Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)

[Rich46yo]

How so? What made it more effective as a fighter?

Offhand? It was faster and climbed better. It also dived and rolled with the best of them. This is compared to the 190F.

[icepac]

In what?

In this.

[Debrody]

Offhand? It was faster and climbed better. It also dived and rolled with the best of them. This is compared to the 190F.

The P47D40 and the 190F has nearly identical wep speeds up to 18K where the jug leaps away. The 190 is a bit slower even down low, but historically it had MW50 enough for 30 minutes.
Pretty much the same with the climb rate, except the jug is leading more in this and the 190 just falls behind over 17K.

I would not argue about the dive as nothing on earth could every dive away from my 190 except a 262, felt very simmilar to a jug, but i found your comment about the jugs better roll rate to be absolutely nonsense.
Oh and now i was comparing the worstest 190 (F) with the bestest jug (D40)

[GScholz]

The P-47 had a larger bombload,

The 190 and 47 had very similar bombloads. Both typically carried between 1,000 and 2,000 lbs on operational sorties. Both could potentially carry upwards of 3,500-4,000 lbs; if fitted with an extended tail wheel the 190 could even carry the big ~4,000 lbs bomb the AH stuka carries. I consider the two aircraft equal in this regard.

was faster

Up high the 47 was faster due to it turbo-supercharged engine. However up high is not the realm of the Jabo. The Jabo flies low as a necessity of its mission.

was more survivable,

I regard both aircraft as equal in this regard. Both had tough radial engines and had tough structures that could take a lot of punishment.

I'd hazard the 8 0.50s were better for ground attack then the two MGs and 2 cannon of the 190,

I'm quite sure they weren't. While the .50 cal worked well against soft skinned vehicles they were practically useless against infantry and armor. The 190's 20mm fired a combination of AP and HE shells that had greater penetration against armor (AP) and much higher lethality against infantry (HE). A .50 cal round landing one inch from a soldier's boot does nothing. A 20mm HE shell landing ten feet from a soldier's boot will burst his eardrums and shower him in light shrapnel; at best he will only be a casualty, at worst a fatality.

had a longer range

Both aircraft had similar range on internal fuel. As Jabo the majority of sorties would be close air support for ground forces with the Jabos flying from forward airfields. However, for longer range missions both aircraft had the option to sacrifice ord for external fuel; usually a centerline droptank. For even longer range droptanks could be carried on the wings while carrying a single bomb on the centerline hardpoint. In this configuration I consider the 190 to be somewhat better than the 47 since it could carry a 1,100 lbs bomb.

was more effective as a fighter.

Only at higher altitudes. At lower altitudes (where Jabos need to be) the 190 was the better fighter IMHO.

It was the ultimate ground pounder/versatile Jabo.

It was very good indeed, but I consider the 190 to be superior in the Jabo role.

The F4U was a better dog fighter then the 190F, and I always thought it was much faster.

The 190 has always had a speed advantage against the F4U (not by much late in the war though). Even in 1941 the 190 was a 400+ mph fighter and rudely demonstrated that turning never wins an air battle.

[GScholz]

In this.

(Image removed from quote.)

Ah... Sure it could do 400+ mph... in a dive. Like I said in my previous post, the Fw 190 was a 400+ mph fighter in 1941.

[asterix]

P47 
Good durability, firepower, speed, reasonable selection of different bombs/rockets. That is what I would fly.
I am a little biased because it is also the most awesome looking prop plane in my opinion.

[GScholz]

Offhand? It was faster and climbed better. It also dived and rolled with the best of them. This is compared to the 190F.

Up high it was faster, and climbed better, but down low the 190 was faster and the better climber (190A/F-8 vs 47D-25/40). As for diving, the 47 had a critical Mach problem; the only allied fighters that could match or best the 109 and 190 in dives were the Spit and 51. That doesn't mean the 47 wasn't successful in bouncing 109s and 190s from altitude. However in a side-by-side dive from the same alt and speed against the 109 and 190 the 47 would lose the race to the deck.

[Saxman]

F4U-1  had a top speed of ~417mph. It's faster than all of the 190s in AH except the Dora and Ta-152. This includes the 1944 A8. The F4U-1D, slightly slower than the -1 due to the fixed pylons and which is a better comparison, still maintains a marginal speed advantage over the same models.

Still wish HT would add the 2000lb centerline bomb option for the late hogs. 4000lbs (2000lber on the center, a pair of 1000lbers on the left and right pylons).

[gyrene81]

The Corsair wasn't carrier capable for much of the pacific war, arriving to late on carriers to play a decisive role. The British were the first to put them on carriers, however they had such a very small carrier group to even make a dent in the war (look at the FAA kill list to determine this).
In my opinion the hellcat then wildcat played a more decisive role, if only the corsair wasn't plagued so heavily from a lack of carrier operation, it would of easily been the star of the pacific.

you might want to check the carrier ops time periods for the u.s. again. true they weren't used on carriers as much as the f6f but, if i remember correctly, the 1d model got the needed upgrades that made it more suitable for carrier ops than it's predecessors. considering the role the corsair played in the pto delivering a large amount of ordnance and achieving an 11:1 kill ratios, i would have to disagree that the hellcat and wildcat play a more decisive role. the hellcat in the same role didn't have the same impact.

Ah... The F4U-4. It's contemporary 190A/F would be the -9. Produced from September 1944 in its last version it had the uprated BMW 801F motor that delivered 2,400 hp. The 190F in the Smithsonian has this engine. That's more power than the F4U-4 in an airframe that's 2,000 lbs lighter and less draggy.

So I'm curious of what advantage the F4U proponents in this thread think the Corsair had over its contemporary 190?

how is the 190a9 a contemporary of the f4u? it couldn't carry near the playload, operate at near the altitude nor did it have the same speed.

and where did you get the 801f as being the primary power plant for the a9? all i've ever seen documented was the 801s or ts.

the a9 had a top speed of what, 419mph at altitude and 360mph at sea level?...the "draggy" corsair could do 453mph at altitude and 446mph at sea level.

[-ammo-]

The 190 and 47 had very similar bombloads. Both typically carried between 1,000 and 2,000 lbs on operational sorties. Both could potentially carry upwards of 3,500-4,000 lbs; if fitted with an extended tail wheel the 190 could even carry the big ~4,000 lbs bomb the AH stuka carries. I consider the two aircraft equal in this regard.

All around, I am of the opinion that both were effective FBs; however, the P-47 had better characteristics enabling it to handle heavy payloads better than the FW190.

Up high the 47 was faster due to it turbo-supercharged engine. However up high is not the realm of the Jabo. The Jabo flies low as a necessity of its mission.

The argument is which was the best all around FB - not just in the JABO role.

I regard both aircraft as equal in this regard. Both had tough radial engines and had tough structures that could take a lot of punishment.

I agree to an extent - but I can't believe the FW was more rugged (take more punishment) than the Jug.  I have read too many books - accounts from both sides - and the Jug had mucho respect from both sides in this regard.  You just don't hear or read in documented history about the FW190 being rugged, but is a common theme with the Jug.

I'm quite sure they weren't. While the .50 cal worked well against soft skinned vehicles they were practically useless against infantry and armor. The 190's 20mm fired a combination of AP and HE shells that had greater penetration against armor (AP) and much higher lethality against infantry (HE). A .50 cal round landing one inch from a soldier's boot does nothing. A 20mm HE shell landing ten feet from a soldier's boot will burst his eardrums and shower him in light shrapnel; at best he will only be a casualty, at worst a fatality.

The allies had API, and it was very effective against medium armor and personnel. I read recently where the Jug was responsible for the destruction of over 30,000 armored vehicles, trains, and assorted military vehicles in the ETO.  

The MG 151/20 were very effective against AC - to be sure. However Egon Meyer (spelling?) couldn't down Bob Johnson's D5 with a full load.

The 50 cal had a rate of fire of 800 RPM.  Times that by 8 - 6400 rounds per minute - 106 rounds per second.  That is an incredible amount of fire focused on a target.  The fire rate of the MG 151/20 was slightly inferior to the M2, but makes for it with energy.

I consider the 190 to be superior in the Jabo role.

How do you come that opinion?  I'm a P-47 homer - no doubt, so its easy for me to recognize "homerism". which this looks like:)

[Debrody]

the a9 had a top speed of what, 419mph at altitude and 360mph at sea level?...the "draggy" corsair could do 453mph at altitude and 446mph at sea level.

446 at sea level might be a bit much, bruh 

[-ammo-]

I found your comment about the jugs better roll rate to be absolutely nonsense.

The FW190 roll rate was one of its trademark advantages, and I know of no USAAF AC that had a better roll rate.  Reading accounts of ETO pilots supports this.

[GScholz]

how is the 190a9 a contemporary of the f4u? it couldn't carry near the playload, operate at near the altitude nor did it have the same speed.

They entered service approximately at the same time during the closing months of the war in Europe. Their normal payloads were similar, though the 190 could carry upwards of 4,000 lbs for special missions. The 190's gun package was also better for air to mud operations. Up to about 15k the 190A/F-9 was faster than the F4U-4.

and where did you get the 801f as being the primary power plant for the a9? all i've ever seen documented was the 801s or ts.

The BMW 801F was always the engine meant for the -9, however the late 1944 production models got the S because the F wasn't quite ready yet. Beginning in January 1945 the F engines started to become available and hundreds of 190A/F-9 were build with the T engine.

the a9 had a top speed of what, 419mph at altitude and 360mph at sea level?...the "draggy" corsair could do 453mph at altitude and 446mph at sea level.

Altitude performance is not very important for a Jabo. The S/L speed of the A/F-9 was equal to the D-9 at 610 kmh according to German tests. That makes it just as fast on the deck as the F4U-4 and faster up to about 15k due to the F4U-4 losing power rapidly as altitude increases above S/L. I'll consider your claim of 446 mph at S/L as a typo or brain fart on your part.

[GScholz]

F4U-1  had a top speed of ~417mph. It's faster than all of the 190s in AH except the Dora and Ta-152. This includes the 1944 A8. The F4U-1D, slightly slower than the -1 due to the fixed pylons and which is a better comparison, still maintains a marginal speed advantage over the same models.

Still wish HT would add the 2000lb centerline bomb option for the late hogs. 4000lbs (2000lber on the center, a pair of 1000lbers on the left and right pylons).

You're absolutely right that the F4U-1/1a was faster, but it was no fighter-bomber. I've compared the 190 to the F4U-1D which was an excellent fighter-bomber.

[GScholz]

All around, I am of the opinion that both were effective FBs; however, the P-47 had better characteristics enabling it to handle heavy payloads better than the FW190.

I'm not sure what you mean by "better characteristics"; both aircraft typically carried similar payloads.

The argument is which was the best all around FB - not just in the JABO role.

Jabo means fighter-bomber. I'm not sure what you mean by "all round FB".

I agree to an extent - but I can't believe the FW was more rugged (take more punishment) than the Jug.  I have read too many books - accounts from both sides - and the Jug had mucho respect from both sides in this regard.  You just don't hear or read in documented history about the FW190 being rugged, but is a common theme with the Jug.

The Jug is a much more celebrated and written about aircraft, so that's hardly surprising. The Jug was very big and could absorb a lot of punishment, but "a lot" in this regard is a couple of 20mm shells. In real life a short burst of cannon fire would destroy any and all aircraft, including the Jug. Bob Johnson was simply an incredibly lucky man.

The allies had API, and it was very effective against medium armor and personnel. I read recently where the Jug was responsible for the destruction of over 30,000 armored vehicles, trains, and assorted military vehicles in the ETO.

.50 cal API wasn't effective against anything but the lightest of armor and soft skinned vehicles, and you'd have to hit a soldier directly. By comparison the MG 151/20 is firing 10 shells per second with about 2-3 of them being pure AP with much more energy than a .50 cal, and 7-8 being HE/HE(T) which are like small hand grenades against ground targets.

The MG 151/20 were very effective against AC - to be sure. However Egon Meyer (spelling?) couldn't down Bob Johnson's D5 with a full load.

Meyer was out of 20mm. He only had the 7.98mm MGs left. Still Johnson's survival is astounding. I've seen guncam footage showing a P-47 disintegrating after being hit by a burst of 20mm; all the shells and bullets must have missed every critical part that would have destroyed him.

The 50 cal had a rate of fire of 800 RPM.  Times that by 8 - 6400 rounds per minute - 106 rounds per second.  That is an incredible amount of fire focused on a target.  The fire rate of the MG 151/20 was slightly inferior to the M2, but makes for it with energy.

There is nothing focused about wing mounted guns, and strafing at convergence is nearly impossible. The cannon's advantage over the machine gun is not only the kinetic energy, but the chemical energy. An autocannon is literally firing a stream of shells about as powerful as hand grenades.