P-47 vs P-51

[ThrutheWirez]

Pardon my ignorance but can anyone explain the major differences between this and the P-51? I own the P-51 and i like flying it from time to time to scratch the WWII itch, but is this plane different enough from it that it would be worth a buy or would i be better getting something such as the spitfire or a German plane?

[RodBorza]

P-51 - Light, fast not rugged. A sports car. Made for chasing other planes around. Everything made exactly to fit.

 

A water coooled in-line Merlin engine that you must baby sit all the time.

 

 

P-47 - Heavy (the heaviest of all the WWII), fast, very rugged. A pickup truck. Made for dogfight AND ground attack from the start.

Everything made with a lot of margin.

 

An air cooled radial engine you can abuse.

 

If ground attack is your business (mine is, I suck at air-to air) the Jug is the way to go.

 

It is not a coincidence that the A-10 is called the Thunderbolt II.

Edited June 9, 2020 by RodBorza

[Voyager]

Actually, it wasn't made for ground attack. It was actually built to respond to a high altitude interceptor requirement: http://joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p47_1.html

 

The P-47 is one of two fighters that were successfully able to integrate a turbocharger system, the other being the Lockheed P-38. That turbo have it the best high altitude performance of any fighter in WWII, with the possible exception of some late war German experimental fighters using nitrous oxide to deal with the altitude problems.

 

The P-51 was a designer's concept of the ideal general purpose fighter, that was aimed at incorporating all of the lessons learned during the first half of the war.

 

The P-47 is a much earlier design developed out of a much older plane line as is a much more complicated beast because of it. But it was also a very flexible aircraft that was able to perform in many roles outside of its original interceptor specification. But it's fundamentally an older design and carries a lot of the weird quirks of something that really is a culmination of the original 1930's SEV-3 concept.

[Art-J]

As Voyager pointed above, T-bolt is an evolution of earlier designs and it shows.

 

I like this beast very much even in its EA stage of development, but I admit it's overall less of a pilot's plane than Mustang, and I'm not surprised that the airforce standardized on the latter eventually. For me T-bolt is worse in three general areas:

 

a) ergonomics - with cluttered cockpit and smaller, less readable gauges;

b) less automation / more laborious piloting - more gauges to monitor and more switches/levers to operate in order to make and keep the engine happy;

c) more difficult handling - with more pitch and yaw instability, turbo-lag and lack of MAP regulator as effective as the one in the 'Stang.

 

Granted, one could say these drawbacks give the plane its unique character and there are plenty of people who like flying more challenging machines not despite of these issues, but because of them. So it's up to you if you like some extra challenge.

[Voyager]

After re-reading some of the pilot accounts, after having flown this version a few times now, I begin to suspect that the best pilots may have actually been using that instability to their advantage. In Johnson's infamous Spitfire account, he's talking about heavy use of rudder in the roll, and some really wild manuvering, which, for me at leaat, would most likely end in a departure rather than a firing solution.

 

Yet, despite it feeling very non-linear, it also seems to have a certain, I'm not sure if predictablity is the right word? But I sort of feel like with enough time in the plane, I could use this...

 

I do notice a lot of the big scoring P-47 aces all seem to have come out of the group that did the long run-up stint with the early 'B' and 'C' models. And there does seem to be this sharp divide between pilots who loved the plane and pilots who hated it with a burning passion.

 

I think this is leading me to the opinion that this is not going to be a plane for more infrequent pilots just because of all the weird mannerisms. So it will be very different than the P-51, but you may hate it with a burning passion, or find yourself enjoying figuring out how to get it to do the weird things it can be capable of.

 

Son to sum it up, if the F-14 or MiG-21 appeal to you because they are crazy require six arms to fly and always trying to depart controlled flight when you do something crazy, but can really sit up and dance once you've mastered them, this plane will probably appeal to you. Otherwise, the P-51 really is ten Cadillac of the sky. The Thunderbolt is a bit more Mad Max.

[twistking]

i've heard conflicting statements about the speed when flying low.

 

how does it compare to the p-51 when under 1000 ft?

[diogofalcao]

i've heard conflicting statements about the speed when flying low.

 

how does it compare to the p-51 when under 1000 ft?

 

Max I could achieve was around 300mph (not diving for speed).

That with no water injection.

[Enduro14]

I actually got best speed with prop rpm at 2250, this was in the take off training mission that takes place in Cauc's 310 on the gauge level flight around 3000 ish feet. Really depends on cowl flaps and intercooler oil cooler doors aswell. Allot to play with in this bird i love it.

[Voyager]

i've heard conflicting statements about the speed when flying low.

 

how does it compare to the p-51 when under 1000 ft?

 

It will depend on what fuel and WI config the planes are at. In general for a comparable P-47 and P-51, the P-51 will be faster at low level, and the P-47 will be equivalent or somewhat faster at high level. But, we're really talking the 25-30kft+ range. Greg's Airplanes and Autos has a break down of the razorback era P-47 as compared to several contemporary aircraft here:

at 22:53.

 

The main difference is the P-51 has a cleaner air frame with lower overall drag, so it is able to go faster for its horsepower than the majority of its contemporaries.

 

Right now, the EA P-47 does not seem to have the WI system implemented yet so we seem to be limited to around 52" of power. (At least I haven't figured out how to get it above that yet at any altitude). That along with the current fuel tank limits means we've more or less got the performance of a P-47C model, albeit with the amenities of the late D-30 model, so be aware of that going in.

 

Addendum: as of Open Beta 2.5.6.50726, the plane is now able to make 64", however, the ADI/WI part of that is not yet implemented. The ADI itself didn't add much, if any, power to the engine: what it did was allow the engine to run at higher power settings without going into detonation.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Voyager

[kingsnake11]

The p-47 was remarkably sturdy and came back with punishment that would otherwise bring down other aircraft. It happened to be very good at low level attacks, being able to see targets down low. In fact, many believe that the p-47 was instrumental in stopping and decimating the 6th panzer div in the battle of the bulge.

 

As others have said, it is a different beast to fly. Down low with high boost, any rudder input will swing you, so a fine touch is needed. On the other hand, the 8 guns tend to do a lot of damage. It's not a dogfighter like a spit or the p-51. You have to treat it as an energy fighter with zoom and boom tactics. It will accelerate quickly in a dive and you can extend from an adversary.

 

It's a challenging aircraft to fly well.

[=475FG= Dawger]

The p-47 was remarkably sturdy and came back with punishment that would otherwise bring down other aircraft. It happened to be very good at low level attacks, being able to see targets down low. In fact, many believe that the p-47 was instrumental in stopping and decimating the 6th panzer div in the battle of the bulge.

 

As others have said, it is a different beast to fly. Down low with high boost, any rudder input will swing you, so a fine touch is needed. On the other hand, the 8 guns tend to do a lot of damage. It's not a dogfighter like a spit or the p-51. You have to treat it as an energy fighter with zoom and boom tactics. It will accelerate quickly in a dive and you can extend from an adversary.

 

It's a challenging aircraft to fly well.

 

I find the P-47 in DCS as good as or better than the DCS P-51 in a "dogfight" (pure angles fight)

 

It is very unforgiving of gross errors in a knife fight but it acquits itself very well.

[RodBorza]

The p-47 was remarkably sturdy and came back with punishment that would otherwise bring down other aircraft. It happened to be very good at low level attacks, being able to see targets down low. In fact, many believe that the p-47 was instrumental in stopping and decimating the 6th panzer div in the battle of the bulge.

 

As others have said, it is a different beast to fly. Down low with high boost, any rudder input will swing you, so a fine touch is needed. On the other hand, the 8 guns tend to do a lot of damage. It's not a dogfighter like a spit or the p-51. You have to treat it as an energy fighter with zoom and boom tactics. It will accelerate quickly in a dive and you can extend from an adversary.

 

It's a challenging aircraft to fly well.

 

It is challenging indeed.

 

And sturdy.

 

Yesterday I was able to land it with a shot out rudder (a BTR-80 got lucky) and shaking everywhere.

Strangely enough, it was my best landing to date.

[Snapage]

The P51D and P47D are very different aircraft as people have pointed out.

 

The P47D is slow and relatively vulnerable at low altitudes but is the best allied fighter at very high altitudes 25000 and above. The P51D is faster and more manueverable at low and medium altitudes.

 

The P47D has a slower climb rate then the P51D. The P47D is arguably the best in a dive of all the WW2 planes. It accelerates faster and does not fall apart in a dive like the other aircraft. It also has dive recovery flaps. The P51D will fall apart at 505mph below 10000ft in a dive. I have not been able to get the P47D to break in a dive, the fastest I have got is 560mph.

 

The P47D is all manual controlled(RPMs, turbo, cowl flaps, turbo intercooler, oil intercooler). The P51D has auto oil radiator, water radiator, supercharger(though I find I need to manually operate them in DCS to prevent engine failure. Especially the oil radiator).

 

The flaps in the P51D can easily be used in combat and are very responsive. The P47D flaps can be used in flight but are slower to deploy and there is a short delay between being able to switch between raising and lowering.

 

The P47D seems to be able to turn well when it has energy and retains its energy well but once it's slow its very slow to build its speed up again. The P51D is good in a turn when it has energy but is more inclined to have structural failures if pushed to hard. The P51D is faster at accelerating.

 

The P47D has eight (edited: changed incorrect four guns to eight) .50 cal machine guns vs the P51Ds six though I feel like the P47D runs out of ammo noticeably faster then the P51D.

 

The current variant of the P47D can carry three bombs. The P51D can carry two bombs + six rockets. The P47D 40 should be able to carry rockets but we don't have it yet.

 

The P47D is powered by a massive robust radial engine while the P51D has a comparably more vulnerable inline engine.

 

The P47D is a much stronger and robust aircraft in general. It can take more punishment, reach higher speeds and survive.

 

These are the differences I have noticed.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Snapage

[SmoglessPanic]

Greg's Airplanes and Autos has a break down of the razorback era P-47 as compared to several contemporary aircraft here:

at 22:53.

 

 

Greg's Airplanes is an AMAZING channel, been subbed to him for a while, dude knows his stuff.

[bies]

P-47 is missing water injection system in Early Access. So it will have some additional ~300hp soon.

[fencible]

The P51D and P47D are very different aircraft as people have pointed out.

...

 

The P47D has four .50 cal machine guns vs the P51Ds six though I feel like the P47D runs out of ammo noticeably faster then the P51D.

 

....

 

P-47D has 8x.50 cal guns, not 4. Each gun has 425 rounds - more than the P-51D.

[Snapage]

P-47D has 8x.50 cal guns, not 4. Each gun has 425 rounds - more than the P-51D.

 

Lol oops miss type thanks!

[Hyundae]

The P51D and P47D are very different aircraft as people have pointed out.

 

 

 

...

 

The P47D is a much stronger and robust aircraft in general. It can take more punishment, reach higher speeds and survive.

 

These are the differences I have noticed.

 

 

 

I saw your valuable opinion.

IMO, DCS P-51D seems to be worth it enough.

Is it worth buying a P-47 module?

Edited June 11, 2020 by Hyundae

[grafspee]

P-47 is missing water injection system in Early Access. So it will have some additional ~300hp soon.

 

300 hp from water injection? I doubt that it provide so much power for engine.

[Snapage]

I saw your valuable opinion.

IMO, DCS P-51D seems to be worth it enough.

Is it worth buying a P-47 module?

 

It all depends on what you are interested in flying and how much money you are prepared to spend.

 

The P47D is not finished yet. Engine management is not finished and the flight model is subject to change. But the plane works and you can use all weapons, bombs etc.

 

If you like:

A big single engine fighter.

To be able to take punishment and survive

Ground attack

Excellent dive performance

Excellent high altitude performance

More hands on engine management(not completely modelled yet).

Radial engines

A challenging air combat experience(probably not going to be king of the skies at low alt).

 

And just like the plane in general then I would say the P47D is a good choice.

 

If you like to get into sustained dog fights, furballs, don't mind being slower then other fighters and are fond of the spitfire. Then I would say the spitfire 9 is for you.

 

If you like to fly fast, good high speed manueverability, like both air to air and ground attack, don't mind having to dive away from a fight when you don't have energy advantage and like the P51D. Then the P51D is for you.

 

That's the allied planes. The german planes are great as well though I am not a fan of the Dora at the moment. I really think it's not good at much at all.

 

The 109K4 is arguably the best WW2 fighter in DCS and the most fun german plane in my opinion. If you were interested in getting a german plane so you can fly on both sides I think the 109K4 is the only choice. It can hold it's own againts all the allied planes and can carry one 250kg or one 500kg bomb for ground attack as well. It's fast, great at boom and zoom tactics but can also turn fight very well.

 

The A8 feels great as a module, can carry a wide variety of bombs and armed with two machine guns and four cannons. But it's at a big disadvantage in air to air vs the allied planes(it may be a match for the P47D at low alt not sure).

 

The Dora does not have much of a speed advantage on the P51D and is terrible at turning. It is only good for diving on unsuspecting planes and extending away. If an enemy plane gets behind you with similar energy to you you are in a lot of trouble.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Snapage

[saburo_cz]

52inHg 2700 RPM - 2000HP

56inHg 2700 RPM - 2300HP with water (early)

64inHg 2700 RPM - 2600HP with water, required A-13 or A-23 regulator (should be in DCS)

 

all with 100/130 octane fuel

[Olddog]

Some interesting facts.

 

Seven of the top 10 European Aces flew the P-47 Thunderbolt against the Luftwaffe.

 

Thunderbolt’s knocked 3,752 enemy aircraft out of the air while destroying another 2,800+ on the ground.

 

The heavily armored plane sustained 824 combat losses, only .07% of the Jugs didn't return from a combat mission, the lowest total of any Allied fighter.

 

The Thunderbolt flew twice as many sorties and dropped 2,010% more tonnage than any other Allied fighter.

 

http://www.368thfightergroup.com/index.html

[horseback]

Actually, it wasn't made for ground attack. It was actually built to respond to a high altitude interceptor requirement: http://joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p47_1.html

 

The P-47 is one of two fighters that were successfully able to integrate a turbocharger system, the other being the Lockheed P-38. That turbo have it the best high altitude performance of any fighter in WWII, with the possible exception of some late war German experimental fighters using nitrous oxide to deal with the altitude problems.

 

The P-51 was a designer's concept of the ideal general purpose fighter, that was aimed at incorporating all of the lessons learned during the first half of the war.

 

The P-47 is a much earlier design developed out of a much older plane line as is a much more complicated beast because of it. But it was also a very flexible aircraft that was able to perform in many roles outside of its original interceptor specification. But it's fundamentally an older design and carries a lot of the weird quirks of something that really is a culmination of the original 1930's SEV-3 concept.

 

The P-47 was an early venture into high altitude performance, using the turbosupercharger, like the P-38, which allowed both aircraft very close to maximum engine performance at nearly all altitudes. In many respects, it was a groundbreaking design that unlike the P-38, could be produced in large numbers fairly quickly and did not require as much experience and practice to master.

 

The P-51 was originally designed as an improvement/competitor to the P-40; it directly addresses the Tomahawk/Warhawk's weaknesses--speed, range and all those damned constant trim adjustments. Once up-engined with the late model Rolls Royce Merlin, it had the superior performance at high altitude that the Allison equipped versions lacked--plus even more range.

 

It was much more of a pilot's airplane than either the P-47 or P-38, it had more than adequate high altitude performance for its job, and was significantly better than either of them at lower altitude air combat, not least because it was easier to master. It was soon determined that a P-47 or P-38 group in the 8th AF could safely convert to the Mustang while maintaining a full combat tempo during the spring of 1944.

 

Having said all that, it was still a matter of good pilots flying their aircraft to their strengths. There were a lot of skilled pilots who were pretty damned good in Jugs who made a seamless transition to the new Mustangs, and some who carped about the differences and stopped scoring.

 

If it was even close, performance-wise, it was the man and not the machine.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[horseback]

P-51 - Light, fast not rugged. A sports car. Made for chasing other planes around. Everything made exactly to fit.

 

A water coooled in-line Merlin engine that you must baby sit all the time.

 

 

P-47 - Heavy (the heaviest of all the WWII), fast, very rugged. A pickup truck. Made for dogfight AND ground attack from the start.

Everything made with a lot of margin.

 

An air cooled radial engine you can abuse.

 

If ground attack is your business (mine is, I suck at air-to air) the Jug is the way to go.

 

It is not a coincidence that the A-10 is called the Thunderbolt II.

 

Got to argue the light/not rugged description of the P-51; that argument is valid only when the Mustang is compared directly to the P-47 or possibly the F6F Hellcat. Compared to most other WWII single engined fighters, it has to be in the top 10% in the weight and ruggedness categories, above the Spitfires, the Me 109s, the Zeros and Franks, the Italian fighters, the Soviet designs, and at least comparable to the Focke-Wulf series.

 

Lots of Mustangs came home (and usually from much farther away) with serious combat damage--admittedly, not usually in the same class as the Jugs that flew into olive groves and what-not, but certainly more than a great many Spitfires, etc, that went down after a few rounds to the fuselage.

 

Like most American warplanes, the Mustang was over-engineered by other countries' standards; a joint British/US study showed that the basic P-51D could be lightened by about 3,000 lbs/1,400 kg, or nearly 1/3 its total weight & not loose anything in terms of performance or combat survivability, and still add a much needed taller tail while improving range and maneuverability significantly. The re-design eventually resulted in the P-51H, which was just a few weeks short of combat in the Pacific when the war ended.

 

The P-47 has a reputation for being less than agile mainly because for the first 9 months of its combat career, it had an inadequate propeller pulling it around, porking its performance especially at lower alts. The paddle blade prop the DCS version gives us is much more potent at all altitudes, and improves the climb significantly.

 

By the way, the Thunderbolt II was so named at least in part because it was produced by the same company, Republic Aviation. Had the Warthog seen combat before the First Gulf War, Republic might still be with us.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[DSR_T-800]

Literally no one has compared the DCS P-47 and DCS P-51 yet.

 

Good to see everyone just shat out their 2 cents leaving zero value in actually comparing the two aircraft in DCS. :)