Author Topic: Spitfire vs P47  (Read 2982 times)

Offline ramzey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
Spitfire vs P47
« on: December 15, 2004, 10:58:47 AM »
I know its fighters build for 2 diferent purposes but if we talk about ability to dive spit beat thinderbolt in dive.
Tests done by RAF in 1943 proof spit can go Mach 0.89 in dive , P47 only M 0.83. Also P47 has trouble manuvering  in dive.
Less manuverable P47 is a brick compared to spit, im right?

What for was add dive brakes in p47?

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfire vs P47
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2004, 12:07:40 PM »
Dive from 35K, the P47 will hit the deck much quicker than a Spitty.
However, Spitty, accelerating slower, eventually aquired enormous speed and got away with it.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
Spitfire vs P47
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2004, 12:57:14 PM »
I've always been rather intrigued by the account in Shaw's book attributed to Robert Johnson where he talks about fighting a Spit IX in a P-47C model.  

I don't think there would be any way to replicate that in AH, unless the P-47 literally "extended" out about 2k yards before beginning the dive and the Spit didn't try to cut the corner on the dive and zoom.

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Spitfire vs P47
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2004, 01:35:05 PM »
The spit has a slightly larger terminal velosity than the jugs, but the jug will accelerate and reach it much faster.

The P47 from all the accounts I've read had good controls response till it reached the compresion. It didn't suffer from heavy ailrons like the spit or the stick kicking into the belly like the P51, although eventually the elevator got so heavy that pilots used both hands and pushed with their legs to get it out of the dive.

The major problem in dives was that acceleration was so fast that before the pilot notcied, he was already compressing. I think the dive flap, simmilar to the P38's, was supposed to help with pulling up from the dive.  But I might be wrong about that one.

Bozon
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfire vs P47
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2004, 05:51:29 PM »
109's and 190's could not dive from harm's way when meeting jugs, but they'd leave the Spit far behind.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline eddiek

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1441
Spitfire vs P47
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2004, 06:00:09 PM »
It really stood out in Johnson's book when he mentioned playing with the Spit in his Jug.
First time, he kinda surprised the Spit driver but using his roll rate to stick with the guy.  Got some E built up and zoom climbed away from the Spit, then when his E was used up, the Spit motored on up and past him.
Later, after the paddle blade prop was installed in his Jug, he was able to reverse those results....he says he pulled away from the Spit IX in a climb.  He didn't say, but I bet he was in "Lucky" when that happened, since it was the hotrodded Jug he mentioned in his interview with Widewing.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfire vs P47
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2004, 06:04:36 PM »
Wasn't it him who said:
"The P47 had to dive well, it surely wouldn't climb"?
I'll try to find it.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline eddiek

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1441
Spitfire vs P47
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2004, 06:17:50 PM »
I remember a remark about "in the Jug, you just let the nose drop and it dove like crazy, but you had to fly the Spitfire down."
Also, Gabreski, who flew both planes in combat said the Spitfire climbed well, but "it was so light, it just wouldn't dive"....or something very close to that.
I was thinking it was Zemke who said, when someone commented on the outstanding dive performance of the Jug vs LW fighters....."it ought to dive, it sure as hell won't climb!".....but, after 30+ years of reading this stuff my memory may not be 100% correct.  :D

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Spitfire vs P47
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2004, 06:18:04 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by eddiek
It really stood out in Johnson's book when he mentioned playing with the Spit in his Jug.
First time, he kinda surprised the Spit driver but using his roll rate to stick with the guy.  Got some E built up and zoom climbed away from the Spit, then when his E was used up, the Spit motored on up and past him.
Later, after the paddle blade prop was installed in his Jug, he was able to reverse those results....he says he pulled away from the Spit IX in a climb.  He didn't say, but I bet he was in "Lucky" when that happened, since it was the hotrodded Jug he mentioned in his interview with Widewing.


He surprised the Spit because he started with an altitude advantage.

Offline SunTracker

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1367
Spitfire vs P47
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2004, 07:59:37 PM »
P47 performance is directly related to engine thrust.  Lets not forget, that a souped-up P47 hit 504mph in July 1944 in level flight.

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9503
Spitfire vs P47
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2004, 08:57:08 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Wasn't it him who said:
"The P47 had to dive well, it surely wouldn't climb"?
I'll try to find it.

Don Blakeslee, 4th FG.  Those people never liked the 47, because they started out on spits.

- oldman

Offline JG14_Josf

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Spitfire vs P47
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2004, 10:17:41 PM »
"The following episode, found in Thunderbolt! by the World War II USAAF ace Robert S. Johnson, is one of the best examples available of the use of energy tactics (diving extension/pitch-back) to defeat a double-superior opponent. The encounter described is a mock combat engagement over England between Johnson (P-47C) and an unidentified RAF pilot in a new Spitfire IX. the Spitfire had about a 25 percent better power loading and nearly a 25 percent lower wing loading. The Thunderbolt's only performance advantages were faster top speed, greater acceleration in a dive (because of the P-47's heavier weight and higher density), and better roll performance.

I opened the throttle full and the Thunderbolt forged ahead. A moment later exhaust smoke poured from the Spit as the pilot came after me. He couldn't make it; the big Jug had a definite speed advantage. I grinned happily; I'd heard so much about this airplane that I really wanted to show the Thunderbolt to her pilot. The Jug kept pulling away from the Spitfire; suddenly I hauled back on the stick and lifted the nose. The Thunderbolt zoomed upward, soaring into the cloud-flecked sky. I looked out and back; the Spit was straining to match me, and barely able to hold his position.

But my advantage was only the zoom--once in steady climb, he had me. I gaped as smoke poured from the exhausts and the Spitfire shot past me as if I were standing still. Could that plane CLIMB! He tore upward in a climb I couldn't match with the Jug. Now it was his turn; the broad elliptical wings rolled, swung around, and the Spit screamed in, hell-bent on chewing me up.

This was going to be fun. I knew he could turn inside the heavy Thunderbolt; if I attempted to hold a tight turn, the Spitfire would slip right inside me. I knew also, that he could easily outclimb my fighter. I stayed out of those sucker traps. First rule in this kind of fight: don't fight the way your opponent fights best. No sharp turns; don't climb; keep him at your own level.

We were at 5,000 feet, the Spitfire skidding around hard and coming in on my tail. No use turning; he'd whip right inside me as if I were a truck loaded with cement, and snap out in firing position. Well, I had a few tricks too. The P-47 was faster, and I threw the ship into a roll. Right here I had him. The Jug could outroll any plane in the air, bar none. With my speed, roll was my only advantage, and I made full use of the manner in which the Thunderbolt could roll. I kicked the Jug into a wicked left roll, horizon spinning crazily, once, twice, into a third. As he turned to the left to follow, I tramped down on the right rudder, banged the stick over to the right. Around and around we went, left, right, left, right. I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire even completed his first. And this killed his ability to turn inside me. I refused to turn. Every time he tried to follow me in a roll, I flashed away to the opposite side, opening the gap between our planes.

Then I played the trump. The Spitfire was clawing wildly through the air, trying to follow me in a roll, when I dropped the nose. The Thunderbolt howled and ran for earth. Barely had the Spitfire started to follow--and I was a long way ahead of him by now--when I jerked back on the stick and threw the Jug into a zoom climb. In a straight or climbing turn, the British ship had the advantage. But coming out of a dive, there's not a British or German fighter than can come close to a Thunderbolt rushing upward in a zoom. Before the Spit pilot knew what had happened, I was high above him, and the Thunderbolt hammering around. And that was it--in the next few moments the Spitfire flier was amazed to see a less-maneuverable slower-climbing Thunderbolt rushing straight at him, eight guns pointing at his cockpit." (Fighter Combat, Robert Shaw)

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Spitfire vs P47
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2004, 10:58:25 PM »
I'm with Milo on this one.

 First, Johnson suddenly started the 'prank' and caught the Spit pilot by surprise. He took the initiative, and it is likely the Spit pilot did not know Johnson started a 'game' until he finalyy understood and decided to play along.

 If you read the article closely enough, you'll notice that were it real combat, there would be more than one opportunity for the Spit9 to get a close-range open firing solution on the P-47.

 Ofcourse, considering that this is the P-47 we're talking about, no disrespect in Johnson's skills at all. He managed an overshoot and caught the rear end of the Spit. This is definately not an easy thing to for sure.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Spitfire vs P47
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2004, 11:32:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MiloMorai
He surprised the Spit because he started with an altitude advantage.


Actually Milo, Bob and the Spitfire were flying in formation (same speed) when Bob firewalled the Jug and accelerated away. See pages 199-200 of 'Thunderbolt".

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20386
Spitfire vs P47
« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2004, 12:19:33 AM »
It's also Martin Caiden writing.  And while I like Caiden's work, you have to keep the "Caiden filter" on high as he tends to overdo it a bit sometimes.

Dan/Slack
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters