Uriel... it ain't the horsepower that counts, its whether or not your plane can use it.
If horsepower were the sole-determinant of how an aircraft performs, than the B-17 should be unstoppable. It should climb 4 times better than any fighter we have, fly 4 times faster, etc. etc.
The P-47 is a very big Aircraft. It has a 40 foot wingspan.
That's wider than most houses.
It also has a very big engine, which weighs a great deal and has to work harder to counter its own weight. Whereas smaller engines do not in order to get the same performance.
Sure the P-47 has big props, wide props, and can be very fast. I've outrun Tempests, Ponies, Spits, Corsairs, Lalas and almost caught a 262 in it.
But it sure as hell ain't an I Win button. Its a ground-attack fighter at low alts, in the hands of a good pilot it can dogfight some at low alts. In the hands of a great pilot it can dominate at low alts against bad-mediocre pilots. But down low its weight and size kill it. Lighter, faster aircraft can easily outperform it. Because unlike the Corsair, which is comparable in weight and horsepower, it can't use all those horses like the Corsair. Its not built like the Corsair and is possibly, given most MA conditions, the worst turnfighter I've ever seen. ... Except maybe a lancaster... I'll have to do some research on that one... (And yes, I have had someone chase me down and try to dogfight me with a lancaster...)
Where the P-47 exels in the dogfighting area, and what it is famous for, is high altitude fighting. Which you don't see very often in the MA because we don't have fleets of Bombers at 25,000 feet to escort.
Why it excelled so much in WWII is because at those high altitudes the 109 and 190, much lighter fighters with smaller engines, smaller props, and designed for lower engagements, were out of their element whereas the P-47 was in its glory zone.
Below 20,000 feet a Good pilot in a P-47 will likely lose to a good pilot in a 109. Simply because the 109 performs significantly better at mid-altitude.
