Colonel Francis S. ('Gabby') Gabreski о P-47
Сколько людей столько и мнений
CUNNINGHAM: How did your P47s compare to the German fighters?
GABRESKI: Well, Bob, it all depends on what P-47 you're talking about. The early P-47 - which was the basic airplane - had a very thin propeller, although it was a four-bladed propeller. It didn't have water injection. It didn't have all the niceties of the P-47D20 that came into the theater sometime in the latter part of, uh ... well, it was actually about March of 1944. So the improvement that we had (was) water injection, which gave you a power increase of from 52 inches of mercury to about 72 inches of mercury, which was a tremendous boost in power and performance. Then you had tremendous visibility with the teardrop canopy. You could cover your tail and look out freely without the crossbars kinda' restricting your vision. So I would say that the P-47I finally went down with on July 20, 1944, was one of the finest little airplanes that I have ever flown. It was more than a match for the Focke-Wulf 190. It was more than a match for the 109. I had absolutely no problem as long as I used water injection, and I used it quite frequently. We had water injection that would, with sustained power, keep us there for about three minutes up to five minutes, depending upon how you use it. But it gave us that tremendous edge that we needed against the German Luftwaffe.
CUNNINGHAM: Colonel, what German aircraft did you feel was the toughest opponent?
GABRESKI: Well, as you well know, during the early days we encountered more 109s than we did anything else. There were some Me110's, there were some Me210s that were used against the bomber formations. But the Fw190 came at a later date . . . the latter part of 1943, and then by 1944 they had their full production set up. But, generally speaking, Fw190 was probably a little bit faster airplane. It had its limitations, though. It had a very bad snap. I other words, if you could get the pilot to pull excessive g's close to the ground and he decelerated at the same time because of the drag of the airplane, why, you could have him spin in. He would snap. And once they snapped close to the ground, there's no way they can recover. So I would say from that point of view the 109 was probably a little bit better
airplane. But it's practically six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. I did not fear the 109, and I didn't have any apprehension about the Fw190s.
CUNNINGHAM: What about maneuverability of the planes you flew?
GABRESKI: The maneuverability of the P-51 was probably just a little bit better than the P-47. I have never turned, really, with the P-51 versus the P-47. But I would say if I had a choice of the two airplanes .... I would say, for long-range work, the P-51 is probably a better plane, because it had a greater range than the P-47. The P-47 had its limitations. And that's the part that the P-51 played in the European Theater. But we had eight machine guns in the P-47, which was tremendous firepower compared to the six machine guns that you had in the P-51. So when you take your paddle-blade propeller improvement, you take your water injection improvement, and you take the eight machine guns into consideration versus the six ... all in all, I preferred the P-47. And I'm a little bit partial to the P-47s, since it was the only thing that I'd flown in combat in World War II, outside of the Spit-9, that really brought me home every time - except once. And it was my own fault
http://home.tiscali.be/ed.ragas/awsh...sgabreski.html
Ответить с цитированием
