Fixing the P-47s Climb Rate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 янв 2024
- Credits:
Producer/Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Head of Production: Mike Ridolfi
Senior Editor: Dylan Hennessy
Research Assistant: Josi Gold
Cinema 4D Animator: Eli Prenten
Sound and Production Coordinator: Graham Haerther
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster
Head of Moral: Shia LeWoof 
Наука
It’s funny how the answer for both the f4u and p-47 was “BIGGER PROPELLER = GOOD”
EgEgEg BiG PRoP Hehzheh
Bigger propellers are more efficient
Problem is being able to use such propeller without it hitting the ground
It's weird how it wasn't implemented in the first place. Seems like they wasted the engine.
@@GewelReal hence the gull wings on the f4u. However the F6F had similar acceleration albeit less top end than the F4U, but it turned better thanks to larger wing area/lower wing loading and didn't catch fire as easily. The oil coolers in the wing root on the F4U were to its detriment. Also the F4U had a nasty stall. I think I would rather have been in an F6F more than any American fighter. One of the few that was a good boom and zoomer and a good turn fighter thanks to low wing loading. It was also well armored hence the 16:1 kill ratio. Highest kill ratio and highest % of Ace pilots in the war. It was called the "Acemaker".
The F-6f, the F-4u, and the p-47 were ALL designed to be able to take that 13'1" prop. The F6f was also has a gull wing. Until people learned to shoot a curving approach the Cosair did indeed suffer from prop strikes. The Thunderbolt had this negated by having the gear legs extend as they came down (this also allowed the jug to get a fourth gun in each wing).
The covered wagon of fighter planes
a beast in kill ability😮
It's more like the sledgehammer of fighter planes. Nearly 3/4 of a pound of lead per volley from 8 M2s.
I’d say something from the ww1 era would be better described like this.
that was one tuff plane, tiger tank killer.
8 fiftys
Finally somebody got the roll rate right. This plane rolled better than a P-51, but you got one thing wrong. In a dogfight rolling away got many a P-47 out of trouble with Me-109's. Also the real damage this plane did on the Luftwaffe was death from above. The higher ceiling and superior dive rate was the death of many an ME-109 and FW-190. They could sit on the perch and buzz the enemy planes with impunity. The benefit of the turbo supercharger. Once the P-47 got high, it outperformed most enemy planes. If you knew how to fight a P-47 and kept the speed high, it was a superlative boom and zoomer. Hence the 3:1 kill:loss ratio. The plane was a winner and built to take it.
So many people don’t understand boom and zoom, but you do. The element of surprise was the number one factor on success in World War II fighter versus fighter. Having altitude and speed advantage Plays favorably for a surprise attack
😅 hi uhx
L
Keep in mind that pilot kills of the time were often claimed by multiple pilots so 1 enemy plane could be reported by 2-3 pilots as their own takedown
So the kill:loss is more closer to 1:1 maybe 2:1 at best
@@nathon1942
Wrong, every USAAF command had a claims board to assure that multiple kill credits were not awarded for the same aircraft, that included claims turned in by the defensive gunners on bombers, this is why you'll see ½ credits on some pilots records, because if they were involved in a kill with another aircraft each pilot was given ½ credit instead of both being given a full credit for the same aircraft.
Claims are handled in such a strict manner that in the 90's Robert S Johnson, the highest scoring USAAF ace in the ETO during WW2 received a letter from the USAF that his official score was being dropped from 27 to 26 because of the discovery of a paperwork mix up during the war when another pilot in his unit with the name R Johnson and him had both turned in claims on the same day, as it turns out one of the two claims he'd turned in that day was never verified but because of the paperwork mix up the verification for the other R Johnson's claim had been credited to him, as a result his official score was being changed from 27 kills and 4 probables to 26 kills and 5 probables, it should also be noted that the USAAF/USAF has always handled claims in such a strict manner that even enemy records aren't enough to verify a kill, after the war German record's showed that every one of Johnson's probables were indeed kills meaning that his official kill count should be 32 but even though the German record's show that Johnson's 5 probables were aircraft that didn't return on those days without a witness, gun camera footage, or the discovery of a crashed aircraft they won't be verified, if any of his probables are ever discovered buried in the ground in the woods or the bottom of a lake then even though Johnson passed away over 20 years ago he'll be credited with them as kills.
Other countries were notorious for playing fast and loose with crediting pilots kills for propaganda reasons, and while the powers that be in the US military during the war that were responsible for press releases were eager to promote pilots kill number's in the news they had absolutely no influence over claims boards which were notoriously strict, and for good reason, their interest was logistics and intelligence, they had no interest in promoting high number's, their interest laid strictly in keeping track of the number of enemy aircraft for intelligence purposes, these are both straight from the 8th Air Force's claims board mission objective orders during the war;
"The fact that the mission's intelligence and claims board has taken particularly great pains in the screening process to eliminate duplications and invalid claims insures that the list of approved claims is a reliable source of data for a study of enemy losses inflicted"
"The word of the claimant alone has never been accepted as sufficient evidence to establish a victory credit, some kind of confirmation such as the witness of a fellow pilot on the mission, gun camera footage or a credible witness on the ground who observed the action has been necessary to establish a credit"
People are all the time making accusations about US military kill credits in WW2 and are always spreading false information and outright lies about claims being awarded by the US during WW2, but all that amounts to is fanboy jealousy from people in other countries who act like little children who get mad when they see one of the other kids getting attention, the fact is the US military was far more strict at awarding official kill credits than any other country some of which awarded credits 40% to 60% higher than they would have been had they had to pass the strict standards of the US claims boards.
@@steveperreira5850 a very high percentage of people who were shot down in WW2 never saw the plane that got them.
I remember the first time I got to see one of these. My Dad took me to an air show in South Dakota, or maybe Cheyenne. I was awe struck seeing how big the P-47 was
Ive never seen a live p47. Must have felt amazing.
@@skipssmn3754Probably felt the P-47 coming deep insinde
@@GewelReal…
@@GewelReal nothing like that p-47 love. Big girls need love too.
@@GewelReal No. Stop.
The P-47 was designed as a high altitude fighter. Hence the reason for the supercharger and the amazing roll rate. The designers weren't really interested in _turning_ or range. But in fighting the Bf-109s, the Thunderbolt pilots discovered that if you're behind a 109 and he turns, you roll _twice, the opposite the 109s turn._ Then you pull out and those 8 fifties pour a river of lead into the 109.
Oh, the hyperbole!
Always great never stop doing what you do
Water injection helped as well, found that from reading Thunderbolt by Robert Johnson.
Yeah... 👍
My dad flew B-25s...and he mentioned the water injection as a huge help.
The bulky fuselage was not due to the engine’s size; you can see a lot of bulk below the engine’s circumference. Look at a P-47 diagram and you will see the large ducting system for the turbo system that gave it great high altitude performance. It runs back along the belly until wellbehind the cockpit to the system and back to the engine.
And the engine needed the turbo to run as good as it did so technically it wrong but practically no
@@thefrenchbaguette919Could it not have used a supercharger like the Corsair
@@RyanTheHero3 maybe not in the early because I think it didn't exist
@@thefrenchbaguette919 They did, that’s why they initially called turbochargers “turbosuperchargers” because they were seen as another type of supercharger at first
@@RyanTheHero3 oh well then I don't know
That "massive engine" was used in the corsair, and hellcat
They didn't have the supercharger this thing did though
@@kyle_mk17 they did have crankshaft driven superchargers. This has a turbosupercharger or what we call today a turbocharger
@@EnglertRacing96I thought turbos went on the exhaust manifold and use exhaust gases to spin while this had a compressor for the inlet air which would make it a supercharger
@cereal-killer4455 you are correct in definitions! Turbocharger is a shortening of turbo-super-charger! The p47, and p38 did have turbochargers then referred to as turbo-super-chargers. See how they are mounted in the rear of the plane their were rather large back then and that was the only place they could squeeze them in.
Putting quotes around massive is so goofy
I remember reading the story when I was a boy. But apparently got new propellers in the field right about Christmas that year. A flight P 47 was about to be jumped by some ME 109s and the flight commander told the American planes to “ pull up now” which surprised and scared the Germans and the plane really came into its own
Anecdote please.
It’s worth noting that there are two different propellers that were called paddle props, Farmingdale built P-47s with a Hamilton Standard props (D-22, D-25, D-27) and Evansville built them with a Curtiss prop (D-23, D-26), until both factories standardized on the Curtiss prop (D-28 and onward). The two had negligible difference in performance. There is some evidence which suggests that sometimes planes built with one propeller was switched to another. National Museum of World War II Aviation (in Colorado Springs) has a flyable P-47D-40 that uses a Hamilton Standard prop.
And the two different props require completely different installations. The Hamilton Standard was their “Hydromatic” prop, which was a dual-acting hydraulically controlled propeller with solid aluminum blades, while the Curtis propeller was electrically controlled with hollow steel blades. Different ways to skin a cat, as they say. I know there are more Hamilton Standard props still in existence because they are just more reliable. Electrically controlled propellers are unduly complicated and a maintenance nightmare.
It turned great in one direction, but that bloody great spinning metal lump in front slowed it down in the other direction.
Such a beast!
If you guys want real information on this plane go check out Greg’s airplanes and automobiles. 90% of the information you hear about this plane is nonsense, it could absolutely dogfight German planes, it just had to do it at altitude like it was designed to do, and like it did on countless occasions.
Boom and zoom.
18000 feet is the magic number.
Nahhh we are good, we don’t care that much to waste our time looking up someone else’s channel. I’ll just take this guys info for granted
@@Chickencluckinbellcanesspeak for yourself.
@@neckrohshe already spoke for ya buddy, past tense
My favorite WW2 fighter! :D
It’s wild seeing that picture of a P-47 with a presumably 88mm shell hole through one of its props
I read a story either by or about Robert Johnson in World War II. His aircraft was desperately shot up. He managed to nurse it back to England by pumping something inside the cockpit. Some handle or other. I don’t know what this gave him maybe control over surfaces.but the plane was shot up beyond belief and got him home
Hydraulic fluid could be manually pumped in case the system failed.
The story was in his book "Thunderbolt".
He pumped on the engine primer to keep the cylinders from overheating due to lack of oil.
@@IncogNito-gg6uh The name of the aircraft was “Half pint” l read in a publication it never flew again and was a write off.
@@IncogNito-gg6uh I remember my father telling me about the book Samurai by Caidin, I still have my father's copy. Caidin omitted facts and obfuscations of Australia's contribution in Papua New Guinea.
In short:
The Paddle Prop.
Which, if you're already a ww2 buff, or an aviation buff, you already know this.
This is the only plane in war thunder that I have a positive K/D with
The propeller changes everything
Yep! A powerful engine is not much good without an efficient propeller to covert that power into thrust.
Higher manifold pressures with increased boost and water injection made the jug a superior high altitude fighter
@@patrickcannady2066 good reading...BOB JOHNSON.. THUNDERBOLT!!!!
Not really. The P-47 remained uncompetitive in climb throughout the rest of its career. But given that the USAAF had air superiority, by both weight of numbers and altitude, it makes rate of climb comparatively less important. Robert Johnson's claim that after the new prop was introduced, no German fighter ever outclimbed him again has to be taken in context. Did he ever have to do it again? That's one of the problems with that book (the other being that is was ghost-written by Martin Caidin).
@@user-on6xv2or4l I read it as a wide-eyed kid about 40+ years ago. Looking back, I can see plenty of faults with it. It's not good history.
It is a flying jug. Just be happy it could maneuver at all.
Wow, another GREAT AIRCRAFT! John P.
I had to dig up a P-47 “Camouflage and Markings” manual to actually figure it out. But if anyone was wondering, the nose art (not the pin up girls) was specific to a flight group (battalion?). Idk if it’s just me but when I think of the P-47 I always imagine it, like in the video, as having a checkered black and white nose. However, that’s specific to the 78th FG. There’s an elusive diamond checkered nose but that one belongs to the 353rd FG. There’s even a red and white checkered nose belonging to the 48th FG. I thought it had a mechanical function or was to help distinguish it from older/newer models in the heat of the moment.
Just felt like sharing it, the manual is online, in PDF format, pretty cool read with a bunch of pictures for my ADHD ass to enjoy :)
My great grandpa got shot down 3 times in P47s in the Pacific theater
The JUG might be the biggest girl at the dance but she will get you home! 😉
Myth.
At 0:20 look like a squadron of flying wine barrels lol
P-47 and hellcat training were performed at millville Airport in the 1940s. Over 10,000 personnel resided on base.
The Irish air force is out shopping for a new fighter and are leaning towards the P-47
Too modern……..they’re after Sopwith Camels.
I vaguely remember reading in Alex Henshawe’s book “Sigh For A Merlin” about the P47 rated against the Spitfire (Henshawe was Chief Test Pilot at Castle Bromwich Spitfire factory). He said that, and I really hope I’m remembering this correctly, the Spitfire concurrent with early P47s did well against it. But when a later model with “the paddle-bladed propeller” turned up, it could easily climb away from the Spitfire and was a truly formidable aircraft.
The heavy P 47 could climb as good as the late war Spitfires ,you say .
Did you read that book correctly ???)
@@michaelgray7847
I downloaded “Sigh For a Merlin” on Kindle and to be honest, I’ve done a search and couldn’t find that piece. I then confidently searched on Kindle “Spitfire” by Geoffery Quill and again only found a brief piece about a comparison in critical mach number, which in all truth wasn’t complimentary about the P47. I’m afraid I’ve completely failed to reference the piece.
@@michaelgray7847 I'd say not. He probably doesn't remember that the Spitfire he was flying against - if this mock combat ever actually happened - was a Mark V. A Mk IX would have lunched it.
The P-47 was never able to 'easily climb away' from anything. Johnson's comments can be found online if you look hard enough. They have to be read with a critical eye. A _very_ critical eye.
First of all, he doesn't reveal what marque of Spitfire he was supposedly flying against. Second, he doesn't say in that passage that he out climbed the Spitfire. He actually comments on how well the Spitfire climbed. Thirdly, Johnson's methods of defeating it was tactical, not technical. He employed 'zoom and boom' manoeuvres against it (exactly what he should have been doing). Finally, Johnson says something like 'the new prop was worth a thousand horsepower' which is rather silly. It might have helped level the playing field but a seven or eight ton aircraft is still a lot of mass to lift, even with the help of wings and inertia will play a major role in that.
Johnson also says that no FW-190 or Bf-109 ever out climbed him again. What he doesn't tell you is that it was unlikely to be necessary. The USAAF invariably had the advantage of altitude and numbers so that the P-47s poor climb performance was not likely to be a factor in his combat missions.
If the army had allowed the P40 and the P39 to have built the original design parameters, with two stage turbo - supercharger system, would have been better at altitude. As it was, they could out roll and out turn the Germans at their flight levels they had to deal with.
Those engines would not have been ready in time.
It was the pickup truck of the air
That's the trouble with these er... discussions. Most people think this is a Dodge Ram versus a Ford Pony car and it just isn't..
Even the early versions of the P-47 maneuvered quite well at altitude.
The Jug was my favorite warbird, being the granddaddy of the mighty Warthog.
Taking advantage of the powerful engine
...and always finding any way possible to cool it
Heck of a plane for ground attack, but I’m a P-51 fan…especially after the Merlin engine was installed.
P-47, and FU Corsair are tougher bird fighter
Props to a prop.
The razorback p-47 had a slope right behind the canopy. The improved ones had enhanced canopy view and streamlined bodies
Alexander Kartvelli designed the jug (the P-47) along with four other Republic fighters, a common characteristic of all of them was high roll rates due to their large ailerons.
Pretty sure Pierre Sprey claims he designed this one too.
Roll rate is at least partly determined by wingspan and inertia.
The mentality of "bigger is better"
Engineer 1: The plane is too heavy and big, we need to improve it.
Engineer 2: Bigger propeller.
If I had to fly an American plane in European WOII theatre, I would definitely choose the "flying tank" P47(D)!!! That plane could give a punch and brings you home!!! 😊 People talk about the P51 Mustang, also a great and beautiful plane! But I still would pick the Jug! 😊
Bro is Best
Knowing what we know now and with all the advances in prop technology, it would be interesting to see what some defense contractor could create as far as a prop fighter goes and how similar or different they would look like compared to a WW2 fighter.
Little bursts of knowledge for ggd modern attention deficit mind
Well they also changed the design in the D variant which have it a bubble cockpit and slimmed down the gut of the craft which helped its drag issues.
Awesome!
1. Early p47 where slicker than buble tops.
2. Prop baldes were not longer.
3. P47s were designed fight at high alt, where parasitic drag is not as b8g of a deal as induces drag
A large fuselage was NOT needed to “hold” or accommodate the Pratt & Whitney R-2800. Exhibit A: F8F Bearcat.
Exhibit: P-47's Turbo-Super setup.
That explains everything you're missing.
Also, the Corsair used the same engine, and it is not a small bird either.
@@Fightre_Flighte I’m not missing anything. The turbo supercharger is not part of the R-2800. You’re missing the wood for the trees. The Bearcat flew with an R-2800. Where does my comment equate the engine to the turbo supercharger. The video said a large fuselage was needed to accommodate the ENGINE. Not true.
If you can’t comprehend my point, I’m not going to argue with you. It’s pointless. The problem with getting in the mud to wrestle a pig is you pretty quickly realize the pig actually likes it.
@@redfalco21temper, don't go around calling people "pig" because of an useless argument. People won't like you if you do so. Don't bother insulting me too, i have notifications turned off and will never catch this video again. Goodbye.
The P-47s fuselage had a large cross sectional area because of the turbosupercharger ducting. There was a lot of it. So while his comment wasn't very specific, it wasn't wrong either. I don't honestly see how you can claim that the ducting for the turbosupercharger _wasn't_ part of the powerplant.
@@thethirdman225 it’s not just my claim. The R-2800 does not REQUIRE the P-47’s turbo-supercharger setup. It, like most exhaust systems, is airframe-specific. In fact, the p-47’s exhaust and induction setup is unique to the P-47. Several other R-2800 installations functioned without the bulk of the P-47’s turbo-supercharger. This is why it IS considered part of the airframe and NOT part of the engine. That is how it is classified, along with many other engine-mounted accessories like alternators/generators that are specific to a particular installation. So it really doesn’t matter what you choose to see or don’t choose to see. It’s just the way it is. That simple.
The Juggernaut! ❤
Most important US fighter in European theater it destroyed everything from 30,000 feet to ground level. Total bad arse.
I just passed a motivational post...now this makes me happy
Being outturned was much less of a problem than being out climbed or outrun, even at the beginning of the war(hence the good performance of late american fighters against japanese at the end of the war and german fighters against soviet, especially at the beginning of the war)
I wonder if they ever tried to experiment with oddly placed auxiliary propellers meant to help climb or turn faster or more easily? Kind of like how spacecraft have stabilizing thrusters. Increase the rpm of the motor in or on the wing in such a way that it makes the plane roll faster or turn faster.
That monster engine used a huge amount of oil. The plane carried 26.6 US gallons of oil. But aircraft fitted with the full set of three drop tanks (enough to escort bombers to Berlin and back) would risk running out of oil before they got home.
I personally would like to thank the UK for the assist in the resarch and production of the P-51 mustang, what a' beaut!
The thing is though the United States Army Air forces really didn't dogfight in Europe because we weren't going to make something as small as agile as a BF 109 or even an fw 190 because our planes required range and the Mustang wasn't as agile as the two luftwaffe single engine fighters
We still preferred hit and run tactics get above the enemy aircraft dive down upon them shoot at them and then use your energy to get back up to high altitude to avoid turning with the enemy aircraft
The luftwaffe had the advantage of not needing a fighter plane with anything resembling the range that either the Mustang or the thunderbolt were required to have because those planes because those planes even when they were offensive weren't flying the great distances our fighters had to escort bombers.
Yes the P-47 was large and not elegant but at the same time it did the trick and more importantly the United States could afford to build such a plane in large numbers and we made 15000 of a plane performed extremely well at high altitude absorbed absurd amounts of damage and performed equally as good as a fighter and a ground attack aircraft and in the latter role it did the Lion's share of destroying the luftwaffe during week.
The P47 D with bulb canopy is more effective and very beautiful.
I heard another name for the paddle prop was spoon blade. The original propellers were nicknameed toothpick props.
Siempre son admirables todos los justificados halagos hechos al P-47, siempre se dijo que era un formidable luchador, de mucho aguante y muy difícil de derribar, pero: ¡Qué feo era! 😂, no se compara con la belleza estilizada de auto de carreras del P-51 o del Coursair que eran bellos. Un detalle de nulo valor en la guerra, cierto, pero no quería perder la oportunidad opinar al respecto. Saludos y felicidades por el video.
Have you done similar videos and the spitfire and its variants. I’d love to see them if you have
And it was a very unpleasant surprise for the FW-190s when the 190s attempted to out climb the 47s, and the 47s didn’t fall off.
Eventually the FW -190 and ME -109 pilots figured some was different.
Reference please.
The Luftwaffe instructed its pilots to use a climbing turn against the P-47, as this was the best way too get away from it, regardless of the propeller..
RUclips: Greg’s airplanes and automobiles. He has many well documented videos,, hours of specifically on the p-47. In one of those it reviews the effects of the paddle prop and its impact on combat with the FW-190.
@@konekillerking Greg is far from a reliable source. He uses brochure figures and conjecture. I know because I’ve had the argument with him.
There is a difference between history and the history of equipment. Greg doesn’t understand this. Greg also doesn’t understand that just because he can build a case that looks good to him, that doesn’t mean he has proven anything historically. Quoting brochure figures is not the same as finding reliable examples where this happened and just because he has ‘proven’ that something could happen theoretically in controlled conditions, that doesn’t mean it did happen in combat (conjecture).
Let me give you an example of this kind of thinking. In his book, _’Thunderbolt,’,_ which he co-authored with Martin Caidin, Robert S. Johnson says that once he got the new paddle prop, no 190 or 109 ever outclimbed him again. On the surface, this is pretty compelling. Looked at in context, it’s pretty meaningless. Since the USAAF pretty much always had air superiority because of numbers and altitude, it’s highly unlikely Johnson would have been in a situation where the P-47’s climb performance would have been so tested. It is the nature of air combat that in most cases it tends to be over very quickly so a sustained climb would have been a rare thing.
This is the problem with Greg: he provides no context.
He has created this rather distorted and unreliable picture of the P-47 which its fans are perfectly happy to believe for no other reason than that it suits them.
I have had the argument with Greg, as have many others, in my case about the unequal application of some of his power figures for the R2800. He backed down. Then he deleted my comments. I’m not the only one and although I applaud his determination to research new information, true research is not simply a matter of finding information that confirms your own personal biases.
The P-47, in all its forms, suffered from an uncompetitive rate of climb and this did not change throughout its development. I can provide charts of my own that show this. But this flaw was never exposed in the way it would have been if the roles were reversed and the P-47 was having to intercept incoming bombers.
RUclips is not a good way to learn history. The only reliable way to do that is to read books. Writers frequently spend years researching and collaborating. The good ones present their information with the bark on, rather than accepting only points of view that suit their personal prejudices. A few hours browsing the internet and a bunch of conjecture is not the same thing.
@@konekillerking If you want to see another example of Greg gilding the lily, watch his video about the P-40 with a 1,725 hp engine.
People jizz off over this stuff without realising that it made _zero_ difference to the outcome. His coverage of minutiae is good but only useful to this interested in such things.
For those of us who read history, the manifold pressure of the Allison engine is of peripheral interest only. There is _zero_ discussion of how the aircraft was used and why it was replaced, other than that things had moved on.
He shows reports of pilots using 70” boost (the stupidest measure possible but it’s an American engine) but no description of how the aircraft performed in combat.
Greg is not a historian. His work is the history of equipment. They are two overlapping categories but they are not the same.
you could explain how did more air into engine fix the problem (since you said it is about drag, not power)
More power means more capacity to defeat drag.
Also, the larger prop can make use of the power the engine put out by scooping more air in general. More air moved is more capacity to move yourself.
When the Germans saw the first P-47 they thought it was a light bomber and scoffed to hear it was a fighter. They had to carry more ammo to shoot one down.
What a sweet Irish accent!
Suffered from poor climb? Yep that’s the US in war thunder alright💀
I never quite understood why the P-47s cylinder block and turbocharger went on opposite ends of the plane.
Part of the reason for the P-47s bulk is the exhaust pipe and air intake tract underneath the cockpit, connecting to the turbocharger and intercooler behind the pilot.
These are just the tradeoffs engineers make when they’re designing an airplane. I can only assume it was done for weight and balance. In order to be stable, an airplane has to have the center of gravity slightly forward of the center of lift. It’s good practice to put any weights that are going to change, like the fuel, ammunition, and droppable weapons as close to the center of gravity as you can, so that as they are expended, they don’t adversely affect the balance. Putting the turbo directly behind the engine would take up a lot of valuable fuselage volume that’s needed for consumables, and set the pilot far back behind the wings, making it hard to see over the nose for taxi, takeoff, and landing.
The real reason is a heavy turbocharger setup. Supercharged variant with lighter airframe could be around 1000 Pounds lighter.
And the paddle prop was also retrofit to the older models
British fighters were using advanced fuels , From 100 octane, to 150 octane.
Wake up.
I like the 5.5 inch. It’s a length you can have a lot of fun with. I think most people will agree that even 6.75 inches could be considered too much and could become painful over time.
Is that what she said last night?
The cuffs also added significantly to the plane's top speed.
Not really.
@thethirdman225 My readings said 30mph+ at the top end. I'd say that was significant. Speed, like altitude, is life in air battles.
@@chrisnichols4962 Can you provide a reference for that claim because I can find no evidence that the cuffs on the propeller made that much difference. In fact, it wasn’t until the introduction of the -M and -N models that those sorts of speed increases were seen and they had virtually no impact on the war.
En el Filipinas los pilotos mexicanos bombardeaban en picada y ametrallaban las pisiciones enemigas sin saber que era ficicamente imposible
A fantastic plane
Never thought about how turning is essentially climbing sideways lol
Not to mention your a huge target got to be real bad to miss
War Thunder thinks it's a jet.
Thunderbolt 1 was built around the engine.
Thunderbolt 2 was built around the gun.
Now whenever you see how people thought about how aircraft work and then you see a 262 or 163 it doesn't make any sense it's like seeing a damn UFO
The P47 was a great American hero of WW2! The jug was also known as the flying tank!
It would have been extremely interesting if we had been provided with before and after climb rates and maybe some comparison with other fighter's climb performance.
That information is pretty easy to find.
Mmm. Small prop. Small speed
big prop, big speed
BIGGER PROP. BIGGER SPEED
Actually, no. That’s backwards.
Big prop = Better takeoff and climb performance
Small prop = Higher cruise speed
The aircraft engineer has to decide which is more important, and the result is often a compromise solution.
The roll rate was largely due to the lack of wing tanks, that and it's ammo being stacked in higher, closer to the center of mass belt boxes.
Also why it had a less than adequate range.
Love me a JUG
I've also wondered if the F6F would have benefit from the prop?
4 meter diameter propeller... thats sp damn big
Eight M2 .50 caliber machines guns were nothing to laugh at.
If the P-47 was such a horrible plane because of its climate and it turned radius, how come there were more Aces that flew P-47s then ALL the rest of Allies in Europe COMBINED.
That is simply wrong. The P-51 produced more aces and in far fewer missions.
War Thunder is an expert here, p-47 is terrible in climbing, 10-12m/s, p-51 without British engine 10-14m/s, with British 14-18m/s, p-63 aerocobra 18-20m/s, bf .109 17-20m/s, spitfire 15-18m/s. In terms of maneuverability, the p-47 is like fat Emma, it is good only in quantity, nothing more.
Would have been interesting to see how the Jug performed against the FW190 long nose version powered by the Jumo 213 which by all accounts had brilliant high altitude performance and extremely good roll rate.
Hmmm, it was a similar story as the 190D's performance fell off after 20K ft, it was better below that altitude compared to the A series. It wasn't a true high altitude fighter like the Ta-152.
I don't see why they didn't do a scoop like the P51 for more forced radiator an possible turbo along with the new blades.
The WW2 A10.
*_man .. i wish i knew what&Where those "Cuffs"..??_*
🧐🤔🤨🧐
#Yijes!
Talk about the damage that it could absorb, and why was that?
That massive engine probably weighed less than the Merlin with its cooling sysrem.
My uncle was killed in World War 2 in this plane. God bless.
P-47 Razorback♥
With the new prop...it could out climb a SPITFIRE
Wrong.
However it did have compressibility issues.
Though it was the first US plane to pass the sound barrier. Something nobody would want to do in a WWII fighter
P47 thunderbolt of the mexican scuadron 201
id say for a flying gun it did pretty good