledge of their subject, so their opinions should be treated with the same respect you rightly expect yours to be shown.... [/b]

I am cannot utter the words to say how incredibly impressed I am with your credentials, Adam. I didn’t realize I was under the harsh scrutiny of such an expert that diminished my right to add content to a subject of something posted. Otherwise I might have refrained. Spidge posted quite a bit of information on the Spitfire here as have a few others, but you forwent the opportunity to “brow beat” them with your ad nauseum insults or accuse them of fanaticism of the Spit. Is that pure coincidence or some personal contempt you have for me, or some contempt you have for the P-47? Do you even have a clue what condescension is? After all, you are very good at it. The “lecture” as you so rancorously called it (ironic you did what you accused me of in just a few sentences of rebuking me for it isn’t it?) was a general discussion of how propeller efficiency works in conjunction with torque, to someone that obviously didn’t know. In the process I pointed out that the Jug’s engine had a tremendous amount of torque and had the capacity to drive a big prop. That was in direct defense of the statement that horsepower to weight ratios alone would help the Spit climb faster. My greatest apologies that I didn’t seek the counsel of the aviation cognoscenti here to determine if the laws of physics were still in play. I didn’t know that proper homage was required to prevent insulting those that are endowed with knowledge that may distributed here. I am a foreigner here, and do not understand the ways of advanced cultures.

But was does context matter when you respond with such indignity? Here in the states we call that hypocrisy, (it’s an old English term) but you are not the only audience here, and I suspect there are some here who have things that they don’t know about aeronautical engineering and mechanics in aviation or possibly even physics (hard to believe right?) and the person I was “lecturing” as you called it, had made the statement that horsepower to weight ratio is what makes a plane climb. If you are the lofty expert you claim to be, the only one qualified to explain aviation and engineering principles to with any great detail, you should have jumped on this opportunity to “inform” them so that I wouldn’t have had to “patronize” them with my simplistic explanations not befitting to be read by a man of your stature. But to choose to jump on me instead with a diatribe of thinly veiled innuendo which was not only uncalled for, but was rancor at its zenith.

(adamcotton @ Oct 14 2005, 07:03 AM) [post=40036]I took particular offence at your suggestion that in pursuing their policy of area bombing by night, the RAF was no better than the Nazis in attacking unarmed civilians, whilst similataneously offering the USAAF's "precision" daylight bombing campaign as a model of moral rectitude. The way Americans see themselves and their place in the world has much to do with the myth-making of Hollywood, so few in the USA would believe the truth of what happened during the year or so leading up to D-Day, and the implicit "guilt" of the Amercian strategic and tactical bomber force. It was essential that as much as possible of the French road/rail infrastructure, communications, ammunition dumps, storage warehouses, etc, were destroyed so as to deny the Germans the chance to rapidly reinforce their positions in the invasion areas, and give the invasion the best chance to succeed. However, as most of these key targets were located within French towns and villages, that could not be accomplished without loss of French civilian life. (The Norden bombsight was good, but not so good it could, as so often claimed, "drop a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet"). Eisenhower ordered it to go ahead anyway, justifying it by saying it was essential to "protect our boys on the beaches as much as we can". Why is it that protecting "American boys" always seems to involving the populations of other countries suffering? [/b]

Well, if you would read why I posted it, BEFORE you get your feelings hurt, you would have found that it was because of the insinuation that the USAAF Generals were idiots that didn’t take the RAF advice and bomb at night, eschewing the loss of brave crew members to do something so obstinate. I’ll bet I took more offense at that. It was a nasty job that had to be done and I can tell you from reading books on it that these crew members resented this mockery by the Brits back then as well. Extreme pessimism and nay saying never won a war. Do you possibly think that the USAAF didn’t care about their air crews? Do you think those boys wanted to be in Europe at all, instead of back at their homes trying to grow up, many of which never got that opportunity? If your belief is that we should postpone the effective bombing war until we can figure out how to bomb without losses would have surprised you to realize such an opportunity to bomb would have never materialized had that “advice” been taken. Time is not your ally in war. As far as moral rectitude, things are relative. There is no possible way to prevent collateral damage. Even today the US practices precision bombing rather than carpet bombing at the risk of their “boys” so your argument is invalid. The objective of daylight bombing was two fold, minimize civilian damage and actually hit the target squarely so they didn’t have to come back again nor allow the enemy to quickly rebuild. If you are indeed a war aviation buff, you should know that night bombing could never accomplish either of those goals. If you are a pilot you should know that with clouds like those you have in Europe, bombing at night with any accuracy at all especially with blackouts, would have never have gotten the job done. Radar might get you to the city but it wouldn’t help you find the factory so you don’t know for sure what you are bombing unless you have a bright moon and a clear night, of which both are in a relative sense rare, especially in continental Europe. I have been to Germany a couple of times for about a total of 7 weeks and rare was the day that was not overcast. You would only be able to go out about 1 of 4 of the days of the year. If you flew other nights, you wouldn’t know if you hit a factory or a hospital. If you have ever flown a plane on a dark moonless night at say 8000 feet over an area with no lights, you should know it is a sea of blackness. Imagine it at 20000 feet. The Germans were too good at restoring production capacity for that. But the issue of targeting civilian centers to induce an end to the war was Air Marshal Harris’ philosophy, you can’t deny that. It was also Hitler’s, you can’t deny that. If you are a historian you should have known that and not have acted as though I accused him of something that was not common knowledge. I too love the Brits but can’t ignore truths as you folks keep saying. Maybe your truth is not as absolute as you think it is. As far as your claim that the pickle barrel comment is “obstinate”, you should know it is an exaggeration, humorous hyperbole; no one would take such a claim that serious, nor would anybody expect someone to, but as you are well aware it was merely a claim on their belief it was a good tool. That’s just sophistry on your behalf, Adam. You seem a tad too “earnest” for someone that advised me to “take a chill pill”.

(adamcotton @ Oct 14 2005, 07:03 AM) [post=40036]Anyway - and I relate this as an example of the outrage this caused in French circles - Free French Spitfire pilot Pierre Clostermann, having witnessed at first hand an American bomber attack on a town in Normandy shortly after the invasion, had to be forcibly restrained from clambering into his Spitfire and taking off to hunt them down. The full story can be found in the unabridged re-issue of his auto-biography, "The Big Show". But, lest Jimbotosome you should think either he or I am making the story up, American writer and ex WW2 GI Captain, Paul Fussell, tells the same story of Eisnenhower's contentious edict and the resultant loss of French civilian life in his book, "The Boys' Crusade", which I strongly recommend. So, I don't think the USAAF can be entirely absolved from guilt, do you? [/b]

Oh, I don’t think you made it up. In fact, the town is pretty obvious. It was argued by me in agreeing with the History Channel’s documentary posted in the Normandy Bombing thread on this forum that some cities were bombed for tactical reasons, with the prime example being the saving of Monty’s forces by the USAAF bombing Caen and preventing the Panzer divisions from annihilation. The congestion on the beaches would have been a shooting gallery with many more British and Canadians dead than French that failed to flee Caen when the shooting started (most did). But that crosses the line of sacred cow of Monty was fallible and subject to tremendous losses on the battlefield. Had those Panzers been at the beaches at noon, Monty would not have been in Normandy by 4pm, at least not alive. The only way to have proven that would have been to let the Panzers attack on the beaches and see if anyone would have made it back to the ships and then in retrospect you would be saying “boy if the USAAF had only bombed Caen to delay the Panzers”. With you, I suspect it is a catch 22. The USAAF was damned since they did, or would have been damned had they not.

(adamcotton @ Oct 14 2005, 07:03 AM) [post=40036]I am not going to waste any more time arguing the toss over the P-47. You have so many of your facts wrong it becomes tedious to correct them all. Reference to any authoritative history book could set you straight. "Target Berlin: 6th March, 1944", by Jeffery Ethell and Alfred Price is a good place to start, or any one of the plethora of books Roger Freeman has written over the years - THE most pre-eminent biographer of the 8th AAF and all its units and equipment (cant believe you haven't heard of him!). He is a huge fan of the 8AAF, even though he's British - I don't think you'll find he saying anything disparaging about the Jug at all. [/b]

Here we go with “our books are the right books and if you would only read them”… rhetoric. I am glad you place so much trust in British historians and believe them to be incapable of mistakes, misunderstandings, errors and urban legends unlike their American counterpart historians who so greatly suffer from these weaknesses. "THE most pre-eminent biographer”...hmmm…I thought you Brits were not subject to superlatives….did I misunderstand that comment made a few posts ago? Let me make something very clear to you. You have almost universal concurrence on this site, not because you have found the sacred oracles of absolute historical truth, but because, if you haven’t noticed, there are very few Americans here and a preponderance of folks from the UK. Others may be too intimidated to speak up against the Spit for fear they will invoke the wrath of the masses who love their sacred cow. When ruthlessly chastised for not following the majority view, some respond with eerie silence, others respond with sarcasm. Can you guess which pattern I fit? I have always made a very poor conformist. The high volume of corroboration that you enjoy does not in any way validate your opinion nor in any way invalidate mine. Thank you for the references on the books. May I research one on introspect for you?

For a place where so many self-proclaim their objectivity, I would think that another viewpoint slightly concentric from their own would be refreshing. Heck, that's why I am here! I gather from redcoat's recent statement that I am not the first one to walk into this trap (may they rest in peace). If (as I sometimes feel) there happens to be some expectation that anyone that disagrees with the party line here should kiss derrieres, and fall in line, I would suggest that an alternative be found for there are some people that simply won't do that and they shouldn’t be hard to spot.

I would be glad to share a “chill pill” with you adam, divide it down the middle. Just don’t give me the biggest half!

[Gnomey]

jimbotosome. How could the P-47 be the best fighter when it could not fight effectively against the opposition single engined fighters. The P-47 was out-turned by almost every contempory fighter of the day and as result avoided as much as possible the one on one dogfight. If the Jug bounced somebody that was the best was for it (and every other fighter) to shoot the enemy down. However not being able to dogfight effectively with the enemy fighters means in my opinion the Jug cannot be the best fighter. If you cannot dogfight with the enemy single engined fighters how can you be the best fighter? The Jug was a great ground attack aircraft but it was not a great fighter. The P-51 and P-38 could fight in a dogfight with the German fighters as could the Spitfire. Tell me how can the P-47 be the best fighter of the war if it cannot fight one on one with contempory German fighters of the day (FW190D/ME109E/F/G/K aswell as some ME262's and TA152's). If you cannot dogfight with the enemy fighters you are not a good fighter, the P-47 had everything else: speed, firepower and range but what it lacked because of it's size was manourability and as a result in my opinion it can't be the best of the war.

[jimbotosome]

(Gnomey @ Oct 14 2005, 05:10 PM) [post=40058]jimbotosome. How could the P-47 be the best fighter when it could not fight effectively against the opposition single engined fighters. The P-47 was out-turned by almost every contempory fighter of the day and as result avoided as much as possible the one on one dogfight. If the Jug bounced somebody that was the best was for it (and every other fighter) to shoot the enemy down. However not being able to dogfight effectively with the enemy fighters means in my opinion the Jug cannot be the best fighter. If you cannot dogfight with the enemy single engined fighters how can you be the best fighter? The Jug was a great ground attack aircraft but it was not a great fighter. The P-51 and P-38 could fight in a dogfight with the German fighters as could the Spitfire. Tell me how can the P-47 be the best fighter of the war if it cannot fight one on one with contempory German fighters of the day (FW190D/ME109E/F/G/K aswell as some ME262's and TA152's). If you cannot dogfight with the enemy fighters you are not a good fighter, the P-47 had everything else: speed, firepower and range but what it lacked because of it's size was manourability and as a result in my opinion it can't be the best of the war.
[/b]

As a side issue, I think you mistake the P-47s inability to maneuver. It had less turn than the P-51s and Spits. The Jug pilots claimed it could outturn an FW-190 but regulations forbade them to dogfight. It could also do a split S maneuver below 10000 feet but regulations forbade that as well though pilots claimed they used it when jumped at low altitude all the time. Dogfight is a disadvantage when compared to being able to dive and attack and climb again, because you have to get in close. But keep it in perspective. Could a Hurricane dominate a Spitfire? It could out certainly out maneuver it! Also keep in mind that a Jug is a high altitude fighter. At higher attitude maneuverability benefits begin to diminish (since the air is thinner) and the engine/prop efficiency and rudder size then come into play (rudder can reduce the slip that begins to appear in them both). I know the Spitifire had an unimpressive rudder. As a matter of fact you couldn't take off at full throttle because there was not enough counter to the yawing effect of p-factor (propeller induced yaw at high angles of attack). That’s why this or that plane is said to have better performance at altitude. That’s a short way of saying that it can produce more power and had less affect by the drag/lift ratio or subject to less slippage. The ability to sustain thrust comes more and more into play.

But, you asked how do you dominate a plane that can out dog fight you? Simple, don’t get too close to it. If you get close, climb or dive until the opposite is true. The further you are away from an object the smaller your turning radius to keep it lined up. Some have accused me of exaggerating the Jug’s abilities but then again they are woefully ignorant of what the Jug’s strengths were and think that dog fighting like WWI pilots is the best way to shoot down the enemy. These advantages are plastered all over the web as well as every Jug pilot’s biography I have ever read. So what are these advantages if they are not exaggerated? I am glad I asked. There are a few.

1) The 8 - 50 cals. The reason it aided in the climb and dive technique is because it could shoot much farther away than cannons. Some don’t believe this his but that is their problem. The fact that there were 8 guns means that it could have 4 different convergence points which is where the complementary guns are aimed to converge at a certain distance which represents a much higher probability of a kill. A plane has to get close enough to its kill zone before it fires or it could fire across a region behind the plane instead of directly at it.
2) The ability to maintain its energy. Go get the videos on zeno’s site on the Jug and he explains how the Jug recovers its energy from a dive better. It had very big wings (over 41 feet long). When you climb, starting from cruising speed it takes the longest time to get up to a given altitude since you have virtually no excess inertia and climb is driven by lift and power alone. But when you climb at the end of a dive, you recover most of the kinetic energy that was spent by the loss of altitude by capturing inertia which maintains higher air speeds at the higher angles of attack when you start climbing again.
3) It had the K-14 electric gun sight which allowed it to use deflection shooting. This special sight would allow you to skew the target reticule to compensate for objects further away, compensating for deflection (wind pushing the rounds) and decay of the rounds trajectory over that distance.
4) The weight and ability to near compressibility in a dive and recover from it if you crossed the line. The German’s favorite technique from escaping an attack was to dive away. The sheer weight and wing strength of the Jug made that popular maneuver virtually instant death to the German pilot. You can read that in about any commentary on the Jug. The ME-262 could not out dive a Jug. It had enough problems with its engines being too heavy on its wings. This is why there is no record of an ME-262 shooting down a Jug but several accounts to the contrary including the downing of Adolf Galland.
5) The roll rate on a Jug is excellent. I have read commentaries where they claim the FW-190 and the Jug are on par as the best fighters for rate of roll. I don’t know where you find the specs for that comparison though.
6) The Jug could go higher than any other plane though some spits could get up there too so it would be a matter of comparing models. The ceiling on the late war jugs was 46,500. No enemy plane could come up to get it. At that altitude it would also be hard to see it making you vulnerable.
7) Every pilot wants to fight to his advantage and/or the other’s disadvantage. But most planes did not get that choice. The Jug could make the choice even if the other pilot didn’t want to. Excluding being jumped by a plane you don’t see, (all planes can be shot down) the Jug could make this decision. Even if you had altitude on it, it could get you into a climb and dive sequence and begin to overtake your altitude since you couldn’t retain your energy as well. Whoever shoots down had the best chance of a kill. If the Jug didn’t want to tangle, (say it was carrying ordinance or low on fuel) it could simply dive away and that’s the last you would see of it. It could name the terms of the fight.
8) The Jugs could take a beating. There are stories of Jugs having three heads shot off and a master cylinder and still making it back from 8 hour missions. Go read the testimonies of Rip Collins on the web. Read Robert Johnson’s Thunderbolt! book and see where he talks about the 56th’s kills of 1006 German planes to a loss of only 128 of theirs that’s 8:1 kill ratio. He started out when the tactics of the Jug were not evolved. No one knew how to use it.

The Jug was not without its weaknesses but they were slight.

1) The Jug was expensive to manufacture.
2) The Jug had less range (excluding the P-47N models) that required drop tanks to go to Berlin.
3) The Jug lost some of its advantages at low altitude.
4) It was a difficult plane to fly for rookie pilots.

The range and lower cost of the Mustang made it more attractive for long range missions so the Jug primarily took on the role as a fighter bomber, a role of which it was even more suitable than its competitors. Next time you are at an air show or museum. Walk up and take a look at it. You will be astonished at its size and the size of its engine. Walk up and tap on its wings and fuselage (assuming they will let you), then go do the same for the P-51D, Spitfire, ME-109, FW-190 or any others that you compare to it and you will see why it was so survivable.

Knowing the higher risks of the close combat of dogfighting (remember if you are close to him, he and his wingman are close to you), wouldn’t you rather shoot at a distance your enemy could not? Especially if he has no choice other than to run because you can out climb him and out dive him. Hey, invest in a cheap T-bolt book written by their pilots. There are probably available used ones so it shouldn’t cost you more than a couple of bucks. Then you can judge for yourself if it is me blowing smoke up your skirt or some of the others here that say I am an exaggerator, a zealot for a plane based on nothing more than a baseless fanaticism. I would recommend Robert Johnson’s or Hub Zemke’s book. They were two of the top five pilots and both flew Jugs. Zemke was a commander in P-47 wings, P-38 wings and P-51 wings. He gives a good in depth-comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of each one.

[GarandGuy]

My vote goes for the P51 Mustang. The D model had excellent visibility from the tear drop canopy, it was fast at 437 mph, had excellent performance at high altitude, had an incredibly long range, and packed quite a punch with six .50 caliber machine guns. It was also quite manueverable and could hang with a Spitfire in a dogfight and could outrun it. The Spitfire had the advantage in a climb as it was built as an interceptor, but the Spitfire lacked range. Many knock the .50 as lacking power but the .50 MG was a better long range weapon than the 20mm as it held a better trajectory, had a faster rate of fire, and was every bit as capable of knocking another fighter out of the sky. The main fault of the P51 was the liquid cooled engine, which meant if the radiator was hit then it was most assuredly going down. This was mostly a liability when performing fighter-bomber duties, a job the P51 was not designed for.

[adamcotton]

This is getting rather Silly, Jimbotosome! And you seem to be taking things personally! Have you knever heard the phrase "playing devil's advocate"? I actually agree with much of what you say, merely argue the points I cannot agree with you on. I don't think sarcasm a worthy strategy when in the minority, better simply to confine oneself to a cogent, well presented argument.....

Anyway, to address some of the points of your last post:

1) I do not confine myself to reading history books written by British authors. Roger Freeman IS British, but Jeffery Ethell was an American. Moreover, he was a warbird pilot of reputation in the US, and was killed only in recent years while flying one of these. He was the co-author of "Target Berlin: 6th March, 1944" (among other books on the air war) - again, I am astonished you haven't heard of him, either! Whatever - I have read books on the subject by authors of various nationalities over the years with equal impartiality. I do not take the parochial view!!!!

2) The kill/loss ratio for the P-47 (or P-51, for that matter): if we travel back to 1940, you will recall that, in the Battle of Britain, the RAF possesed far more Hurricanes than Spitfires. And it is the Hurricane, despite its inferior performance to the Spitfire (and Me 109 too) that is credited with shooting down more enemy aircraft than all other air and ground defences combined during that period. Does that mean the Hurricane was a better, more effective fighter than the Spitfire? Of course not! What it means is that, if you were a Luftwaffe pilot, you were far more likely to be shot down by a Hurricane than a Spitfire simply by virtue of the fact that there were far more Hurricanes in the air to be encountered. If we examined the Hurricane's kill/loss ratio at this point, it still wouldn't be as high as a P-47s, because the flip side was the Luftwaffe had nearly three times as many aircraft as the RAF overall and so the victorious Hurricane pilot was then just as likely to be swatted by one of his victims buddies.....

Fast forward to 1943/44 and if you were a Luftwaffe pilot over Europe you were far more likely to encounter a P-47 or P-51 than you were a Spitfire, again simply by virtue of their being so many more of the former. Which means, as a type, the P-47 was presented with more opportunities to kill than a Spitfire by this stage in the war. And as an American pilot, you had hoardes of your buddies in the air to protect your tail and give warning, etc, so you were farr less likely to be shot down than, say, our victorious Hurricane pilot back in 1940. I know that's a bit of an over-simplification, but it illustrates, I think, how significant is sheer weight of numbers in calculating kill/loss ratios....

Also, I think it has been forgotten that the USAAF, in direct contrast with the RAF and most other combatant air arms, had an official policy of awarding "kills" to pilots for aircraft destroyed on the ground as well as in air combat. As an example, Col David Schilling, who succeeded "Hub" Zemke as CO of the 56th Fighter
Group, and was the 8th AAF's top scoring ace, was credited 33 victories, but no fewer than 10 of these were gained during the course of strafing attacks.....again, a factor to be considered when considering kill/loss ratios..

A far more reliable test of the "best fighter" would be to take pilots of equal ability and experience and put, say, 6 in a P-47 and 6 in a Spitfire (the marques are unimportant, as long as they are contemporaries - so a P-47D against a Spit IX; a P-47M against a Spit XIV, etc) and let them run a series of fights and see which type most often emerges victorious. Such an evaluation would, I think, reveal each type's true strengths and weaknesses to the full....

3) The Spitfire's rudder: yes, on the early marques it was on the small side, but was adequate to counter the torque and slipstream effect of the the Merlin as then fitted. But all Griffon-engined Spitfires, including the XIV, had enlarged rudders fitted to cope with the extra power, as did some merlin engined Mk IXs.
It is also simply not true that a Spifire could not use full power on take off. On the earlier, Merlin engined versions the pilot had to work hard with the rudder to counter the swing on take-off, and on the Griffon engined versions had to wind on full rudder trim as well prior to opening the throttle: nonetheless, they still used full power!

At altitude, the air is thinner, and all aircraft become more tricky to manouvere. Agreed. But the Spit XIV's enlarged rudder and five bladed prop, coupled with its supercharged Griffon engine, would have been just as able to sustain performance as the P-47, whose textbook ceiling, imcidentally, was only 1500 feet higher, and maximum level speed only 12mph faster. And think about it: what tactical advantage would it have availed a P-47 pilot to sit at 46000 feet waiting to dive on any enemy that appeared below? Because of its huge weight, as soon as it tipped into a dive from that height it would reach incredible speed in no time at all and roar straight through any enemy formation before the pilot even had chance to fire. I believe the Me163rocket propelled plane was similarly handicapped by excessive speed. And maybe that's also why, in the late 1960s, the USAF finally abandoned acquiring fighters purely to go higher and faster and instead concentrated more on manouverability. The result: the F-15 Eagle, the finst air superiority fighter in the world!

4)Jimbotosome, you make much of the P-47M, the so called "Leightweight" Thunderbolt. Only 108 of these were ever built, all but two of them seeing service with the 56th Fighter group. Admittedly the fastest allied propellor driven fighter in service, it was beset with mechanical problems from the start. During the 56th's first outing with it, on 10 January, 1945, no fewer than 18 aircraft were forced to turn back with technical malfunctions of various kinds. Engines would routinely cut out at high altitude. At one point, the 56th grounded all its P-47Ms and briefly re-equipped with P-51s while the problems were rectified. As Roger Freeman says in his book, "Wolfpack Warriors: The Story of WW2's Most Successful Fighter Outfit" :
[font=Courier New]" People at Boxted felt let down by Republic. The new model Thunderbolt that the manufacturers claimed would give the group a performance advantage proved a poorly tested stop-gap. The destruction of enemy aircraft in the air or on the ground that had come to be the yardstick of unit achievement, and for which the 56th had led the way throughout the past year, was now left to the Mustang Groups. After the success of the 3February mission the 556th's only other claims for a month were four enemy aircraft by strafing, albeit that the Mustangs did not have a great deal of contact with the Luftwaffe during this period. Even so, a few of the P-51 equipped groups were gradually overhauling the 56th's lead."
[font=Arial]
Pilots were impressed by the P-47M's rate of climb, there is no doubt. Nor is there any doubt - and I have repeated this several times - the P-47 was a very fine aircraft indeed. But does it have to come out tops in all performance aspects and carry off the crown? I never said the Spifire, in any marque, was perferct either and let's not forget both types fought on the same side.
5) .50 cal guns and ammunition. Yes, the.50 was a virtual cannon, but not an actual one. Cannons have a slower rate of fire, but demonstrably have greater rage and destructive power. That's why legendary fighter pilot Douglas Bader disliked the introduction of cannon armament on the Spifire, because he was all for getting in close and believed cannons would encourage some inexperienced pilots to open fire from too great a range. That his fears weren't realised has nothing to do with the cannon proving to have relatively short range after all, but everything to do with the agressive instincts of the average fighter pilot who likes to get in close. The .50 cal was a huge improvement over the .303 cal machine gun, but it still didn't measure up to the 20mm or 30mm cannon.

Adam

[redcoat]

</div><div class='quotemain'> If you are going to compare the Spitfire XIV to any fighter in the US, then you should use the late model fighters too. That would be the P-47J/N/M or the P-51H models. There are gross performance disparities between those planes. If you are going to compare a Spitfire to a P-47B/C/D then you should use the Spitfire V or at best the Spitfire IX. [/b]

Interesting jimbotosome, you want to compare a fighter which entered operational service in the ETO in February 1944 with 3 which never saw service in Europe during WW2, and a fourth which only entered service in January 1945.

</div><div class='quotemain'>

The Spitfire Mk 22 was the first plane that could climb with the Jugs at the same spec 4900 fpm and it did not come out until Dec 45 and the US had stopped Jug development then for preference to the P-80 which was a jet and had no concern about propeller efficiency. [/b]

I take it you are unaware that the max climb rate of the Spitfire XIV was 5040 fpm