Thanks, this episode in particular was a massive effort. I think this one episode took more time than all the automotive episodes combined! I appreciate you noticing that.
@@graemedicks3139 same exact scenario here. (Did a preliminary design of an inverted V-12, 999cubic inch, 1350 horsepower, as a fictional but viable "sportsman class" air racing engine. It was to have a planetary gearset on the crankshaft end, keeping the prop hub concentric with the crankshaft, but spinning in opposite directions which cancels out a spall portion of the torque effect. :)
Thx for the great work. The reason why not much gun camera footage from German WW2 fighters is available, is : the archive of the Luftwaffe was in Dresden and get burned down during the raid 13-14 February 1945. So most of the gun cam footage is burned.
I'm sure that's correct, both Bismark from Military Aviation History and The Sheriff from Sheriff's Sim Shack have said the same thing, and they are both German.
I'm not a pilot, but as an enthusiast I'm enamored with the Fw190. I've wondered hard about the seeming discrepancy between the 190's real life reputation for manoeuvrability, and its representation in sims and games where it is often considered inferior to and more difficult to score with than any of its contemporaries. Your amazing content has helped immensely with my understanding of things. Many thanks and ever a fan.
2 year old reply, but yes the heavier aircraft in simulators seem to get the short end of the stick. Ironically War thunder out of all the "sims" really seemed to get the diving/zooming characteristics of the Fw-190 correct. I really felt like a Spitfire IX could not touch/catch me in a Fw-190A, I'd simply point the nose down and away I went. Also I'm talking a SLIGHT nose down of 10 - 15 Degrees. And this should be EVEN more so exaggerated with the P-47 against a Bf-109, correct? Not at all in other sims, its hilarious when a Bf-109 is out diving and zooming everything. However, I have to give Warthunder credit because the P-47N was just DEMONIC in its zooming and diving capabilities. You really felt like nothing could touch you as long as you played your cards right.
I'm so glad you showed that NACA report on roll rate. After you quoted Robert Johnson ("...the P47 could out roll anything in the sky..."), I paused the vid and started composing a careful reply explaining the need to properly interrogate sources in good historical practice, and the need to do so with diplomacy and sensitivity when the source is a war hero... I'm so happy you saved me the trouble!
Hi Greg. Fantastic video. I have a few comments from the perspective of an aerospace engineer. 1. I believe you made a mistake in determining the minimal turn radius conditions (56:38). You said you got a radius of 1099, 1089 and 1094 ft for speeds of 165, 170 and 175 mph respectively. I claim that this is not the optimal turn radius. The optimal sustained turn radius is achieved when the sustained load factor is equal to the stalling load factor. I calculated that as 199 mph and 2.7G. That turns out to be a sustained turn radius of 1036 ft. That is significant not in terms of the radius itself (the difference is only 5%), but in terms of the speed - the difference between 200 mph and the best climb speed of 165 mph is not insignificant (and also means a difference in turn rate and energy). Indeed it was your comment about the best climb speed being possibly related to the minimal sustained turn radius that lead me to go over the numbers. It is not in a propeller airplane (jets are a different story - but even then it is not necessarily exact). The speed for minimal required power is (2*W/(rho*S)*(K/(3CD0))^.5)^.5, where W is weight, rho is density, S is wing area, K is induced drag coefficient, CD0 is parasitic drag coefficient. The speed for minimal drag (or best L/D, or best glide ratio) is (2*W/(rho*S)*(K/(CD0))^.5)^.5. If we divide them, we see that the minimal required power speed is exactly 3^-0.25 = 76% the minimal drag speed. Ideally the minimal required power speed is also the best climb speed (but only for props - jets are entirely different) - that is where "the book" gets this 76% factor from. This condition holds unless this speed falls outside of the stabilized propeller efficiency range, as is the case for the P-47 (that is why its best climb speed is 165 and not 135 mph). In such case, the best climb speed and the speed for minimal sustained radius can be close - but it is not guaranteed. In other words, there may be some correlation, but there is no causation. You can have a propeller aircraft with a best sustained radius speed considerably higher than its best climb speed. 2. While I went over this, I took the liberty of using your source data to create an Energy-Maneuverability turn rate doghouse plot for the P-47D at sea level. This ties nicely with your previous (and also fantastic) video. You can see it here: drive.google.com/file/d/13664ySkxFWxBKhUKTFn0ve7wxIJEYlnW/view?usp=sharing. The thick blue lines mark the edges of the flight envelope - left is stall limit, top is G limit, right is VNE (which I took as the dive limit). Thin blue lines are specific excess power contours [ft/min]. Dotted blue line is the 0 excess power line - i.e. the sustained turn performance curve. Black lines are turn radius contours [ft]. Red lines are G contours. I marked the main points of interest on the plot as A...D. A is the corner speed - maximal instantaneous turn performance (317 mph, 7G, 27 deg/sec, 973 ft). B is the maximal sustained turn rate (and in this case also the aforementioned minimal sustained radius): 199 mph, 2.7G, 16 deg/sec, 1036 ft. C is the maximal sustained load factor: 227 mph, 2.8G, 15 deg/sec, 1304 ft. D is the top speed: 353 mph. If I'll have time, I may make another doghouse plot showing both the P47D and the 109. This is usually the methodology that engineers use to compare aircraft performance. It shows exactly under what conditions which plane has an energy or maneuverability advantage. 3. The wingtip helix angle (1:02:20) is better known as the non-dimensional roll rate. This is one of the parameters that affects aerodynamic forces (along with angle of attack, angle of side-slip, non-dimensional pitch and yaw rates ...). The non-dimensional roll (and yaw) rate is especially relevant to the dihedral effect on roll stability.
Hi ASJ, I'm glad you are here, I want to continue this discussion, but the way youtube delivers these comments to me I only see recent ones unless I go through each video individually, which would be impossible at this point. I'll address your points. 1. The number I put for turn radius were for the 2000hp 47. It can not sustain 2.7Gs at 200mph, it's the 2600hp version that can. I get 1076 feet at 199mph at 2.7Gs www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html It makes sense that min sust. radius would be where the aerodynamic G limit meets the power limit. However I could not find that in any manual, but I do believe it. The numbers I came up with a pretty close to that, within about 10mph, which on those charts is about the thickness of the line. 2. My god that's amazing. You are clearly the real deal. That's a nice change of pace from a lot of the youtube comments. Thanks so much!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Oh, I thought it was for the 2600 hp P-47. For a 2000 hp I get a minimal sustained radius of 1074 ft @ 180 mph and 2.26G, which is close to your results. The difference in the online calculator results is mostly due to rounding of the load factor. Adding another digit of precision, my calculated load factor was 2.74G (2600 hp), or 68.6 deg @199 mph which gives 1043 ft in the online calculator vs my 1036 ft. The slight remaining difference must be due to some (weird) rounding internally in the calculator's code. A couple of books that discuss the minimal turn radius (and the conditions for it) are "Aircraft performance and design" by John D. Anderson and "Flight mechanics of high performance aircraft" by Nguyen X. Vinh. These are however engineering textbooks (math heavy). I'm glad you enjoyed the doghouse plot. As a graphical example of the minimal sustained radius condition - if you consider the 0 excess power curve, you can see that as speed is lowered, the sustained radius is getting smaller, until the stall limit is met, where minimal radius is achieved.
Hi ASJC27. I really enjoy your post. I didn't go to the 1/100th of a G because I can't fly that accurately, nobody can, but from a scientific standpoint, I am sure you are correct. I amended the description of this video to include your points as they are quite good. I hope you like my next video as well and comment, it gets into swept wing stuff, which I suspect you know far more about than I do.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Regarding G-measurements to the 1/100th: It may look like the operators running this centrifuge hasn't bother to adjust the G-measurements to the 1/100th (0.96 G). But we all know that in real life we can appreciate a high precision, even if the accuracy is somewhat off. ua-cam.com/video/tsSG07jGKjQ/v-deo.html (Off course in this case, I would regards the last digit as more for drawing curves, and to give a check for the second last digit.)
An observation and a huge thank you to Greg and ALL the viewers and those who comment…. There’s also always a wealth of info in the comments section of Greg’s work, and it’s unbelievably helpful and appreciated the comments never degenerate into the opinionated garbage found at other channels. Greg, how you’ve managed to attract a viewership of such professionalism speaks volumes to your abilities.
Your content is so jam packed with info, and your attention to detail is on a whole other level. If you ever need any kind of mod or work to get a specific change done in a game or flight sim let me know, I might be able to help.
Thanks Catman. In DCS I have been very pleased with the latest update for the Dora. They finally fixed the random engine failure bug and now the Dora just rocks. I'm still flying IL2 a little bit, more more and more DCS these days.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yeah Ive heard and seen a lot about it, I'll have to grab a copy and check it out myself. I used to do a lot of programming and mods for games and often spend more time changing and adding things than playing them lol. I really appreciate the research you've done into the very specific physics involved, little details like that always captivate me. Anyone who seeks every advantage and ability over an opponent or physical limitation can appreciate that I think.
Satisfying video, thanks.When i was practicing for my commercial check ride, i did many chandelles. As i remember, once you initiated the maneuver, you had to keep the plane constantly turning and/or diving /climbing .Never did an immelman, but it sounds much easier, roll out on the top of a loop.I had the privilege of taking aerobatic lessons with Sammy Mason, who wrote a book on spins, so we did spins,spins,spins. We did inverted spins from upside down, and from right side up, inverted 360's, and more.Aerobatics are so useful in learning what a plane is like when it is forced to do things it really doesn't want to do, and how it can bite you.
@Gort Planes are forced into spins by extravagant use of rudder, and the plane only spins if full rudder is used, ease up on the rudder and most planes will come out of the spin by themselves.
Unbelievably accurate assessments, calculations and references to authentic sources. This must've really taken you decades to amass the manuals and handbooks and film footage etc etc.
@12:45 "I don't think Max Immelmann himself ever did an immelmann in the eindecker" this is correct. According to the descriptions I've seen the immelmann maneuver in ww1 was not the same maneuver. During WW1 the immelmann was the maneuver now called a wingover or a stall turn/hammerhead, depending on how close to a stall you take it. A wingover is done before a stall and has a non zero turning radius during yaw, while a hammerhead is done at stall and the turning point during yaw is a point within the wingspan, so you are rotating around a point inside the aircraft giving you an apparent zero turn radius. Both maneuvers are essentially the same. You pull up hard, and near the stall point (or right at it) you hit the rudder hard and rotate the plane 180 degrees using YAW instead of pitch or roll. This ends the maneuver going the opposite direction and pointed nose down. the turn will be very tight, either with a rotation point inside the wing (hammerhead/stall turn) or not far outside the wing tip (wingover).
I have always had the impression that the maneuvers of WW I were often more acrobatic. The slower, much lighter "kites" they flew in then fought somewhat differently from the more zooming maneuvers of the heavier, faster planes of WW II in my mind.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Got to get out my fathers one.... With all plus, minus, multiplication and division. Granted.. the division is a bit... well. Strange.
You guys suck..I'm late and you took my jokes. I had a killer slide rule and abacus comment and everything . Maybe next time. Nice video as usual, Greg.
The picture of the 47 at 0:41 is from my city, Curitiba - Brazil, exposed in the front of The Expedicionary Museum. It was operated by Lt. Alberto Martins Torres, from the 1st Group of Fighter Aviation of the FEB (Brazilian Expeditionary Force). It saw more than 100 missions over Italy. It is a D-25. Thunderbolts are a marvelous engineering work from 2 russians that create a plane for USAAF, flew by dozens of countries. That is what we can call a global plane :D. And thanks Greg, another impeccable masterpiece video. Just keep doing it!
I've got to say I'm impressed at the depth of this analysis. Moreover although I've studied some Physics at college level so I should be able to understand all of it, I still feel proud that I managed.
You are correct Greg. Max Immelmann's maneuver was a zoom climb followed by a low speed 180° yaw turn, transitioning into a dive. There was no inverted flight or negative G's involved.
Your usual thorough job, Greg. Good stuff! As a non-pilot, non-engineer, non-math-person, some of it went right over my head by a wide margin, and I wouldn't attempt to do any calculations myself, but I think I understand the general principles. Much more involved in combat flying than just "pull the stick this way and kick the rudder." The P-factor discussion was especially useful to me, since my Dad was a carrier pilot in the Pacific, and the P-factor was very much an issue with Navy fighters powered by the same P&W R-2800 engine as the P-47. They all had sizable props, and this helps explain why, if an inexperienced pilot jammed on the throttle when waved off a carrier landing, the plane (F6F / F4U) sometimes rolled left and (usually inverted) right into the ocean from the 150 or so feet altitude at which a landing carrier fighter was flying in final approach. That's a case when angle of attack made a sizable difference, as well…
Great stuff, thanks for all the hard work and insight. Just fascinating to me. I eagerly await your videos...learn so much each time and enjoy watching them over and over. Thanks!
I will do that. From this point it will be easy to make a series about individual planes because I won't need to cover all the basics. For example, I won't have to explain how I come up with turn performance as that's already taken care of in the P-47 series, same with mach numbers and so on.
@LUCKYDUCKY 62 I just completed my 1/48 scale model of the Bristol Beaufighter. Very interesting plane. Finished mine toting a torpedo. Very versatile crate.
Another fine job. I have various subjects that I'm interested in, as do most people. There is always a "channel" that rises above the others in whatever category. And this channel is the best of it's kind.
Ahhh, so that's why the P-38 was such a stable plane for photography with props rotating in opposite directions. Both sides pull the plane in opposite directions canceling out one another force pulling to opposite siddes. Science IS cool, as I've heard said before. Your passion even has you back checking claims of all other's facts and findings.
Really well done video!! It's interesting you mentioned the Corsair. In Barrett Tillman's excellent book on the Corsair he mentioned how during WWII, Corsair and P-47 pilots tangling in mock dogfights over Long Island Sound at lower and medium altitudes would most often result favorably for the Corsair. The P-47 pilots would then pick up their oxygen masks and point upward to take the challenge to high altitudes. He said a wise Corsair pilot wouldn't accept that challenge and break off.
The Corsair vs. Thunderbolt is an interesting comparison. I get into that quite a bit in my turbo vs supercharging video. The Corsair is better at low altitude, but the Thunderbolt is much better up high.
That was also an excellent video. Heck all of your videos are so well done! Just a note, as someone who has studied the R2800 for many years you may mention at some point, if you haven't already done so and I just missed it, that the R2800 comes in two main production forms each with a multitude of subtypes. That being the B series and C series. It's significant because other than displacement and things like magnetos and distributors they share almost no parts in common. Unlike the Hellcat which only utilized the B series in production(XF6F-6 only tested a -18) both the Corsair and Thunderbolt utilized both series of the engine during their WWII careers. While both versions of the R2800 are excellent in their own right, the refinements made in the C series allowed for greater nose cases stresses and improved cylinder head cooling with machined vs cast cooling fins to name just a couple. Also interesting but perhaps beyond the scope of the video is the Navy's testing of the unsuccessful Birman turbocharger in the Hellcat and Corsair or the "Side-wheeler" R2800-32 that allowed the post war F4U-5 to high altitude speeds of about 470mph
I'm not a smart man, but I think it's important to challenge my walnut-sized brain on occasion, so you've done that. Love the P-47 for the old stories I read about Zemke and others who seemed to genuinely like their chances it it, but in these times especially, it's important to hear the truth.
I am a very sick person, I understood all this. But lets just say it took you a while to get to the subject matter of the tilte. Just constructive criticism. I love your video, that's why I'm here.
Great stuff! As a glider pilot you also learn a bit about turn performance and how it matters in a thermal. Especially when in a competitive setting. Almost like dogfighting, except you don't need to point your plane at the "adversary" in the turn. Reminds me of outclimbing my dad while in a slightly inferior plane by using its lower stall speed and better turn handling at lower speed to get to the inside. Flightsimming, I also loved the P-47 especially against the 190, particularly because that was also one of my favourites, so I knew it well and most 190-players thought a 47 couldn't turn. Well, at least in that game.
Thank you for your hard work on this video. I note that you don't talk about maneuvering flaps. Flaps increasing lift and drag, changes the graphs for each setting on the flaps. Bud Anderson said that he could drop partial flaps at any speed on the P-51, and asserts he was not outturned by the enemy. Also, the Bf-109 had slotted flaps to decrease turning radius.
Metricans can do their own conversions. I'm one and not a math guy but still it's easy. A yard is slightly less than a metre but close enough. Three and a bit feet to a metre, close enough. 1.6km per mile.
Greg your knowledge is amazing and your presentations are enrapturing. As an engrossed AAF researcher there are two terms I want to point out for your reconsideration: 1. USAAF or AAF, the WWII air service was the Army Air Forces (pl) as compares to Ground Forces or Sevices Forces. 2. The Army designation system (and post- 1962 DoD) the numeber is the MODEL and the alpha is the SERIES. So Pursuit Model 47 came in a D series. Double check me.
The armed variant of the AT6 was the P64, for those who are curious. One was up for sale last year from Courtesy Aircraft Sales. I don't know where it went from there.
I’ve listened to WWII pilots state the Razorback was actually the fastest model of them all. It was a low MPH difference, and I can’t remember. The angle of attack increasing the left pitch of the plane. The same pilots explained how they landed. They explained due to the lack of visibility, they landed in a descending left turn, loosing sight of the runway at the last moment. Given the characteristics in a steep angle of attack, that practice makes sense.
That's the N model, it had a different, and improved wing. It was stiffer so it could reach a higher dive speed without aileron reversal. They are not simply clipped, it has a lot of structural changes.
We did use inches but in German it is called Zoll, 25,4mm. Most people do not know by the way. Imperial was and is still used in piping in central yurop.
Very thorough. Gained a new understanding of the "P factor". The exaggerated rudder on the F8F is an attempt to get control of strong "P factor" effects during carrier take off. .......... I'm guessing.
I really enjoyed this, thanks. And I appreciate your regular metric conversions. I only had to calculate a few of the missed ones this time! But seriously, I appreciate the effort you put in to get the stuff you do, I’m really really not complaining here.
The Tempest was a later design, and quite good, but overall I think it's slightly inferior to the P-47N and about equal to the P-47D-40 in most respects, although the D-40 will beat it at high altitude or for escort missions. The Tempest has the edge in low of medium altitude 1v1 fights.
A math heavy video but a most informative one. Gonna have to watch it a few times to absorb all of it. Simply superlative Greg, I have been looking forward to the remake of this video for a while now. All useful information that may even have its uses in a sort of simplified game like War Thunder. And sims like IL2.
In India, there is a blessing called jug jug gio. It means that you live for aeons to come. I was very depressed today. Now I have a reason to live. Greg ji, Jug Jug Gio!!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles What ever happened to the video you did before this one? The one you were on camera talking about the 737 MAX, and other Boeing flight systems. I thought that was a vary interesting, and informative video. I don't see it on your channel anymore. I thought UA-cam shut you down, I'm glad you'r still doing videos. You don't see stuff like this on TV.
@Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles - You talked about Immelmann probably not performing a normal Immelmann. For what I know you're right. In the Wikipedia article about the Immelmann turn you can find a description of what was probably the historical Immelmann maneuver.
@@MultiZirkon some of their weak points is slow speed at sea level. They are comparable to the Bf 109 G-6 which is on a disadvantage compared to the later allied planes speed wise. The Germans offsetted this by using MW 50 but the Italian 5 series fighters didn't have it.
Great to have another video on the P-47. Haven't watched it yet, must wait till my work day is finished. Although, I couldn't wait to comment on the thumbnail pic of the Russian La-5. Hope there's a reason for it being there in a video about P-47 maneuverability.
Given how low the max loadings are at altitude, at less than 2 g's, I'm imagining a P47 and 109 making gentle, sweeping, airliner-like turns, with the 109 wheezing to keep up and nearly falling out of the sky
P-51 pilots did use a set of stall and spin maneuvers to win dogfights. And snap rolls are spins. All of these maneuvers are generally no more than 1 full spin rotation, or less.
I remember some interviews from a long while back which looked at the Spitfire vs BF109 argument re, manoeuvrability and what they all agreed made the difference wasn't actually the plane, well, not all that much. It was more about how far the pilot was willing to push the limits of the plane. I mean, I get it that there is a LOT of theory in the physical limits of the plane, but actually, how much was a pilot likely to get close to those limits in a real battle? I suspect that most of the people flying these things had a good idea of what their planes were capable of in relation to the planes they flew against, and would probably try to use their machine's strengths to their greatest advantage. But what REALLY influenced the course of WWII was probably a combination of that AND the fact that Germany was depleting its stock of experienced fighter pilots at a significantly faster rate than the allies. I have no doubt (even less so having watched your presentations) that the P47 was one of the great designs of WWII. And one of the reasons for that is that it helped inexperienced pilots to survive long enough to become experienced pilots. In a war in which attrition was partly responsible for the Germans losing, that is a statement that is significant.
This is P-47 Thunderbolt ‘Deep Dive’-I like how you consider air show pilots and that made think of how over the years people partly base their opinions of ww2 fighters on their experience as a spectator at air shows. If you compare a P-51 to a P-47 at an air show you’d think the P-51 is like too bulky to maneuver as well as a p-51. But at an air show their only seeing them fly fairly down low so their not seeing the p-47 In it’s designated element.
To add to Robert S Johnson's comments on turn, climb etc. There are others, in after action reports and interviews that state that they out climbed 109s at low altitude etc., a youtube interview of a 56th FG ace that stated his -10 would out turn anything and that the -25 was too heavy. I don't know about pilot skill or strength. But the people that FLEW them don't seem to have read the aerodynamics for naval aviators. But I do not think the book numbers tell the real story. Johnson tells of using roll to out turn a 190 IIRC. So I take the "book" with some skepticism. But your channel is one of my favorites. Being a one time general aviation flight instructor.
A whole lot of info to consider when piloting one of these in a combat situation. In all of this, there is the fuel calculations to figure in too. Those big radials suck it up fast. Great video.
Always loved the 47 and fly it frequently in il2 just found your channel trying to get more knowledge on tactics to use while flying the jug. Watched your excellent P47 series went on the combat box server and proceeded to to shoot down 3 enemy fighters In one sortie! Coincidence? I think not.
Thank you for using actual combat footage instead of game play. (And especially not colorized footage.) There are just too many people who think that the flight simulators, no matter how well researched, have anything to say about aircraft performance. Sorry gamers, but all you have in ANY game is what the designers modeled, that is, a series of math that gives you something that looks fun when you play. Even the "professional" trainers are designed to specifically mimic the situations that they are designed to teach, and anything else is just a bonus. In other words, you can NEVER draw any conclusions about aircraft performance from any simulator. Sorry if that was a bit of a rant.
You're welcome, although actual footage from the German side of WW2 is very rare, sometimes using game footage is the only way to show certain things. For example, in my video on John Boyd, there was no way to use actual footage on that one. No gun cameras show the needed angles.
Your videos remind me of all the time I spent playing IL2 1946 online. I cannot say how realistic the aircraft performance was in that game but P-47 was one of my favourite planes to fly. Great visibility well from the bubble tops at least and 8 machine guns made it a great surprise attack plane.
The P47.... always a favourite of mine.....sort of reminds me of my old '69 Chrysler Newport with a 4 barrel 383 Commando out front.....looked too big and bulky to work that well but, boy did that old land yacht have sone get up' n go and drive so well. 😉😎
The J35 Draken had a problem that it's rudder actuators didn't have enough power in a high speed dive to pull it out so in peacetime it was forbidden to dive at a 90 degree angle below 6000 meters or something like that. The AJ SK SF and SH Viggen variants had a similar problem but not as severe with weak actuators this is why the JA-37 Viggen has an additional actuator on it's wing
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I like reading in detail about a few things that are declassified like the J35 Draken and Radar Jamming. They combine in that the Swedish air force had a dedicated ECM squadron (since 1972) flying the J32E Lansen which where rebuilt mach 1 NIght Fighters with all the armament related stuff taken out and ECM gear put in controlled by the operator in the back. They where used as Opfor in peacetime which was their main duty. Sort of a reverse White Sands range where one trains interceptors in an ECM environment instead of the strike package. It had very modern equipment designed to jam all electronic spectrums from voice coms to radars and datalinks. Using these aircraft in the late 1970's it was found that the Draken radar was very susceptible to Jamming. This was rectified in a modification package in 1982. Given that the jammers where quite modern and the Draken used a conventional analogue pulse radar it's interesting that such a resistance could be achieved. And as a side effect it was noticed that the Draken got vastly improved low level capability with it's radar. Which is why the AIM-26B proximity fuze was modified so instead of exploding at 500m above ground it exploded at 50m above ground. Making it possible to use it at low level
The amount of work you put into these documentaries is astounding.
Thanks, this episode in particular was a massive effort. I think this one episode took more time than all the automotive episodes combined! I appreciate you noticing that.
My word
I'm not a pilot, just a scientific minded airplane nerd and I'm always very happy when I see you've uploaded a new aircraft video!
I'm a chemical engineer and I adore listening to his videos as I'm working on instruments and doing experiments.
I'm not even an airplane nerd but I love this channel! I think the subscriber count will soon grow quickly
Agreed - Began watching this channel searching for information on the inverted V12 and discovered way more ...
@@graemedicks3139 same exact scenario here. (Did a preliminary design of an inverted V-12, 999cubic inch, 1350 horsepower, as a fictional but viable "sportsman class" air racing engine.
It was to have a planetary gearset on the crankshaft end, keeping the prop hub concentric with the crankshaft, but spinning in opposite directions which cancels out a spall portion of the torque effect. :)
Same brother. Same.
Thx for the great work. The reason why not much gun camera footage from German WW2 fighters is available, is : the archive of the Luftwaffe was in Dresden and get burned down during the raid 13-14 February 1945. So most of the gun cam footage is burned.
I'm sure that's correct, both Bismark from Military Aviation History and The Sheriff from Sheriff's Sim Shack have said the same thing, and they are both German.
Just to say, 2 years on, this is still a valuable contribution. Thank you.
I've really started to look at WW2 aircraft with a great deal more appreciation for the engineering that went into them. Thank you for these videos.
I'm not a pilot, but as an enthusiast I'm enamored with the Fw190. I've wondered hard about the seeming discrepancy between the 190's real life reputation for manoeuvrability, and its representation in sims and games where it is often considered inferior to and more difficult to score with than any of its contemporaries. Your amazing content has helped immensely with my understanding of things. Many thanks and ever a fan.
2 year old reply, but yes the heavier aircraft in simulators seem to get the short end of the stick. Ironically War thunder out of all the "sims" really seemed to get the diving/zooming characteristics of the Fw-190 correct. I really felt like a Spitfire IX could not touch/catch me in a Fw-190A, I'd simply point the nose down and away I went. Also I'm talking a SLIGHT nose down of 10 - 15 Degrees. And this should be EVEN more so exaggerated with the P-47 against a Bf-109, correct? Not at all in other sims, its hilarious when a Bf-109 is out diving and zooming everything. However, I have to give Warthunder credit because the P-47N was just DEMONIC in its zooming and diving capabilities. You really felt like nothing could touch you as long as you played your cards right.
As a non-pilot I'm thoroughly impressed by the rigor one can acquire when one's life depends on it.
Great video. I flew the Avon Sabre. Best rate of climb was 350 kts IAS into M.83. Best Clmax turn at altitude was M.83.
Thanks and that must have been a very exciting airplane to fly.
I'm so glad you showed that NACA report on roll rate. After you quoted Robert Johnson ("...the P47 could out roll anything in the sky..."), I paused the vid and started composing a careful reply explaining the need to properly interrogate sources in good historical practice, and the need to do so with diplomacy and sensitivity when the source is a war hero... I'm so happy you saved me the trouble!
Hi Greg. Fantastic video. I have a few comments from the perspective of an aerospace engineer.
1. I believe you made a mistake in determining the minimal turn radius conditions (56:38). You said you got a radius of 1099, 1089 and 1094 ft for speeds of 165, 170 and 175 mph respectively. I claim that this is not the optimal turn radius. The optimal sustained turn radius is achieved when the sustained load factor is equal to the stalling load factor. I calculated that as 199 mph and 2.7G. That turns out to be a sustained turn radius of 1036 ft. That is significant not in terms of the radius itself (the difference is only 5%), but in terms of the speed - the difference between 200 mph and the best climb speed of 165 mph is not insignificant (and also means a difference in turn rate and energy). Indeed it was your comment about the best climb speed being possibly related to the minimal sustained turn radius that lead me to go over the numbers. It is not in a propeller airplane (jets are a different story - but even then it is not necessarily exact).
The speed for minimal required power is (2*W/(rho*S)*(K/(3CD0))^.5)^.5, where W is weight, rho is density, S is wing area, K is induced drag coefficient, CD0 is parasitic drag coefficient. The speed for minimal drag (or best L/D, or best glide ratio) is (2*W/(rho*S)*(K/(CD0))^.5)^.5. If we divide them, we see that the minimal required power speed is exactly 3^-0.25 = 76% the minimal drag speed. Ideally the minimal required power speed is also the best climb speed (but only for props - jets are entirely different) - that is where "the book" gets this 76% factor from. This condition holds unless this speed falls outside of the stabilized propeller efficiency range, as is the case for the P-47 (that is why its best climb speed is 165 and not 135 mph). In such case, the best climb speed and the speed for minimal sustained radius can be close - but it is not guaranteed. In other words, there may be some correlation, but there is no causation. You can have a propeller aircraft with a best sustained radius speed considerably higher than its best climb speed.
2. While I went over this, I took the liberty of using your source data to create an Energy-Maneuverability turn rate doghouse plot for the P-47D at sea level. This ties nicely with your previous (and also fantastic) video. You can see it here: drive.google.com/file/d/13664ySkxFWxBKhUKTFn0ve7wxIJEYlnW/view?usp=sharing. The thick blue lines mark the edges of the flight envelope - left is stall limit, top is G limit, right is VNE (which I took as the dive limit). Thin blue lines are specific excess power contours [ft/min]. Dotted blue line is the 0 excess power line - i.e. the sustained turn performance curve. Black lines are turn radius contours [ft]. Red lines are G contours. I marked the main points of interest on the plot as A...D. A is the corner speed - maximal instantaneous turn performance (317 mph, 7G, 27 deg/sec, 973 ft). B is the maximal sustained turn rate (and in this case also the aforementioned minimal sustained radius): 199 mph, 2.7G, 16 deg/sec, 1036 ft. C is the maximal sustained load factor: 227 mph, 2.8G, 15 deg/sec, 1304 ft. D is the top speed: 353 mph.
If I'll have time, I may make another doghouse plot showing both the P47D and the 109. This is usually the methodology that engineers use to compare aircraft performance. It shows exactly under what conditions which plane has an energy or maneuverability advantage.
3. The wingtip helix angle (1:02:20) is better known as the non-dimensional roll rate. This is one of the parameters that affects aerodynamic forces (along with angle of attack, angle of side-slip, non-dimensional pitch and yaw rates ...). The non-dimensional roll (and yaw) rate is especially relevant to the dihedral effect on roll stability.
Hi ASJ, I'm glad you are here, I want to continue this discussion, but the way youtube delivers these comments to me I only see recent ones unless I go through each video individually, which would be impossible at this point. I'll address your points.
1. The number I put for turn radius were for the 2000hp 47. It can not sustain 2.7Gs at 200mph, it's the 2600hp version that can. I get 1076 feet at 199mph at 2.7Gs www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html
It makes sense that min sust. radius would be where the aerodynamic G limit meets the power limit. However I could not find that in any manual, but I do believe it. The numbers I came up with a pretty close to that, within about 10mph, which on those charts is about the thickness of the line.
2. My god that's amazing. You are clearly the real deal. That's a nice change of pace from a lot of the youtube comments.
Thanks so much!
I have amended the description of the video to include ASJC27's points.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Oh, I thought it was for the 2600 hp P-47. For a 2000 hp I get a minimal sustained radius of 1074 ft @ 180 mph and 2.26G, which is close to your results.
The difference in the online calculator results is mostly due to rounding of the load factor. Adding another digit of precision, my calculated load factor was 2.74G (2600 hp), or 68.6 deg @199 mph which gives 1043 ft in the online calculator vs my 1036 ft. The slight remaining difference must be due to some (weird) rounding internally in the calculator's code.
A couple of books that discuss the minimal turn radius (and the conditions for it) are "Aircraft performance and design" by John D. Anderson and "Flight mechanics of high performance aircraft" by Nguyen X. Vinh. These are however engineering textbooks (math heavy).
I'm glad you enjoyed the doghouse plot. As a graphical example of the minimal sustained radius condition - if you consider the 0 excess power curve, you can see that as speed is lowered, the sustained radius is getting smaller, until the stall limit is met, where minimal radius is achieved.
Hi ASJC27. I really enjoy your post. I didn't go to the 1/100th of a G because I can't fly that accurately, nobody can, but from a scientific standpoint, I am sure you are correct. I amended the description of this video to include your points as they are quite good. I hope you like my next video as well and comment, it gets into swept wing stuff, which I suspect you know far more about than I do.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Regarding G-measurements to the 1/100th: It may look like the operators running this centrifuge hasn't bother to adjust the G-measurements to the 1/100th (0.96 G). But we all know that in real life we can appreciate a high precision, even if the accuracy is somewhat off.
ua-cam.com/video/tsSG07jGKjQ/v-deo.html
(Off course in this case, I would regards the last digit as more for drawing curves, and to give a check for the second last digit.)
An observation and a huge thank you to Greg and ALL the viewers and those who comment…. There’s also always a wealth of info in the comments section of Greg’s work, and it’s unbelievably helpful and appreciated the comments never degenerate into the opinionated garbage found at other channels. Greg, how you’ve managed to attract a viewership of such professionalism speaks volumes to your abilities.
Your content is so jam packed with info, and your attention to detail is on a whole other level. If you ever need any kind of mod or work to get a specific change done in a game or flight sim let me know, I might be able to help.
Thanks Catman. In DCS I have been very pleased with the latest update for the Dora. They finally fixed the random engine failure bug and now the Dora just rocks. I'm still flying IL2 a little bit, more more and more DCS these days.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yeah Ive heard and seen a lot about it, I'll have to grab a copy and check it out myself. I used to do a lot of programming and mods for games and often spend more time changing and adding things than playing them lol. I really appreciate the research you've done into the very specific physics involved, little details like that always captivate me. Anyone who seeks every advantage and ability over an opponent or physical limitation can appreciate that I think.
Satisfying video, thanks.When i was practicing for my commercial check ride, i did many chandelles. As i remember, once you initiated the maneuver, you had to keep the plane constantly turning and/or diving /climbing .Never did an immelman, but it sounds much easier, roll out on the top of a loop.I had the privilege of taking aerobatic lessons with Sammy Mason, who wrote a book on spins, so we did spins,spins,spins. We did inverted spins from upside down, and from right side up, inverted 360's, and more.Aerobatics are so useful in learning what a plane is like when it is forced to do things it really doesn't want to do, and how it can bite you.
Thanks Donald, and I agree about aerobatics.
@Gort Planes are forced into spins by extravagant use of rudder, and the plane only spins if full rudder is used, ease up on the rudder and most planes will come out of the spin by themselves.
Glad to see this uploaded! I’ve watched every P-47 video on your channel at least 4 times each-I’m ready for this.
Thanks, this one is hard core, but I needed to knock out these aerodynamic principles so I don't need to cover them over and over in future videos.
Unbelievably accurate assessments, calculations and references to authentic sources. This must've really taken you decades to amass the manuals and handbooks and film footage etc etc.
WHAT DID WE DO TO DESERVE 2 BACK TO BACK VIDEOS GREG OMG ❤️
Hi Asif, it's just the way the timing worked out.
@12:45 "I don't think Max Immelmann himself ever did an immelmann in the eindecker"
this is correct. According to the descriptions I've seen the immelmann maneuver in ww1 was not the same maneuver. During WW1 the immelmann was the maneuver now called a wingover or a stall turn/hammerhead, depending on how close to a stall you take it. A wingover is done before a stall and has a non zero turning radius during yaw, while a hammerhead is done at stall and the turning point during yaw is a point within the wingspan, so you are rotating around a point inside the aircraft giving you an apparent zero turn radius.
Both maneuvers are essentially the same. You pull up hard, and near the stall point (or right at it) you hit the rudder hard and rotate the plane 180 degrees using YAW instead of pitch or roll. This ends the maneuver going the opposite direction and pointed nose down. the turn will be very tight, either with a rotation point inside the wing (hammerhead/stall turn) or not far outside the wing tip (wingover).
I have always had the impression that the maneuvers of WW I were often more acrobatic. The slower, much lighter "kites" they flew in then fought somewhat differently from the more zooming maneuvers of the heavier, faster planes of WW II in my mind.
"i double checked it with an electronic calculater"
Disappointing. I thought you would at least use a mechanical calculator. ;)
Not too many of those around anymore.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Got to get out my fathers one.... With all plus, minus, multiplication and division. Granted.. the division is a bit... well. Strange.
Mechanical calculator? A sliderule is the way to go!
Jokes aside, love your videos, the attention to detail and technical level is outstanding.
You guys suck..I'm late and you took my jokes. I had a killer slide rule and abacus comment and everything . Maybe next time.
Nice video as usual, Greg.
"Not too many" is just another way to say "not enough."
As a student pilot, this is the best explanation of P-factor I have ever heard. Thank you for that. I learned a lot I will use from that explanation.
Excellent Will, I'm glad I could help.
According to Dad who had 1st hand experience with P47 D, they could out dive anything.
Even an f 22 raptor?
@@mrcat5508I am assuming he meant anything contemporary? (Just guessing)
@@garyhill2740almost certainly
The picture of the 47 at 0:41 is from my city, Curitiba - Brazil, exposed in the front of The Expedicionary Museum. It was operated by Lt. Alberto Martins Torres, from the 1st Group of Fighter Aviation of the FEB (Brazilian Expeditionary Force). It saw more than 100 missions over Italy. It is a D-25. Thunderbolts are a marvelous engineering work from 2 russians that create a plane for USAAF, flew by dozens of countries. That is what we can call a global plane :D. And thanks Greg, another impeccable masterpiece video. Just keep doing it!
Thanks Gabriel, I thought some people would like seeing the Brazilian P-47, I think it looks great in that paint scheme.
I've got to say I'm impressed at the depth of this analysis. Moreover although I've studied some Physics at college level so I should be able to understand all of it, I still feel proud that I managed.
I learn more from people like Greg than I ever did in school.
I'm just here learning everything I can in wait for the DCS P-47
Not a P51d?
Me too. Yes dcs is launching p47 soon. With advanced turbosupercharger system simulation
@@grafspeem9402 my pp is exploding
Get IL2: Battle of Bodenplatte. There is a P-47, among other classics
So what do you think of flying DCS P-47, since released already. What do you think about stability and sensitive of control?
YES! Best news I have seen in a while Greg has uploaded some good shit!
You are correct Greg. Max Immelmann's maneuver was a zoom climb followed by a low speed 180° yaw turn, transitioning into a dive. There was no inverted flight or negative G's involved.
Your usual thorough job, Greg. Good stuff! As a non-pilot, non-engineer, non-math-person, some of it went right over my head by a wide margin, and I wouldn't attempt to do any calculations myself, but I think I understand the general principles. Much more involved in combat flying than just "pull the stick this way and kick the rudder." The P-factor discussion was especially useful to me, since my Dad was a carrier pilot in the Pacific, and the P-factor was very much an issue with Navy fighters powered by the same P&W R-2800 engine as the P-47. They all had sizable props, and this helps explain why, if an inexperienced pilot jammed on the throttle when waved off a carrier landing, the plane (F6F / F4U) sometimes rolled left and (usually inverted) right into the ocean from the 150 or so feet altitude at which a landing carrier fighter was flying in final approach. That's a case when angle of attack made a sizable difference, as well…
Sorry, I get a little motion sickness reading your message 🥴😵
Thank you for another extended video... whoa! This one will definitely be watched again.
Great stuff, thanks for all the hard work and insight. Just fascinating to me. I eagerly await your videos...learn so much each time and enjoy watching them over and over. Thanks!
Wow, professional stuff! And useful as I love flying this plane in il2.
I just love how professional your vids are.
I love the Hawker Tempest, can you cover the Tempest as a series of videos just like the P-47 series?
I will do that. From this point it will be easy to make a series about individual planes because I won't need to cover all the basics. For example, I won't have to explain how I come up with turn performance as that's already taken care of in the P-47 series, same with mach numbers and so on.
Tempest Mk II was the best.
Mk V was ugly.
@@johntempest267 there should be a MkII flying in the next few months! (Hope this is a nice surprise!)
@LUCKYDUCKY 62
I just completed my 1/48 scale model of the Bristol Beaufighter. Very interesting plane. Finished mine toting a torpedo. Very versatile crate.
@@oxcart4172
I hope it flies with the authentic Sabre radial.
.....Or was it the Napier?
So long as they don't stuff it with a 2800.
Two videos on one day, now thats awesome!
Thanks Paddy.
did you mention the P47 ROLL RATE which was outstanding. Using its roll more then a few P47 pilots could outmaneuver a much tighter turning me109
Love your videos, just brilliant.
Big fan of the P47, and the 56th FG.
Wonderful. More info on my favorite WW2 plane from my favorite youtube historian always makes my day.
Another fine job. I have various subjects that I'm interested in, as do most people. There is always a "channel" that rises above the others in whatever category. And this channel is the best of it's kind.
I love your stuff. Every time a video of yours pops up I rush to watch it. I learn so much.
Ahhh, so that's why the P-38 was such a stable plane for photography with props rotating in opposite directions. Both sides pull the plane in opposite directions canceling out one another force pulling to opposite siddes. Science IS cool, as I've heard said before. Your passion even has you back checking claims of all other's facts and findings.
Really well done video!! It's interesting you mentioned the Corsair. In Barrett Tillman's excellent book on the Corsair he mentioned how during WWII, Corsair and P-47 pilots tangling in mock dogfights over Long Island Sound at lower and medium altitudes would most often result favorably for the Corsair. The P-47 pilots would then pick up their oxygen masks and point upward to take the challenge to high altitudes. He said a wise Corsair pilot wouldn't accept that challenge and break off.
The Corsair vs. Thunderbolt is an interesting comparison. I get into that quite a bit in my turbo vs supercharging video. The Corsair is better at low altitude, but the Thunderbolt is much better up high.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Was there ever any effort by Republic to navalize the Thunderbolt.
That was also an excellent video. Heck all of your videos are so well done! Just a note, as someone who has studied the R2800 for many years you may mention at some point, if you haven't already done so and I just missed it, that the R2800 comes in two main production forms each with a multitude of subtypes. That being the B series and C series. It's significant because other than displacement and things like magnetos and distributors they share almost no parts in common. Unlike the Hellcat which only utilized the B series in production(XF6F-6 only tested a -18) both the Corsair and Thunderbolt utilized both series of the engine during their WWII careers. While both versions of the R2800 are excellent in their own right, the refinements made in the C series allowed for greater nose cases stresses and improved cylinder head cooling with machined vs cast cooling fins to name just a couple. Also interesting but perhaps beyond the scope of the video is the Navy's testing of the unsuccessful Birman turbocharger in the Hellcat and Corsair or the "Side-wheeler" R2800-32 that allowed the post war F4U-5 to high altitude speeds of about 470mph
I've been fighting brain cancer for several years. I'm a ww2 aviation buf fjyour channel is very entertaining. BTW the the VA CAME THRU BIG TIME.
I'm glad to hear the VA has it together.
I'm not a smart man, but I think it's important to challenge my walnut-sized brain on occasion, so you've done that. Love the P-47 for the old stories I read about Zemke and others who seemed to genuinely like their chances it it, but in these times especially, it's important to hear the truth.
I am a very sick person, I understood all this. But lets just say it took you a while to get to the subject matter of the tilte. Just constructive criticism. I love your video, that's why I'm here.
It's not a popular video, but everything in it had to be covered.
I never gave this clunky looking plane a second thought. Thanks to Greg I love it!♥️😜♥️
Great stuff! As a glider pilot you also learn a bit about turn performance and how it matters in a thermal. Especially when in a competitive setting. Almost like dogfighting, except you don't need to point your plane at the "adversary" in the turn. Reminds me of outclimbing my dad while in a slightly inferior plane by using its lower stall speed and better turn handling at lower speed to get to the inside.
Flightsimming, I also loved the P-47 especially against the 190, particularly because that was also one of my favourites, so I knew it well and most 190-players thought a 47 couldn't turn.
Well, at least in that game.
Some say that glider pilots are the best pilots. It might be true.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I did my first solo in a sailplane.Could not afford it so don't fly now. Also flew a bit of aerobatics
Thank you for your hard work on this video. I note that you don't talk about maneuvering flaps. Flaps increasing lift and drag, changes the graphs for each setting on the flaps. Bud Anderson said that he could drop partial flaps at any speed on the P-51, and asserts he was not outturned by the enemy. Also, the Bf-109 had slotted flaps to decrease turning radius.
Metricans can do their own conversions. I'm one and not a math guy but still it's easy. A yard is slightly less than a metre but close enough. Three and a bit feet to a metre, close enough. 1.6km per mile.
Greg your knowledge is amazing and your presentations are enrapturing.
As an engrossed AAF researcher there are two terms I want to point out for your reconsideration:
1. USAAF or AAF, the WWII air service was the Army Air Forces (pl) as compares to Ground Forces or Sevices Forces.
2. The Army designation system (and post- 1962 DoD) the numeber is the MODEL and the alpha is the SERIES.
So Pursuit Model 47 came in a D series.
Double check me.
Good points.
Great to see another video. I'm doing aerospace engineering and always love these videos.
Thanks Mattie, that's quite a complex field. I hope my videos provide some of the basics. .
Thanks for such comprehensive analysis, it makes a very absorbing video.
Great job, I really enjoyed this series of videos! I learned a lot about the P47. Way better plane than I thought.
I’ve been a subbed for a good while now. After re-watching this vid I think it’s easily one of your best. Just….an incredible effort.
The armed variant of the AT6 was the P64, for those who are curious. One was up for sale last year from Courtesy Aircraft Sales. I don't know where it went from there.
Great video Greg, thanks for taking the time out to make this.
Nice name
I’ve listened to WWII pilots state the Razorback was actually the fastest model of them all. It was a low MPH difference, and I can’t remember.
The angle of attack increasing the left pitch of the plane. The same pilots explained how they landed. They explained due to the lack of visibility, they landed in a descending left turn, loosing sight of the runway at the last moment. Given the characteristics in a steep angle of attack, that practice makes sense.
At 28:52 I noticed the wings are clipped. Didn't know about that... I guess I have to go back to your wing design video to learn why they'd do that.
That's the N model, it had a different, and improved wing. It was stiffer so it could reach a higher dive speed without aileron reversal. They are not simply clipped, it has a lot of structural changes.
We did use inches but in German it is called Zoll, 25,4mm. Most people do not know by the way. Imperial was and is still used in piping in central yurop.
And in aviation for altitude
Very thorough.
Gained a new understanding of the "P factor".
The exaggerated rudder on the F8F is an attempt to get control of strong "P factor" effects during carrier take off.
.......... I'm guessing.
I really enjoyed this, thanks. And I appreciate your regular metric conversions. I only had to calculate a few of the missed ones this time! But seriously, I appreciate the effort you put in to get the stuff you do, I’m really really not complaining here.
i love sitting down with a 6 pack of beer and watching a long ass Greg video
P-47 was undoubtedly a beast. Would like to see how it stacked up against the Tempest.
The Tempest was a later design, and quite good, but overall I think it's slightly inferior to the P-47N and about equal to the P-47D-40 in most respects, although the D-40 will beat it at high altitude or for escort missions. The Tempest has the edge in low of medium altitude 1v1 fights.
That Napier Sabre has 70 hours between rebuilds, I once worked with obe of the development engineers
The graphs from back then were amazing
A math heavy video but a most informative one. Gonna have to watch it a few times to absorb all of it. Simply superlative Greg, I have been looking forward to the remake of this video for a while now.
All useful information that may even have its uses in a sort of simplified game like War Thunder. And sims like IL2.
Yeah! A Greg video before January is over. And about one of my favorite aircraft.
Good stuff, can't wait for the 190 series!
In India, there is a blessing called jug jug gio. It means that you live for aeons to come. I was very depressed today. Now I have a reason to live.
Greg ji, Jug Jug Gio!!
Thanks Sudarshan, I hope you day gets better.
मनस्ते
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yep, it was indeed. Got a mail from Sciences Po. Fellas there accepted me for Masters in International Security.
@@khaccanhle1930 you mean Namaste?
god I love your channel Greg
Thank you for the metrics Greg, much appreciated.
John Boyd AND another Thunderbolt video in one day, what a great day to be an American 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I occasionally watched the P47 in Duxford UK. It looks like a flying fat cigar, however, the performance and the beautiful sound are amazing.
Thank you very much for your hard work and excellent research! Super cool.
Thanks Gary, I appreciate your watching this video, it's not one of my more popular ones.
Good to see a new video, haven't seen one in a awhile.
This video took a lot of time to make. Now that it's done, videos will come out faster.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles What ever happened to the video you did before this one? The one you were on camera talking about the 737 MAX, and other Boeing flight systems. I thought that was a vary interesting, and informative video. I don't see it on your channel anymore. I thought UA-cam shut you down, I'm glad you'r still doing videos. You don't see stuff like this on TV.
Loving what you do Greg, keep it up!
Great 47 info as always. Really looking forward to your Boyd video(s)!!
@Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles - You talked about Immelmann probably not performing a normal Immelmann. For what I know you're right. In the Wikipedia article about the Immelmann turn you can find a description of what was probably the historical Immelmann maneuver.
Greg you have gotten me through the fever haze of covid
Simple explanation, a stall is when you turn your wing into a speed brake! This might cause a significant emotional event.
I would love to see you cover some Italian fighters, just to see how they stack up to the more well known types you have covered so well already
They do pretty well, better than most people think.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Do you know what their weak point was? Too few?
@@MultiZirkon some of their weak points is slow speed at sea level. They are comparable to the Bf 109 G-6 which is on a disadvantage compared to the later allied planes speed wise. The Germans offsetted this by using MW 50 but the Italian 5 series fighters didn't have it.
Just me over here, the guy that couldn't do school but is on hour 7 of P-47 videos so i can fly in DCS
I got to meet and converse with Hub Zemke when I was about 16 years old...1987 or so.
Wow!
Great to have another video on the P-47. Haven't watched it yet, must wait till my work day is finished. Although, I couldn't wait to comment on the thumbnail pic of the Russian La-5. Hope there's a reason for it being there in a video about P-47 maneuverability.
Yes, there is a reason it's there. The La-5 is in the video.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles Not going to lie, an La-5 video would be pretty exciting.
But I still enjoyed this one too
Given how low the max loadings are at altitude, at less than 2 g's, I'm imagining a P47 and 109 making gentle, sweeping, airliner-like turns, with the 109 wheezing to keep up and nearly falling out of the sky
28:08 Do 2-engined (4, 6...) aircraft have P-factor or would counter-rotating props cancel out for practical purposes?
If the props rotate in opposite directions it does cancel it out.
Looking forward to @Greg's new book: "Aerodynamics For Internet Aviators"
P-51 pilots did use a set of stall and spin maneuvers to win dogfights. And snap rolls are spins. All of these maneuvers are generally no more than 1 full spin rotation, or less.
I remember some interviews from a long while back which looked at the Spitfire vs BF109 argument re, manoeuvrability and what they all agreed made the difference wasn't actually the plane, well, not all that much. It was more about how far the pilot was willing to push the limits of the plane.
I mean, I get it that there is a LOT of theory in the physical limits of the plane, but actually, how much was a pilot likely to get close to those limits in a real battle? I suspect that most of the people flying these things had a good idea of what their planes were capable of in relation to the planes they flew against, and would probably try to use their machine's strengths to their greatest advantage.
But what REALLY influenced the course of WWII was probably a combination of that AND the fact that Germany was depleting its stock of experienced fighter pilots at a significantly faster rate than the allies.
I have no doubt (even less so having watched your presentations) that the P47 was one of the great designs of WWII. And one of the reasons for that is that it helped inexperienced pilots to survive long enough to become experienced pilots. In a war in which attrition was partly responsible for the Germans losing, that is a statement that is significant.
0:40 - Yo! That's in Brazil! Museu do Expedicionário! :D
Great research, great application, great job!
This is P-47 Thunderbolt ‘Deep Dive’-I like how you consider air show pilots and that made think of how over the years people partly base their opinions of ww2 fighters on their experience as a spectator at air shows. If you compare a P-51 to a P-47 at an air show you’d think the P-51 is like too bulky to maneuver as well as a p-51. But at an air show their only seeing them fly fairly down low so their not seeing the p-47 In it’s designated element.
To add to Robert S Johnson's comments on turn, climb etc. There are others, in after action reports and interviews that state that they out climbed 109s at low altitude etc., a youtube interview of a 56th FG ace that stated his -10 would out turn anything and that the -25 was too heavy. I don't know about pilot skill or strength. But the people that FLEW them don't seem to have read the aerodynamics for naval aviators. But I do not think the book numbers tell the real story. Johnson tells of using roll to out turn a 190 IIRC. So I take the "book" with some skepticism. But your channel is one of my favorites. Being a one time general aviation flight instructor.
0:39 Where is that P-47 on guard, Florida? The photo is almost surrealist. #compliment
Brazil.
Really like this series.
I expected an exam at the end (hoping for true false) terrific video!
A whole lot of info to consider when piloting one of these in a combat situation. In all of this, there is the fuel calculations to figure in too. Those big radials suck it up fast. Great video.
Always loved the 47 and fly it frequently in il2 just found your channel trying to get more knowledge on tactics to use while flying the jug. Watched your excellent P47 series went on the combat box server and proceeded to to shoot down 3 enemy fighters In one sortie! Coincidence? I think not.
Got to talk with Bob Johnson , 56FG Ace, who told me he used superb roll to surprise Me109 who could outturn Tbolt.
Thank you for using actual combat footage instead of game play. (And especially not colorized footage.) There are just too many people who think that the flight simulators, no matter how well researched, have anything to say about aircraft performance. Sorry gamers, but all you have in ANY game is what the designers modeled, that is, a series of math that gives you something that looks fun when you play. Even the "professional" trainers are designed to specifically mimic the situations that they are designed to teach, and anything else is just a bonus. In other words, you can NEVER draw any conclusions about aircraft performance from any simulator. Sorry if that was a bit of a rant.
You're welcome, although actual footage from the German side of WW2 is very rare, sometimes using game footage is the only way to show certain things. For example, in my video on John Boyd, there was no way to use actual footage on that one. No gun cameras show the needed angles.
Your videos remind me of all the time I spent playing IL2 1946 online. I cannot say how realistic the aircraft performance was in that game but P-47 was one of my favourite planes to fly. Great visibility well from the bubble tops at least and 8 machine guns made it a great surprise attack plane.
The P47.... always a favourite of mine.....sort of reminds me of my old '69 Chrysler Newport with a 4 barrel 383 Commando out front.....looked too big and bulky to work that well but, boy did that old land yacht have sone get up' n go and drive so well. 😉😎
Yup, I knew a guy in High School with a 68" Newport 383 4bbl, quite a car.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles.....I just wish I still had it alas, we can't keep them all😊
I think Greg is a fan of the ol' T-Bolt. So am I. 👍
I love the Thunderbolt.
The J35 Draken had a problem that it's rudder actuators didn't have enough power in a high speed dive to pull it out so in peacetime it was forbidden to dive at a 90 degree angle below 6000 meters or something like that. The AJ SK SF and SH Viggen variants had a similar problem but not as severe with weak actuators this is why the JA-37 Viggen has an additional actuator on it's wing
Hi Adurian, you are making a lot of good comments, thanks for coming to my channel, I appreciate you being here.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I like reading in detail about a few things that are declassified like the J35 Draken and Radar Jamming.
They combine in that the Swedish air force had a dedicated ECM squadron (since 1972) flying the J32E Lansen which where rebuilt mach 1 NIght Fighters with all the armament related stuff taken out and ECM gear put in controlled by the operator in the back.
They where used as Opfor in peacetime which was their main duty. Sort of a reverse White Sands range where one trains interceptors in an ECM environment instead of the strike package.
It had very modern equipment designed to jam all electronic spectrums from voice coms to radars and datalinks.
Using these aircraft in the late 1970's it was found that the Draken radar was very susceptible to Jamming.
This was rectified in a modification package in 1982.
Given that the jammers where quite modern and the Draken used a conventional analogue pulse radar it's interesting that such a resistance could be achieved.
And as a side effect it was noticed that the Draken got vastly improved low level capability with it's radar. Which is why the AIM-26B proximity fuze was modified so instead of exploding at 500m above ground it exploded at 50m above ground.
Making it possible to use it at low level