A/c performance

[Karnak]

I know the answer to this is burn the fuel down on a spit8 and it will become this.

LF.Mk IX with wing tips.

He wants the .50s which the Spit VIII doesn't have.

[Gaston]

  Robert Johnson also precisely claimed his 72" boosted P-47D did over 470 MPH TAS at 30 000 ft., even though actual charts of actual P-47D overboosting speeds show ZERO increases in speed above 25 000 ft from overboosting (most of the speed increase is largely below 20 000 ft)... There is no way he would not know this before spouting this utter garbage near the end of his life... His whole aim is to have you think his favourite aircraft, the one he was flying, was some sort of super-weapon...: Since he dumbly believed it was less maneuverable than the "celebrity" P-51 he didn't fly in combat, and an aircraft whose reputation he probably jealoused (when in fact the Razorback P-47D evidently sustains slow turns better in combat, despite most US tests claiming otherwise), he then felt he had to come up with some dumb uber trash about his P-47's speed...

  I encountered this same sort of grotesque attitude in a Facebook exchange with Chuck Yeager -writing himself, given the vindictive behaviour-, who did not like my pointing out on his page that the P-51D had twice the gun stoppages of the contemporary period P-47D, and this throughout the war (stoppages varied a lot with altitude, and altitude dropped later on): The stoppages went from 3-4 times or more those of the P-47D (in the P-51B) to just under twice later on (in the D): The P-51's gun stoppage issue was thus never fully solved, even on the D... Chuck Yeager dumbly berated my late 1940s source as a non-pilot, even though I pointed out he had used actual 8th Air Force stats...

  There are numerous instance where Chuck Yeager was demonstrated to be a liar, merely with the aim to embellish stupidly some story that needed no embellishment at all: If Chuck Yeager or Robert Johnson were to tell you the sky is blue, you would need to look up and check...

 I think when Robert johnson claims to outclimb a Spitfire with a P-47D, just because of the paddle-blade prop (climb charts show a large but not phenomenal increase), you must understand this is one of the few combat pilots who can't be trusted at all, yet he is the one who will give you by far the most juicy details, the two things being apparently related... Usually combat pilots give very few precise details: It makes him highly quotable by many authors (sadly), but the 470 MPH speed thing alone destroys his credibility completely... I also think his description of the P-47 vs the Spitfire mock combat is mostly relevant and useful for the comparative roll rate (The Spitfire IX didn't sustain turns that well, certainly a bit worse than the V, and Spitfires liked to use the vertical above all else, as the Russians found out to their dismay, being more used to turning matches...).

  For the relative climb rate comparison of those two, you can imagine that climb charts will help you more than he ever intended to...

  Gaston

[Oldman731]

I hope Widewing happens along here soon.

Otherwise, Mr. Gaston, what is your experience flying P-47s and P-51s in combat? 

- oldman

[JVboob]

All my combat was in the super secret P-38-N-8 467mphTAS at 28,000, 4,200'/min climb at max power, a range of 3,600mi., could roll like a 190D9 and turn on the inside of a zeke at any altitude. 4 20mm hispanios and a 37mm in the nose along with 6 .5in in the wings next to the nacille. Compression was beat via special fins that would deploy automatically at 450mph TAS. And to top it off it could hold 8 500lbs under each wing and carried 14 HVARs.

Johnsons Jugg and yeagers Pony were no match for our 38Ns

<S> 49Boob

[Gman]

Gaston doesn't need to be a pilot of either plane to point out ridiculous claims other pilots have made of "their" aircraft in WW2.  I've followed Yeager since he went online, and I know precisely what Gaston is referring to regarding Yeager's many gaffs in recent years - forgivable IMO due to his age and service, but there have been many nonetheless. 



Connie Edwards at 4:00 of the video below says some things that P51 and Spitfire pilots of the era would argue with, the 5800fpm climb on a derated motor being foremost.

http://planelopnik.kinja.com/barn-find-messerchmitt-starts-after-40-years-in-storage-1658827467



Anyhow, point being, is that guys get a "favorite" aircraft, such as the 109 for Connie Edwards, and then embellish their abilities a little at times, in both books, interviews, whatever.  5800 sustained climb with a derated motor...out turning both the P51 and Spitfire...(P51 I'm sure this is true with SOME models of the 109 in certain areas of the flight envelope, but it isn't a wide sweeping factual statement either). 

I've never flown any of the above planes Edwards spoke of, but I can find you 100 books and other pilots that will disagree completely with what he's saying about the 109s.  This sort of thing supports what Gaston is saying IMO - pilots become loyal to "their" aircraft, and some of the things said by some of these pilots isn't always 100% accurate.  Edwards is a great guy from what I've read and seen, I respect him a lot, his experience, and so on, but I'm sure Yeager and other P51 pilots would be instantly arguing some of the points he made in that video, especially the near 6000fpm on derated motors claim.

[glzsqd]

  Robert Johnson also precisely claimed his 72" boosted P-47D did over 470 MPH TAS at 30 000 ft., even though actual charts of actual P-47D overboosting speeds show ZERO increases in speed above 25 000 ft from overboosting (most of the speed increase is largely below 20 000 ft)... There is no way he would not know this before spouting this utter garbage near the end of his life... His whole aim is to have you think his favourite aircraft, the one he was flying, was some sort of super-weapon...: Since he dumbly believed it was less maneuverable than the "celebrity" P-51 he didn't fly in combat, and an aircraft whose reputation he probably jealoused (when in fact the Razorback P-47D evidently sustains slow turns better in combat, despite most US tests claiming otherwise), he then felt he had to come up with some dumb uber trash about his P-47's speed...

  I encountered this same sort of grotesque attitude in a Facebook exchange with Chuck Yeager -writing himself, given the vindictive behaviour-, who did not like my pointing out on his page that the P-51D had twice the gun stoppages of the contemporary period P-47D, and this throughout the war (stoppages varied a lot with altitude, and altitude dropped later on): The stoppages went from 3-4 times or more those of the P-47D (in the P-51B) to just under twice later on (in the D): The P-51's gun stoppage issue was thus never fully solved, even on the D... Chuck Yeager dumbly berated my late 1940s source as a non-pilot, even though I pointed out he had used actual 8th Air Force stats...

  There are numerous instance where Chuck Yeager was demonstrated to be a liar, merely with the aim to embellish stupidly some story that needed no embellishment at all: If Chuck Yeager or Robert Johnson were to tell you the sky is blue, you would need to look up and check...

 I think when Robert johnson claims to outclimb a Spitfire with a P-47D, just because of the paddle-blade prop (climb charts show a large but not phenomenal increase), you must understand this is one of the few combat pilots who can't be trusted at all, yet he is the one who will give you by far the most juicy details, the two things being apparently related... Usually combat pilots give very few precise details: It makes him highly quotable by many authors (sadly), but the 470 MPH speed thing alone destroys his credibility completely... I also think his description of the P-47 vs the Spitfire mock combat is mostly relevant and useful for the comparative roll rate (The Spitfire IX didn't sustain turns that well, certainly a bit worse than the V, and Spitfires liked to use the vertical above all else, as the Russians found out to their dismay, being more used to turning matches...).

  For the relative climb rate comparison of those two, you can imagine that climb charts will help you more than he ever intended to...

  Gaston

 
Old people exaggerating?! THATS UNHEARD OF! Stop acting like they've committed some kind of travesty.

[PR3D4TOR]

Fighter pilots (and pilots in general) have a lot in common with fishermen when it comes to telling stories...

[Bodhi]

Gman,
Connie is no stranger to embellishment.

[Ack-Ack]

I hope Widewing happens along here soon.

Otherwise, Mr. Gaston, what is your experience flying P-47s and P-51s in combat? 

- oldman

You can search these forums for other posts from Gaston and you can see that he really doesn't have a clue and is nothing more than a frustrated wanna-be game designer with a failed table top "flight sim" game.

ack-ack

[Widewing]

  Robert Johnson also precisely claimed his 72" boosted P-47D did over 470 MPH TAS at 30 000 ft., even though actual charts of actual P-47D overboosting speeds show ZERO increases in speed above 25 000 ft from overboosting (most of the speed increase is largely below 20 000 ft)... There is no way he would not know this before spouting this utter garbage near the end of his life... His whole aim is to have you think his favourite aircraft, the one he was flying, was some sort of super-weapon...: Since he dumbly believed it was less maneuverable than the "celebrity" P-51 he didn't fly in combat, and an aircraft whose reputation he probably jealoused (when in fact the Razorback P-47D evidently sustains slow turns better in combat, despite most US tests claiming otherwise), he then felt he had to come up with some dumb uber trash about his P-47's speed...

  I encountered this same sort of grotesque attitude in a Facebook exchange with Chuck Yeager -writing himself, given the vindictive behaviour-, who did not like my pointing out on his page that the P-51D had twice the gun stoppages of the contemporary period P-47D, and this throughout the war (stoppages varied a lot with altitude, and altitude dropped later on): The stoppages went from 3-4 times or more those of the P-47D (in the P-51B) to just under twice later on (in the D): The P-51's gun stoppage issue was thus never fully solved, even on the D... Chuck Yeager dumbly berated my late 1940s source as a non-pilot, even though I pointed out he had used actual 8th Air Force stats...

  There are numerous instance where Chuck Yeager was demonstrated to be a liar, merely with the aim to embellish stupidly some story that needed no embellishment at all: If Chuck Yeager or Robert Johnson were to tell you the sky is blue, you would need to look up and check...

 I think when Robert johnson claims to outclimb a Spitfire with a P-47D, just because of the paddle-blade prop (climb charts show a large but not phenomenal increase), you must understand this is one of the few combat pilots who can't be trusted at all, yet he is the one who will give you by far the most juicy details, the two things being apparently related... Usually combat pilots give very few precise details: It makes him highly quotable by many authors (sadly), but the 470 MPH speed thing alone destroys his credibility completely... I also think his description of the P-47 vs the Spitfire mock combat is mostly relevant and useful for the comparative roll rate (The Spitfire IX didn't sustain turns that well, certainly a bit worse than the V, and Spitfires liked to use the vertical above all else, as the Russians found out to their dismay, being more used to turning matches...).

  For the relative climb rate comparison of those two, you can imagine that climb charts will help you more than he ever intended to...

  Gaston

Gaston, you should show some respect for Johnson, and even Yeager (and I do not like Yeager, at all). Their accomplishments speak for themselves. Kindly describe yours. Surely you must have something to support your expertise, other than charts. Are you a pilot? A military pilot?

I knew the man, and even in his old age, I'm quite sure you lack the courage (or stupidity) to call him a liar to his face while he was alive.

You are the worst kind of wannabe. All wind, no sails.

No knows today specifically what was modified on his P-47, beyond installing a CH-5 turbo being combat tested by Pratt & Whitney and Republic. I believe a limited number of CH-5s were installed 56th and 78th FG Thunderbolts. At least, that's what Pappy Gould stated. Johnson would also tell you that only one of his P-47s was so equipped (with the CH-5). I believe that aircraft was lost in an accident while being flown by another 56th pilot.

You appear to have looked at test data using 150 octane fuel (70 in/hg) in a P-47D-22 and formed your opinion. Opinions are conclusions invariably drawn with a lack of knowledge. If we examine the P-47M data, we clearly see a substantial boost in speed with 72 in/hg at all altitudes, but especially above 30,000 feet. So, higher boost pressure doesn't always mean a reduced critical altitude. Many factors in the induction configuration determine that. Unless someone had actually tested Johnson's Jug, we're just going to have to take his word for it. You may not, but I'd rather listen to Kermit the frog's thoughts on quantum mechanics than your ramblings on combat aircraft performance.

[morfiend]

   Well said Wide,others should read this post and learn the proper way to deal with a troll!

   I like you,wide,dont really care much about Yeager but he gets my respect by default.  If not for those young bucks we may have an entirely different way of life,far too many forget this!


   

[save]

I think most spit pilots wants the 4*20mm

He wants the .50s which the Spit VIII doesn't have.

[Karnak]

I think most spit pilots wants the 4*20mm

Well, I joined AH to fly Spits and I don't want the quad 20mm, I have argued against it.  Guppy's favorite aircraft is the Spitfire Mk XII and he has also strongly argued against four 20mm cannons on Spitfires.

I would say that most Spit pilots do not want four 20mm cannons.  It is possible that most players who chose Spits do want four 20mm cannons, but even then I am skeptical of it.

[PJ_Godzilla]

I seem to recall that it was Gaston who attempted to refute basic physics in disputing the sustained turn rate of the 190 A series. Those pages stretched for miles. IIRC, there is a weight issue on the 190 in game, but I also recall that, were we to fettle the weight, the W/S was still relatively high. I recognize that the sustained turn rate equation only gives a partial picture, since other factors can limit the sustained turn rate (eg, the structural limits), but I always use it as a rough guide to assess best case possible sustained turn perf. Gaston's arguments failed this basic test. I thus binned him as either non-technical or as pushing an agenda and consequently tend to take this latest assertion with contempt prior to investigation.

[Gaston]

Gaston, you should show some respect for Johnson, and even Yeager (and I do not like Yeager, at all). Their accomplishments speak for themselves. Kindly describe yours. Surely you must have something to support your expertise, other than charts. Are you a pilot? A military pilot?

I knew the man, and even in his old age, I'm quite sure you lack the courage (or stupidity) to call him a liar to his face while he was alive.

You are the worst kind of wannabe. All wind, no sails.

No knows today specifically what was modified on his P-47, beyond installing a CH-5 turbo being combat tested by Pratt & Whitney and Republic. I believe a limited number of CH-5s were installed 56th and 78th FG Thunderbolts. At least, that's what Pappy Gould stated. Johnson would also tell you that only one of his P-47s was so equipped (with the CH-5). I believe that aircraft was lost in an accident while being flown by another 56th pilot.

You appear to have looked at test data using 150 octane fuel (70 in/hg) in a P-47D-22 and formed your opinion. Opinions are conclusions invariably drawn with a lack of knowledge. If we examine the P-47M data, we clearly see a substantial boost in speed with 72 in/hg at all altitudes, but especially above 30,000 feet. So, higher boost pressure doesn't always mean a reduced critical altitude. Many factors in the induction configuration determine that. Unless someone had actually tested Johnson's Jug, we're just going to have to take his word for it. You may not, but I'd rather listen to Kermit the frog's thoughts on quantum mechanics than your ramblings on combat aircraft performance.

  Structural limits on sustained turns PJ_Godzilla? That sounds really advanced...

  As far as R. Johnson is concerned, he claimed in his interview to have invented vertical fighting, and then went on to describe in detail how the Germans couldn't do anything against him they were so awed by his "innovation"... I think this is all a pretty clear and fair warning that we are dealing with a blowhard here... I think there was also talk how his extreme physical strength allowed a faster roll rate than the airframe would give other pilots... I don't know... It all says "red flag" to me but, anyhow, what do I know right?

  He is the only pilot I remember reading, in hundreds of P-47 combat reports, who places a FW-190D before June of 1944, an aircraft that first came out in September, long after Johnson was home... But that is easily forgivable, beyond duly noting that very few of the other pilots did it that early... Let's go into the less forgiveable:

  When we talk about a P-47D, let's be clear we are talking about something that is not even in the same galaxy as a P-47M...

  As far as I can tell, Johnson's tour of duty ended in MAY 1944... And you believe him when he claims performance from a 1943 airframe that almost matches the P-47M that appeared only in early 1945?????...

  Let me put this in perspective: If a genuine Fw-190A pilot were to tell you his late 1943 A-6 Anton was GM-1 boosted to the same high altitude speed/climb performance as a Ta-152, would you believe him on face value? That's exactly what you are doing here...

  Johnson claims enormous speed increases from overboosting his D to 72" above 25 000 ft. (I can't quite recall the extent of his fantasy, but he was basically adding 50-70 mph at 30 000 ft. were even the later D-22 shows the same 72" overboosting added NOTHING to bone-stock standard speed above 25 000 ft...)... His P-47D was a much earlier block than D-22... Even if his aircraft was upgraded to a later block, it still had no more to do with an M than a FW-190A has to do with a Ta-152... If he had a better turbo, why do none of the much later blocks show any evidence of this for more than a year? Well he was just so special you know...

  Is it even possible? Who knows. Given the general demeanor of the guy, should we believe it? NO.

  The very fact you would even mention the hugely re-engineered M engine to support your point shows you have nothing concrete to stand on...

  Do you realize the M is basically one of the fastest-climbing piston-engine fighter of WWII? And you want to compare that to an early P-47D, which was one of the slowest climbing?

   His attempts to exaggerate all the stereotypical "perceived" strong points of the P-47D (Speed, strength, climb-?-, high altitude, zoom, roll rate) are particularly sad in that he actually completely misses some of the more remarkable, and routinely used, strong points of the P-47D, namely that it could sustain tight medium/slow-speed LEVEL turns with just about anything short of a FW-190A, and the Razorback in particular routinely ate for dinner any Me-109Gs that tried to sustain prolonged level turns with it (sustained level turning being the no 1 obsessive tactic of most P-47D pilots, if you do any after-action report reading, not edited-out by Shaw that is , -this being quite unlike the dive and zoom obsessed Spitfire btw...-): Typically the P-47D gained 120 degrees per level 360 turn on the 109G, the slower and more level the better, all the way down to the deck at 130 mph...

  I have no doubt the early P-47D Razorback could indeed sustain constant speed level turns better than a Spitfire Mk IX, particularly with a needle tip prop... It probably could not start the turn as hard in the first 180, especially from low speed...

  I have an account of 16 P-47Ds in a prolonged dogfight on the deck, with 20+ Me-109Gs, while each were carrying two 1000 lbs bombs, with 16 pilots mentioning in an overall conclusion that they were pleased they could more than hold their own in turning matches with Me-109Gs with their 2000 lbs bombload onboard while turning on the deck. Axis losses: 3 Me-109Gs shot down to one P-47D damaged... This was a prolonged twenty minutes dogfight, and the bridge was bombed at the end of it...

  The source for the bomb run story is in the Osprey book about P-47 operations in Italy, on a bridge named "Aquapendente". I won't bother with more detail, since I doubt any amount of true stories with multiple witnesses could ever change your mind, or anyone else's sadly...

  Let's just say that I'll bet that when discussing the P-47's advantages, Robert Johnson didn't mention out-turning Me-109Gs on the deck while carrying 2000 lbs of bombs... Since he was obviously so keen about promoting his mount, I'll ask you: Why do you think that is so?... I think my jaw would have dropped at this story even more than at 470 MPH at 30 000 ft...

  Gaston