The P-47's (Almost) Successor: Republic XP-72 Ultrabolt
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 окт 2023
- In this video, we talk about the Republic XP-72 Ultrabolt, a late-World War 2 propeller-driven fighter designed to succeed the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt. We talk about the successful career of the P-47 and the early push by Republic and the US military to build a successor to it. We talk briefly about such other attempts like the XP-69 and the so-called "Turbobolt," a jet-powered P-47 concept design. We also talk about the incredibly successful testing - in it being both comparable to the P-47 in terms of control while also being very fast, potentially on the cusp of being the fastest propeller-driven, piston engine plane of the era - of the XP-72 and why, despite that, it never advanced past the prototype stage and ended up fading from history.
It's a shame one of the XP-74s wasn't saved. Imagine it running in the Unlimited Class air racing! It would have been a real monster.
Yeah and it blew its engine in its first race, crashed and burned killing not only the pilot also but a significant number of people in a housing development a good distance from the race course leading to a ban on the Unlimited Class races.
"Rare Bear" is an F-8U with a corncob engine and a cut down P-3 propellor. Not much different....
One word: NYOOOOOOOOOOOOM
@@Flies2FLL Rare Bear is a Grumman F8F Bearcat with a Wright R3350 18 cylinder engine in place of the original Pratt&Whitney R2800.
That XP-72 is a good looking aircraft, sleek.
A point about the contra-prop: It actually improved safety more by eliminating P-factor and engine adverse torque in high AOA flight such as in landings and high climb rates. Sudden power increases in these situations and power was often very dangerous. The contra-prop eliminated these propblems but introduced its own unique issues of large gyroscopic masses, and maintenace complexity.
Not mentioned here was the XP-47H with the inverted V-16 engine from Chrysler. This machine could not have gone into service without the sharks mouth nose art and is by far the best looking P-47 variant.
I agree on the contra-rotating prop's theoretical advantage, those were used with success on the Supermarine Seafire Mk.47s, supposably these handled more like a jet, see here: ruclips.net/video/_YioXYhbVPA/видео.html
Yet surprisingly little problems with the standard P-47 props are reported
Did th XP-72 or XP-47H have greater potential?
Depends? IMOA XP-72 hands down greater reliable power traded against shear complex immensity of engine and new remotely driven supercharger system. XP-P47H used existing TC system and offered the bullet nose streamlinity for a less (mechanically) complex engine, and no meaningful increase in power over R-2800. Sort of like the insurance policy the XB-39 offered for the B-29. Chrysler also didn't pull much weight in terms of earo engine design/production. The video nails it all in terms of performace of the XP-72, as far as I know the XP-47H testing was done by Chrysler themselves with a lent P-47B airframe and was largely inconclusive. @@jamessteale805
I’ve been aware of the XP-72 for forty years, the term “Ultrabolt” appeared about ten years ago. Never saw it referred to as that in older media. No big deal though, I appreciate that someone cares enough about the subject to produce content. 👍🏻
That 490mph figure was (ref. Walt Bodie as I recall) done over Long Island sound at minimal altitude, leaving a massive wake below.
The "Jug" was a BEAST! It could absorb tons of flak and damage and shrug it right off. Good armor plating for the pilot, and the turbocharged 2800 cubic inch air cooled engine could run for DAYS at maximum power without fault. Combine that huge airframe with serious firepower and you get a winner.
I'm glad that you showed the picture of the P-47 taking off a Carrier deck, not many people know about this today. The P-47 was a land based aircraft, but when the US Army started to take on a bigger roll in the Pacific or the PTO their aircraft went with them. At that point the P-47 had moved into the ground attack and air support rolls and really shined. In order to get them to the Pacific Island Bases they had to go by ship. Early in the PTO those aircraft would have to wait until the Island was secure enough to be able to unload the partially disassembled aircraft from the ship. All that took time and even though they had some air support from the Navy, the ground troops would still be in heavy fighting and needed that air support. But many times the Navy had to use their aircraft to protect the ships from air attacks and at times they couldn't provide air support. At some point the Marines/Army would take an air field that wasn't damaged or could be repaired quickly and they realized that some of these aircraft could take off from a deck to get to them quicker. Since they were not going to return to that carrier they could fly in, do some ground support with their guns and land at the Island base to be refueled and rearmed with bombs. I've seen several combat movie footage of the P-47 taking off from a carrier deck, do strafing runs just yards off the end of the runway. Then land, refuel/arm and take off to do more ground support again all within the view of the maintenance personnel.
It is a shame the XP-72 didn't make it in time to fight in the ETO, it might have been able to change some things.
One other thing you showed was one of the Liquid Cooled Radial Engine. Something else not many know about today. Most people that know about aircraft, when they talk about the Radial Engine, they think all of them were air cooled, built in a single ring set or multiple ring sets with the cylinders offset for cooling. However they did developed several liquid cooled radial engines for both military and civilian aircraft.
BTW, I grew up in Vineland New Jersey, the town South of where I lived, Millville NJ was a P-47 training base During the war. Back then and right up to the 1960's Vineland NJ was known as the Egg Capital of the world and they had large long chicken coops all over the place. When I was a kid, and later when I started to take flying lessons at Millville airport, I would hear the stories from the older guys, about how the P-47 pilots would occasionally dive down to treetop level and do a practice run over those long coops practicing like they were strafing a train. That P-47 was so big and loud it would scare the hell out of the chickens and the hens wouldn't lay eggs for a week. That base commander would get a lot of complaints. They had a large aircraft engine overhaul facility there when I was in the Civil Air Patrol and they used to have a large radial test stand close to that area. I could see them run up the engines here. The place used to be called Millville Air Works, I think it still exists, but they now only work jet engines last I heard. Right after high school I left for USAF Basic Training, the last thing I wanted to to stay in NJ and grow old in a dead end job like most other kids did. Besides I couldn't stand the Marxist politics there and having a Rebel streak and loving guns, NJ was no place to live for me. I live in Southern AZ now after my last duty station at DMAFB.
But Millville airport has a museum dedicated to the P-47 and the pilots that trained there. As I recall the old control tower had the name Pine Tree painted on it and someone told me that was the name they used for the radio or base. Here is the link to the museum if you are interested: p47millville.org/
Too bad they don’t have a real P47 there. Probably not so easy to get one.
Great video, thanks for this. An interesting period of aviation history with a number of designs not making production for a number of reasons. Keep up the good work.
Hey I really enjoy your Channel thanks for doing all the work that it must take
When the 4360 was used in the B-50 and other planes in the post war the used what they called 'compound turbine' system to capture some of the exhaust gas power and increase engine efficiency. I think that is what the "supplementary" turbocharger planned for the P-72 was about. The engine already had an engine driven 2 stage supercharger and the plan was to put a turbosupercharger to feed pressure into the regular supercharger intake so the superchargers would not have to work so hard. This would reduce the parasitic power losses used to drive the superchargers and provide a few hundred more horsepower to the engine output and increase efficiency at the same time.
The P-47 was powered by the turbo-supercharged Pratt ad Whitney R-2800. Turbo-compound engines like the Wright R-3350 used in the P2V-7. Each engine had three exhaust driven turbines that routed power to the crankshaft through a fluid coupling. Each unit supplied about 200 HP each for a total of 600 per engine. The R-3350 also had an engine driven supercharger.
This is a random jumble of concepts, and practically none of them apply to the XP-72, but I'm sure IHYLS appreciated the engagement.
A very interesting video on the XP-72 "Superbolt" apparently had formidabile performance with contra-rotatng propeller giving a healthy safety margin. Yes it is shame that no prototypes exists anymore...
The change to the "paddle prop" from the original prop made a BIG difference on rate of climb, though I don't think the P-47 ever matched the P-51 on that, it DID match most models of the Spitfire and BEAT many of them after that change.
Original prop just couldn't handle the full output of the engine, it turns out, while the wider blades of the "paddle prop" could.
The paddle prop did see an improvement in climb performance, mostly at higher altitude. Even then, the P47 couldn't climb quite as well as a P51D. A Spitfire of the same time period would easily out climb a P51D and P47 with paddle prop.
@@julianneale6128 Depended on the Spitfire - there is SOME evidence that the P47 with the paddle COULD outclimb "same time, as of when it was introduced" Spitfires.
Then the next model of Spit (and the P-51) were introduced with their own prop upgrades.....
@bricefleckenstein9666 not even close. By the time, the early P47s entered service in England the Spitfire MkVIIIs and MkIXs were in abundance. Flat out a MkVIII would climb at almost 5500 ft per minute and with its fantastic 2 stage 2 speed supercharger would have a service sealing of over 44000'!
@@julianneale6128 They might have been "common", but there were a lot MORE of the older models still in service to compare climb rates to in the real world.
@@bricefleckenstein9666 them why mention the paddle prop for the P47. When the paddle prop was introduced on the P47, there were still many/mostly standard prop aircraft flying around. Your point is invalid.
540 mph, two 37mm cannon and four .50's. Neat.
Something very interesting. Exhaust as thrust from internal combustion engines. The engines used to power top fuel drag cars, with only using the exhaust for thrust, are still faster down the track than some cars.
Damn good looking plane
And yet, the A1 Skyraider performed up into the '60s.
P-47 was an important type in the Nationalist Chinese Airforce. Any discussion of advanced Republic fighters needs to mention the M, N and J models of the P-47 which were still gaining due to continuing power increases from the R-2800C engine which was continuing to increase power right up to the end of the war. The R-4360 was dealing with cooling problems and even in post war applications was a bit problematic. P-72 looks to have been suited for interception missions and I wonder, with that big engine and the emphasis on weight if it had much range? The lack of a turbosupercharger could not have helped it's high altitude performance, where the P-47 excelled. People tend to forget that the P-47N, when available, was the preferred escort for B-29' in the Pacific because of it's high altitude performance and enhanced range.
As stated in the video, h
the long-term goal was to install turbo-superchargers in the P-72. The prototype P-72 flew without superchargers because I suspect that S/C were not ready until well after the airframes.
Now you have me looking into this much further. The XP-72 was equipped with the R-4360-13 of 3000 HP. This engine was equipped with a variable speed 2 stage supercharger and was augmented with a turbosupercharger. I'm betting that the prototypes never got the turbosupercharger which would only have improved their performance above 20,000 feet altitude. They were getting their full rated power at takeoff and at low and medium altitudes. The Turbocharger would not become a factor until high altitudes were reached. IHYLS was being very incorrect in saying the XP-72 prototypes were flown un-supercharged. Also the counterrotating propeller would have aided takeoff and low speed flight by limiting torque effects during high power, low speed operation such as during takeoff roll and initial climb where the plane would tend to pull to one side and require large rudder corrections the maintain course. The F2G Super Corsair was the only fighter to get near combat with the R-3640. It might be interesting to examine it's performance. @@robertwarner5963
It was designed from the outset for a 2nd stage turbo supercharger just like the P47. It was waiting on the new turbo to arrive... the war ended and development $$$ vanished. The heat issues would not effect range, just peak HP. Xp72 should have more range due to higher cruise speed due to lower drag than P47. Ultimate "range" is frankly a joke on aircraft as NONE of them are flown at their max L/D ratio which is roughly ~170mph. They cruised at 350mph and sometimes 400mph by war's end because they found out if they ever were jumped the wars early cruise speed of ~225-->250mph = dead pilots.
We disagree on nomenclature. The engine in the XP-72 had a 2 stage, variable speed supercharger and was to have had an additional turbocharger to augment the superchargers. Engine power depends on manifold pressure and multistage supercharging is designed to increase the altitude an engine can maintain it's maximum manifold pressure and power. Range depends on altitude in addition to speed and fuel burn rate and to explore this we need to talk about the difference between true airspeed and indicated airspeed and how altitude effects them. Generally speaking true airspeed increases with altitude while indicated airspeed decreases with altitude so that the higher you can fly, the faster your true airspeed will be while the slower your airspeed will appear on your airspeed indicator. The result is you can fly at the same true speed using less power at 30,000ft. than 15,000ft. and your range increases. Anyway something was lightened to get the XP-72 to the weight it is listed at because the engine alone was about 1400 pounds heaver and we were not told if it was lightened structure, reduced fuel capacity or just the two caliber .50 guns left behind. What would a P-47 look like with the same weight reductions? You come up with something like the P-47J I think. Aircraft are a package of compromises and I want to know more about the compromises built into the XF-72. Back to where this started, The XF-72 never flew without it's superchargers, at least on purpose! @@w8stral
Sure, I'll bite, got a reference for this mystical 2 stage mechanical driven supercharger? Its single supercharger is 2 speed though(EDIT: Looked it up, they were never built with a 2 speed single stage supercharger, they were all fixed if used with a turbocharger which I believe had the 2 speed setting, all other wasp majors had single stage variable speed superchargers hydraulically driven)... Pretty sure P&W never made such an engine with a 2 stage mechanically driven super charger on its wasp major line.
Wow, really do prattle on about IAS/TAS... and altitude. Next please do teach about Mach speed decreases with altitude(to a certain point anyways)... please daddy do teach... and all of that is immaterial as your best range is at ~170mph at about 8000ft. Why they publish RANGE @speed@altitude charts ... But please daddy to preach on... @@keithstudly6071
Duoooode... Many thanks for sharing the info... Planes and ships are like humans. They have feelings and destiny. Cheers!
Conta-props also make a big difference in ground handling. The massive torque from a single propr is lessened. That makes a big difference with tail draggers.
What bomber used the 4360 during WWII?
The 4360 didn't become available/used until just after WW2. Aircraft using it include: B-35, B-36, Hughes "Spruce Goose" (not a bomber), B-50.
@@kiwitrainguy Correct.
Well done
P-47s were also used by the Força Aérea Brasileira, or Brazilian Air Force, with the 1st Fighter Group operating in Italy.
...and the Mexican Air Force in the Philippines.
He did mention Mexico, and also showed a picture of a Chilean Thunderbolt.
It's just how that end of the war, end of prop age, birth of jet age period is. Some fantastic prop fighters were possible/came about, but there wasn't too much of a point to them now jets were a thing. Having said that, spool times and no air brakes did mean the early jets had their issues too.
The turbo supercharger was going to have as much thrust out its "waste gate" as that of a Jumo German Turbine on the Me262... Woops, EDIT: Half as much thrust as a Jumo. My bad.
The flying milk jug…..she was a tank!
I really enjoy your videos, but got some problems with constant calculating imperial units to SI, could you please add both dara, especially with speed measures?
Why not use US units? They were standardized before imperial units were standardized and have been in use longer (as standard units). Besides, does anyone really know what 9144 meters is? Everyone knows a 4 minute mile is fast for a runner, but what is that in kilometers? No one knows without looking it up! Yes it is confusing that US units and English units are nominally the same but US units were made regulated standards before the English did it. Imperial gallon is very different from the US gallon and don't expect anyone to use the term "stones" for weight unless they are Imperialist.
@@keithstudly6071 just why not both? XD I live in Europe (at least from geographic point of view), it is just easier for me to imagine. I am able to calculate, but the higher the number is, the harder calculation is and the mistake is bigger if it is done just in my head. I believe it would be useful for significant number of viewers all around the world. A lot of other chanels can provide SI units in the brackets at least.
I guess it's ok. It just bothers me that US had uniform legal measurements before the British Empire but it is common to hear them referred to as 'imperial' measurements. We might have used SI except for the French Revolution and a hurricane that blew the ship bringing the standard examples off course so we never got them before the weights and measures had all ready been codified. @@srogamina
Hey, I've been a subscriber for some time now, I really like your videos, really well researched, I just have one suggestion, could you also include metric units? That would help a lot! Thanks!
I don't know if you made a video about this or not, but can you cover the Soviet Mothership sometime?
But the P-47 was already supercharged. It was bascially built around the engine and supercharger.
and these performance stats he cites are false, as they are higher than world record holding aircraft.
I'm interested in the photo of the T-Bolt taking off of the Hornet!!
I wonder if there ever was a Corsair with the R4360…
The Corsair was equipped with the same engine as the P-47, so I wonder how it would have performed with about twice the power plant
Here you go: Goodyear F2G Corsair
The R4360 engine never made twice the power that the R2800 made, in the first place it wasn't two R2800 engine's put together as their displacements indicate, although they used the same cylinders the R2800 was two rows of nine cylinders (18) and the R4360 was four rows of seven cylinders (28).
And even then the power wasn't as much per cylinder with the R4360 as it was with the R2800, the R2800 at it's peak made around 2,500 to 2,600 HP (not including using water injection, that'd be unfair because the R4360 didn't have a water injection system not at that point anyway), the R4360 engine at the time they were playing around putting them in the Thunderbolt and the Corsair only made around 3,200 HP, it wasn't until after the war when they put 3 power recovery turbines on the R4360 engine did they get up to and just over 4,000 HP, and I don't think you could fit one of those in the XP-72 since there wouldn't be room for the 3 PRT's anywhere under the hood.
The R4360 engine's put in the ten or so FG2 "Super Corsair's" were only of the 3,200 HP variety made early on during the war.
It was hoped that the XP-72 would get up to just over 540 MPH which was probably just wishful thinking since the production version would have used the P47N's "wet wing" which was longer and thicker creating more drag than the P47D's wing used on the prototype's.
The new turbo supercharger on P72 was going to have as much thrust out its "waste gate" as that of a Jumo German Turbine on the Me262...@@dukecraig2402
Goodyear F2G, as mentioned above. Prototype was the “F4U-WM”, which was an F4U-1 Birdcage that Pratt and Whitney retrofitted with an early R-4360 as a proof of concept. In 1982, the Planes of Fame bunch rebuilt a derelict F4U and retrofitted it with a modified R-4360-63 from a C-124 Globemaster, for Reno. -63 was rated at 3,800 hp with a single stage supercharger for transport aviation. They operated it in excess of 4,000 hp and it’s best qualifying speed was 448 mph on the course. Very competitive in the 1980s.
No mention of the inverted V-16 CHRYSLER PTOTOTYPE ?
Different airplane. Anyways, the Chrysler engine had too many issues, and time passed all these piston engines by.
P47s fought after WW2 in Taiwan as well, I think.
Yes it did and they bagged at least one MIG-15 during that conflict.
@@dukecraig2402 The P47 is me favourite WW2 fighter.....
Yes It would have been great to see the 72 shoot down A mig15 in Korean war like A Corsair did and mustang but they didn't let the p47 fly in Korea ether I think they could have gotten a few mig15s
Accidentally creates some of the very first ramjets
4 37 MILLIMETER CANNONS? *heart skips a beat*
How many slugs per hour?
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935
😂😂😂😂, yea, that's what people don't get that always think "bigger is better".
@@dukecraig2402 imagine what those four 37mm cannons would do to any aircraft.
@@merafirewing6591
Run out real fast, that's what they be the best at doing.
I'd much rather have the 43 seconds of firing time of the eight .50 calibers on the regular P47 if it's WW2 air combat, those things were like buzz saws that sliced off wings and fuselages in half, it was plenty good for the era and had the longest firing time of any WW2 single engine fighter I know of.
I was a Vulcan gunner in the Army, it was a weapon that fired 3,000 rds per minute and only had a 1,200 rd ammo drum, and loading it wasn't like dropping the mag out of an M16 and putting another one in, it took over 10 minutes to load a drum, the crew was out of the vehicle with the ramp down in the back and the gun had to be turned to the 9 o'clock position, you were extremely vulnerable when loading it and it was something you wouldn't want to have to do anywhere near a battlefield, so the downsides to having a weapon that has a short firing time isn't a concept wasted on me.
I wonder why the decision was made to use a mechanically driven supercharger rather than the exhaust driven turbo supercharger as used on the Thunderbolt
I think the turbo was linked to the supercharger (through a fluid coupling) to provide direct power back into the engine, when turbocharger output exceeded the engine's boost requirements.
Ultrabolt is kinda a badass name ngl
It was a JUGG as an abbreviation for the word JUGGERNAUT due to the aircraft's size much bigger than most single engined fighters But their ability to absorb battle damage was legendary often coming home with most of tail missing and cylinders shot off they were tough aircraft
I just don't understand why the US didn't fit cannon. Was it because they didn't have to attack heavy bombers.
One reason is when the Ordinance Board converted the Metric drawings for the Hispano Suiza 20mm they screwed up the tolerancing. The contractor produced cannons to the dimensions specified but they didn't work that well. Took awhile to sort out. By the end of the war there were fighter aircraft being equipped with 4 20mm cannon. Something similiar happened when they attempted to build copies of the MG-42.
The U.S. manufacturers are too big headed to listen to foreign factories succesfully making equipment. In WW1 the U.S. mucked up making the U.S. designed (!) Lewis portable machine guns. The U.S. Marines paid the price in blood. U.S. 20mm Hispanos (Spanish-French) were sorted out *properly* after the 2nd world war.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935
The contractor for the 20mm Hispanos (Oldmobile iirc) knew the tolerances specified by the Ordinance board were wrong. But Ordinance told them to manufacture to the drawings.
The 50 was adequate against fighters and twin-engined bombers. The US rarely had to deal with monsters like the Lancaster or Flying Fortress.
Why are you guys always asking that given the fact that the aircraft that were hit by those .50's would just come apart an6 erupt into balls of fire?
The .50's put out a lot more rounds per second when firing and equally as important had more firing time than cannons.
The XP-72 must have been really thirsty.
I read "ultrabot" and got horrible Il-2 flashbacks xD
The Brazilians fighting in Italy used P-47s too.
Senta a pua
And they did very well with them to.
The 4360 was called the Wasp Major.
You _might_ be confusing a radial engine's normal 'core' single stage, single speed supercharger with radials fitted with an external auxillary mechanical supercharger 2nd stage (U.S. Navy practice). The 'no supercharger' figures you quote are just impossible. One really needs professional teaching to make sense of all this.
Yep, the auxiliary stage in the fuselage behind the pilot was a variable speed fluid coupled supercharger like the later variant's of the F4U Corsair had, although their's wasn't an auxiliary supercharger they were of the 2 stage design with one directly behind the other on the same shaft, the primary supercharger on the XP-72's R4360 engine being the standard single stage single speed supercharger like the regular P47 had on it's R2800 engine, but instead of being fed by a turbo at altitude like a regular P47 the XP-72 used the fluid coupled auxiliary supercharger instead.
I read that the auxiliary supercharger had an impeller that was just over 3 feet in diameter, that puppy would have moved some serious air when it was spun up at full speed.
Yea, I've had to explain to several people who didn't understand that the P47 and even some other aircraft that that thought their engine's didn't have superchargers on them that with 6.5 to 1 compression pistons without a supercharger you might just as well try engaging in aerial combat on a riding mower, 6.5 to 1 compression is what flathead engine's had and those things made about zero HP per cubic inch.
Thanks for talking about the compression ratios, seems about half of a 60,s area muscle car v8
@@garthwillard8089
The later R2800 engine's had forged pistons and they bumped up the compression ratio in them to 6.75 to 1.
Most of the aircraft engine's of that era had mechanical compression ratios around 6.5 to 1, and so does modern top fuel dragsters, right in that range seems to be what works best on highly boosted engine's, max boost on most Allied engine's running the 150 octane fuel at the end of the war was around 30 psi, I've had some people come back at me in comments saying 30 psi isn't enough to consider an engine to be "highly boosted" and then they'll start rattling off boost numbers for some wild exotic street car but what they don't get is that being aircraft engine's they turn slow compared to something like they're describing, an R2800 engine made max power around 2,700 RPM's compared to one that spinning 8,000 to 10,000 RPM's, an engine that's only turning at 2,700 RPM's has got the intake valve open so long compared to an engine spinning 3 to 3½ times as fast that 30 psi is a lot of boost, those other engine's may run 50 to 60 psi but the intake opens and closes so fast at redline their cylinders aren't getting a full 50 to 60 psi in them before the intake valve closes.
The only aircraft engine's from that era that I've seen that run higher compression pistons is the German DB engine's, they're around 7.7 to 8.2 to 1 which I always thought was curious and to me explains why they didn't make the kind of power per ci as Allied engine's, why they did that I don't know, I'm sure they had a reason but I can't imagine why.
? Corsair never received the new turbo supercharger. XP72 turbo supercharger was going to have 800lbs of thrust out its waste gate. Corsair used 2 stage mechanically driven supercharger and the F2G only had a single stage supercharger... So... in all cases you are out of luck here bud. @@dukecraig2402
The picture shown at 14:15 is a joke. Isn't it? they blurred the middle canopy and put a tie guy on the top of the dashboard.
So the XP-72 was just a Jug with a Corncob~
zamn
Ultrabolt be beautiful… Turbo bolt not so much…
8- .50 cal machine-guns would put over 100 bullets on target each second. 😬
Not necessarily that only applied at one specific range. Guns were angled to form a cone. Get the range wrong especially at long distance and your just spraying bullets in the sky. The Germans put the main gun on the 109 on the centre line it was far more accurate for junior pilots.
@@womble321 - I was saying generally 100+ bullets are going down range each second. Specifications called for sets of guns to be aligned for convergence between 250-300 yards.
At least on the P-51D flight manual page 50. I would imagine P-47 are similar.
At 300 yards the angle of convergence would be about 5* between the outside guns.
The accuracy of ball Ammo was on the order of 3 moa or about 9” at 300 yards. A mixed belt of AP, incendiary, and tracer would probably give you 6moa or so. Say an 18” circle.
I enjoy the more relaxed approach over more technical channels,and the content is pretty good,but be careful of topics you are not familiar with as it detracts from the content,cowl flaps are not thrusters etc. ...
some of these stats are very wrong. because if they were true it would hold world records, but it does not.
Not the prettiest plane. Especially if you're Japanese or German. 😅 The P-47, that is.
War thunder, get to work.
The p-47 is WW2 aircraft it's face the Germans air force it's the theater as Tuskegee airmen
Sorry, but you made a serious error of omission! The Brazilian Expeditionary Force used the P-47 for much longer and many more missions than the Mexican force in the Pacific! When the Mexican air force entered the war, the Brazilians were already in action 1 year earlier in Italy! American historians never value the FEB! Deplorable!
“Supercharged P-47; XP-72 Ultrabolt” LMAO you do realize that EVERY variant of the P-47 was not only supercharged, but turbocharged as well? Hell, EVERY aircraft using the R-2800 (even base low-power transports, etc) were supercharged. It was part of the engine block and core design. 🙄
Maybe leave the details to Graigs Airplanes & Automobiles, or try for less stupid click-bait thumbnail titles lol. 🤦♂️
I think he means that the XP-72 had an all mechanical supercharger system. Most R-2800s had all mechanical superchargers. The P-47 was the only fighter to use a turbosupercharger with the R-2800. The F-6-F and F4U both had mechanical superchargers on both stages. A great deal of the bulk in the P-47s fuselage was because of the ducting for the 2nd stage turbosupercharger.
@@mpetersen6
The later variant of the Black Widow night fighter also had the supercharger/turbo configuration that the P47 had.
Why do you even bother? Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles gives far more in-depth and I must say accurate information, not only history, but also engineering, and most importantly much more detailed flight characteristics.
Variety is always a good thing.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles is my favorite aviation channel but he's so in depth it can be too much for casual WW2 Avaiation fans. This is much more digestible for casuals so it serves a purpose.
If you're going to call someone out for being inaccurate (or less accurate), you should provide some examples.
Greg's work is amazing, but there's nothing wrong with short videos designed to give an overview, rather than a deep dive.
Even Greg makes mistakes. I've caught him giving misleading information ion the B-17 even though the images he was showing and was using to illustrate his points were contradicting what he was saying.
In 9 BC Livy completed his monumental work on Roman history called "Ab urbe condita" and yet today a history book on Roman history his begun and finished nearly every day.