Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)

[MiloMorai]

The P-47 was regulated to a secondary role of ground attack when the P-51 replaced in the escort/fighter role.

[Saxman]

The P-47 was regulated to a secondary role of ground attack when the P-51 replaced in the escort/fighter role.

But that had nothing to do with the P-47s air-to-air capability, and was almost entirely because the P-47s didn't have the range (until later models like the P-47N) to stay with the bombers. The P-51 did, so got the job instead.

[GScholz]

It was also based on a recommendation from RAE after General Doolittle got them to test the fighters available to the USAAF early in 1944. RAE found that the P-38 and P-47 lacked the tactical Mach numbers necessary to effectively fight at high altitudes against German fighters, and recommend that the P-51 be used for that purpose.

[GScholz]

Skip to about 20 minutes in...

[MiloMorai]

But that had nothing to do with the P-47s air-to-air capability, and was almost entirely because the P-47s didn't have the range (until later models like the P-47N) to stay with the bombers. The P-51 did, so got the job instead.

Agreed.

[J.A.W.]

So, what does the A1 do, Vmax/Vne -wise in the A2A role?

High enough critical Mach to compete with the top prop fighters?

 

[J.A.W.]

Eric Brown was only a wee fella & found wrestling the Tempest at Mach 0.87
a bit of a handful, but other, stronger men used its high Vne rating in combat,
& routinely, according to official reports & memoirs.

http://www.hawkertempest.se/Testingforcombat.htm

[GScholz]

A-1 Vne is 330 knots if I'm not mistaken.

[Widewing]

It was also based on a recommendation from RAE after General Doolittle got them to test the fighters available to the USAAF early in 1944. RAE found that the P-38 and P-47 lacked the tactical Mach numbers necessary to effectively fight at high altitudes against German fighters, and recommend that the P-51 be used for that purpose.

Brown seems to interchange critical Mach with his tactical Mach term. Both Langley and NACA reported the critical Mach of the P-47 as Mach 0.73, a bit higher than Brown states. Later P-47s had dive recovery flaps, which mitigated some of the high Mach effect. Herb Fisher repeatedly demonstrated that the P-47 could be flown as fast a Mach 0.83 and still have some minimal control (using the recovery flaps). A few things Brown doesn't state, is that the Bf 109 was nearly worthless at Mach 0.75, it controls far too stiff for anything resembling maneuvering. He doesn't mention that above 25,000 feet, early 1944 190s were well above their FTH, and on the backside of the power curve. P-47s handily out-performed the primary Luftwaffe fighters at the altitudes the bombers typically flew at the time.

Brown's version of history seems a bit skewed (as is common for Brown). Someone forgot to tell the 8th AF Fighter Command that the P-47 was not adequate for killing the Luftwaffe. Someone also forgot to the tell the Luftwaffe as well.

The fact remains that Doolittle changed the tactics in the early spring of 1944. He adopted Zemke's idea of having a portion of the escort fan out well ahead of the bombers to disrupt the assembly of German fighter formations. Doolittle also turned the fighters loose to pursue and destroy the Luftwaffe wherever they could be found. When Doolittle took over the 8th AF, there was a sign above the door at 8th AF Fighter HQ that read, "The Duty of the Fighters is to Protect the Bombers". He had it replaced with his order... "The Duty of the Fighters is to Destroy the Luftwaffe". Indeed, Doolittle used the bombers as bait to lure up the Luftwaffe. That was the primary goal of Big Week.

Eric Brown has never been accused of being unbiased.

[J.A.W.]

If you are correct, then 330 knots wont cut it..

Pilots notes give the following Vne IAS speeds < 10,000ft..

Tempest - 540 mph,

Typhoon - 520 mph,

Mustang - 505 mph,

Thunderbolt - 500 mph,

Spitfire XIV, Fw 190, Bf 109, - 470 mph,

USN, P-38 & Mosquito - ~440 mph

The Tempests also attained their Vne speed quicker & held it longer in a zoom..


The Spitfire had good Mach potential but didn't accelerate quickly enough
in the dive to catch the LW pair when they went for the deck..



The addition of 'dive flaps' to the `38 & `47 enabled better control of
compressibility problems/fatal terminal dives, but did not increase the Vne
speeds to any useful proactive tactical combat  advantage..

[GScholz]

Earl, the 190F-8 was not just a fighter A-8 with bombs on it. It was very much a different plane.



The engine was optimized for low altitude operation and a bigger cooling fan was added. The engine, underside of the fuselage and cockpit had additional armor. The canopy was changed to a bubble-type (later also used on the Dora) and the pilot seat was raised to give the pilot better view for ground attack. The radio was different to allow for better cooperation with ground forces. The G-8 also had an autopilot and additional oil tank in place of the cowl armament. The landing gear was strengthened. Outboard gun armament was removed to allow for additional hardpoints under the wings. In the G-8 they also added plumbing in the wings for carrying droptanks.

[GScholz]

If you are correct, then 330 knots wont cut it..

That number is probably with stores though. In a clean config it is probably higher.

[earl1937]

That number is probably with stores though. In a clean config it is probably higher.

Douglas says 347 knots top speed, 405 VNE.

[J.A.W.]

 Too slow even so, & that model pic posted of the Skyraider packing max ordnance on folded wings, I doubt they did that in full-scale..

[GScholz]

Brown seems to interchange critical Mach with his tactical Mach term. Both Langley and NACA reported the critical Mach of the P-47 as Mach 0.73, a bit higher than Brown states. Later P-47s had dive recovery flaps, which mitigated some of the high Mach effect. Herb Fisher repeatedly demonstrated that the P-47 could be flown as fast a Mach 0.83 and still have some minimal control (using the recovery flaps). A few things Brown doesn't state, is that the Bf 109 was nearly worthless at Mach 0.75, it controls far too stiff for anything resembling maneuvering. He doesn't mention that above 25,000 feet, early 1944 190s were well above their FTH, and on the backside of the power curve. P-47s handily out-performed the primary Luftwaffe fighters at the altitudes the bombers typically flew at the time.

Brown didn't test "later P-47s" with dive recovery flaps. They were added exactly because of the P-47s shortcomings. Same with the 38. Recovery flaps did just that; allow the pilots to recover from an uncontrollable dive. The flaps didn't give the pilot more control in the dive. Nor did they allow the 47 to dive as fast as the 109s and 190s. Spits didn't need recovery flaps, 109s and 190s didn't need recovery flaps and could trim out of dives quite easily unlike the 47 or 38. P-51 didn't need recovery flaps.

At 30,000 feet Mach 0.75 is 508 mph TAS. That is about 60 mph faster than the max level speed of a 109K, or 85 mph more than that of a 109G-6/AS, and it is still quite maneuverable at those speeds. So I agree with Brown that the 109s tactical Mach number is about 0.75. Perhaps even a bit more if the pilot has above average upper body strength.

Brown's version of history seems a bit skewed (as is common for Brown). Someone forgot to tell the 8th AF Fighter Command that the P-47 was not adequate for killing the Luftwaffe. Someone also forgot to the tell the Luftwaffe as well.

Not at 25-30,000+ feet against 109 AS versions. The AS 109s were faster than the 47D at all altitudes up to about 40,000 feet, and could dive faster. At the lower altitudes the 47 worked well, and Brown points this out. The 8th AF did realize that the 47 was "not adequate for killing the Luftwaffe". That's why the 47 ended the war in Europe relegated to secondary roles like ground attack. The 38 was all but withdrawn from the ETO.

Eric Brown has never been accused of being unbiased.

And his detractors have never managed to do anything except "accuse" him of bias. Whenever I see "enthusiasts" accuse a professional test pilot of bias I go "riiiight". Yeah, there's bias alright, but it is not Brown's.