P-47 Thunderbolt Pt. 4 Climb Rate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- A discussion of climb performance in terms of maximum rate of climb in various P-47 variants. Of course there are comparisons to other WW2 fighters. We also visit the Bismark Tower!
I had intended to show you guys Ramstien and the planes there using my zoom lens, but that padlock hindered my efforts.
Errors: I misspoke a couple times and said 109, when I meant 190! Verbal dyslexia I suppose. Anyway, these are at or about 22:37 and 23:15. The error should be obvious based on what you see on the screen in front of you.
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplane...
Please consider supporting this channel on Patreon: / gregsairplanesandautom...
Did you pull down part 4B, with all the drag and stall charts? I was just getting my head around it. Talking about bubble canopy weight, etc? I want it back!!!
Hi Dane. I'll tell you why. The reason it's hard to get your head around it is NOT you, it's my fault. The video was not prepared in accordance with FAA-H-8083-9A as most of my videos are. The video did not adhere to some of the basic principles of instruction, specifically the concept of explaining things in order from simple to complex ( one page 4-9 of the previously mentioned manual ). I went out of order and tried to simplify the topics. So, I am remaking the video which will be proceed by two other videos on doing these calculations. When done, and am confident that anyone with even basic math skills (multiplications, division, decimals, squaring and square roots) will be able to accurately calculate sustained turn performance for any WW2 fighter aircraft
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Your dedication and diligence is exemplary! I am constantly amazed by the level of research you put into your videos. Great stuff!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I was just going to look over the video again. I thought the information in your video was fantastic. It really goes above and beyond for you to remake the video to even higher standards.
While you're at it, may I ask for a few additional clarifications? (if this doesn't make the video too complicated).
Stall speed in relationship to the type of turn. You touched a little bit on this at the end of your video when you were reviewing the combat footage. Here's what I mean, I understand that angle of attack required to stall the plane decreases as speed increases (i.e. a sudden jerk on the yoke is more likely to cause a stall at 300mph IAS versus 200mph IAS).
How does this affect the theoretical "instantaneous" turn? Wouldn't 70 degrees a second of deflection (iirc this is about what you rated the P-47 capable of) cause a stall?
Similarly, how does this affect continuous turning?
Thanks! I had it bookmarked. This forced me to go to your /videos to see what's up. Now it's time to settle in for your muscle cars clip.
been a while since your last video, hopefully you are ok and we will "receive" some more videos soon?
I have learned more about the P47 because of your video's than I ever expected that I would know.
Great stuff. As an ex fighter pilot love this program. As a point of interest regarding climb rate of power available over power required. An old friend who flew P51's then Vampires pointed out that climb rate was similar for the P51 and Vampire. Difference was P51 climbed at 160 kts and the Vampire at 250 kts. Huge energy advantage to the Vampire. That is why piston engined fighters were discarded straight after WW11.
Hi Byron, thanks. I actually talk a lot of that climb speed difference between jets and props in my Me262vsP80 video, and I explain the reason for it. What fighters did you fly?
God damn you’re the greatest, most direct and efficient UA-camr I’ve seen. You’re a diamond in the rough
In the rough? I think Greg's a diamond.
@@hoodoo2001 a diamond in the rough, yes, or are you saying your average clickbait youtuber is the same quality as these videos.
youd be silly to think that.
Never had a teacher or professor as clear as you
Great video! You covered some important things that people don't know about like the high effect of extra horsepower on excess power which is what is used for acceleration and climb. It's why engine upgrades improve performance much more than their simple power % increase would indicate.
Prop efficiency is indeed a very complicated subject. Propeller design is also itself a compromise between low speed and high speed efficiency. If you're looking to put numbers on the higher prop efficiency of the paddle prop at climb speed, I'd suggest taking a look at the Hamilton prop efficiency tables near the end of "Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance" by Jan Roskam (available online). A few calculations need to be done to find it but it's not difficult. I don't think the difference would be much more than 5%, which is certainly still a worthy upgrade.
Thanks, I do have plenty of data on the Thunderbolt's prop, but I decided that what would matter the most was the effect on climb speed, and this is a video about climb performance, not prop design, so I focused on the climb aspect.
Aw Adam didn’t expect to see you here ❤️
adam boi is here
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Good video.
The prop was as is important as any other link in the P-47 chain. Fuel type, fuel purity, engine maintenance, hours in flight, the list is endless.
That being said I am not a fan of this aircraft. It was a gas whore and was far more expensive than the Mustang. And I am sceptical about the "durability". If you have some primary source data I would enjoy seeing it. Otherwise, I question the validity of the durability claim.
While I am not a fan of air-cooled engines they had their place as the USN decided. Commonality has a quality all it's own. The "Seafire" was not a great success with the RN by way of example.
My guess is that the raw power of the engine meant that swapping to a chunkier prop had bigger savings to be had than for a smaller engine, both because there’s just more power to act off of, and because the more power you have applied to a given prop, eventually you start losing more and more performance at high speeds and Alts to tip losses
This is the type of channel I have been looking for for close to a decade now. No other aviation UA-camr goes into such detail, explains things clearly, does immaculate research, and keeps the video interesting at the same time. I watched all your aviation videos in just a couple days and I’m excited for more! Thanks for the fantastic videos!
Thank you. I'm impressed you watched them all in a couple days. I'm glad you like the channel.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles I had a couple days off and the weather was terrible so I had plenty of time
It's kinda funny, that while the Pretty-Looking Mustang gets all the fanfare for it's prowess as a Front-Line Fighter, (and they ARE great), the Thunderbolt gets ignored worse than a conservative student at Cal St. Berkeley. You see all this stuff of the Mustang's superiority and then one day, you look at the list of Aces in the ETO. Wow! most of the top 10 flew Thunderbolts. The only dis advantage the Jugs really had, is Range. The Mustangs, which weren't there when the Thunderbolt pilots had to face down the full compliment of the Nazi's best & Finest, could stay aloft nearly twice as long as a Jug, which meant roughly twice the possibility for Engagement. Add to that the fact that when the Mustangs arrived, they had paddle-Bladed Props to start with, the jugs spent a lot of time with those skinny Props, the kill ratio was quite remarkable. If the Jugs would've originally come with Paddle Blade Props & the N's range, I expect the Thunderbolt would, by a long way, be, regardless of it's Brutish looks, the undisputed King of Allied Fighters in the ETO. The Sound of a Merlin in a Mustang or Spitfire is great, but once you hear the powerful cracking exhaust from a Thunderbolt that has its Turbo working, is about as Macho - sounding Fighter as there is. It is my all-time favorite WW2 Gunslinger!
I've always felt the same way. The Thunderbolt is superior in many respects. Plus, they sound great.
Yeah I agree! The top 3 best planes ever made by US is P47! SR71 and the mighty F-15!
From what I can tell the pilots of the p-38 had the highest percentage in the top 10.
@@jayvitali7909 And inferior in many as well...
The 47 had the range if they had been allowed drop tanks. Mustang didn't really have the range without drop tanks either. The post war narrative was "we didn't have escort fighter range at the beginning that is why we lost so many bomber crews" Truth was they lost bomber crews cause they didn't allow drop tanks for some stupid reason. "We didn't have the technology" was actually an outright lie.
I live for your videos Greg
Wow thanks. I had better get to work and make some more then ;)
I was anxiously waiting for another one...I'm just a junky for WWII aviation and understanding how things work!
Keep up with the videos Greg they are very interesting!
Thanks Greg, for intelligent gimmick-free explanations.
My Dad flew a Thunderbolt.
very cool. We are grateful for your Dad's service.
Around 22:35, you mentioned prop efficiency favors the inline...why's that? The streamlined area immediately behind the prop? Or less 'aircraft' behind the paddles, so less obstruction avter he propeller? Maybe I answered my own question.
Also, it seems like paddle-blade props are all-around better, as compared to the skinnier originals, but could someone elaborate on that?
I’ve watched pieces and parts of the series many times. Sometimes I like to listen to Greg to fall asleep. I have Asperger’s and it really has helped
a couple of times you said 109, but i think you meant 190
Yup, but that's why I have you here Paddy, you help keep me honest. I did mess up a couple times, but I am sure any thinking person will be looking at the chart and know what I meant. By the way, love your channel.
109 - he know what he's saying.....
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks Greg! It`s great to have this kind of exchange. There is so much to learn. I really appreciate the fact that you put so much effort in spreading knowledge.
The P47 series has been really good.
It's opened my eyes a bit to the many performance advantages the plane had over its peers and competitors. When you use the Jug in sims it tends to be a bit of a brick and I've personally never had much success with it, and as far as US heavy fighters I've always been more interested in the Lightning because of its exotic design features (plus that's what my great uncle flew in the war)
Another very informative video, it is very interesting to see what goes into aircraft performance and how changes and modifications could greatly and even radically change their performance characteristics. The Jug as we have learned is a beast.
No slouch down low but a monster up past 20,000 ft. It reminds me of how in the past iterations of the game War Thunder, Thunderbolts were given an airspawn, allowing them to begin climbing at speed to high altitudes. And it was not uncommon to see swarms of them flying above their adversaries like me in 190A by the time we see each other. Attacking and disengaging at will.
While not exactly top end simulation wise, its performance at height and with great speed was laid bare and the Jug was something hated by all who faced it.
And the performance difference between the FW-190A and Dora-9 is very clear. It says everything about why it was spoken so enthusiastically of, it makes me wonder how the Anton would have fared if the uprated BMW-801S and F engines appeared earlier or even with better multi-stage supercharging as well.
I look forward to what you have to say about the engine choices and limitations the Germans faced when updating the 190 when we get to it. I can always count on you to teach me in such a clear and concise manner.
Love the videos. Much of the technical stuff is over my head ATM, but it gives me new research projects to stay busy and aggravate my wife with lol.Spent a little time at Landstuhl in 08 after being medevaced, don't remember too much of the experience other than wandering down the hill to ktown and paying entirely too much for an overcooked cheeseburger.
Bonjour mon ami GREG félicitations de FRANCE 👍🇫🇷
Hello my friend Greg thanks for sharings 👍I enjoy watching your video this is a pleasure for the eyes 😎P 47 thunderbolt 💪
Congrats buddy good days of France 👍🇫🇷
Thanks Jean. I have been watching your channel as well. I am amazed at your skill at scratch-building stuff and capturing the feel of the war.
I would kill for that black (olive?) P-47 in the intro. LAPD knocks on window. I open the canopy. Sir, are you o.k.? asks the young officer who somehow shaved ten minutes ago. "I live here, officer, Republic P-47, I call her Katt, ain't she a beauty?" - cop says "My grandad drove a Jug, y'all take care...". I might not have a license AND I could possess one Juggernaut, oh yesss...I'd live in it. With mods. Engine feeds NiLithium batteries. I would live in a P-47. Just the smell...
Another great video. Thanks for all your excellent and informative work on this subject.
In order to clarify some dates as to when certain P-47 mods/changes were available in the ETO I’ve found some quotes from renown 8th AF historian Roger Freeman. The following are all from the book “The Mighty Eighth War Manual”:
P. 191 “ ‘Bubble’ canopy P-47s began to arrive in the UK during May 1944 and a few examples were on hand in the 4 Thunderbolt groups by D-Day.” I would add that pictorial evidence suggests they were the exception rather than the rule until at least August/September 1944.
P. 190 “Improving the rate of climb was not something that could be quickly undertaken but two successful modifications were eventually introduced, wide blade propellers and engine water injection. These were developed in the US and kits were produced for the UK where it was planned to make the necessary installations as rapidly as possible. The ‘paddle’ blade propeller programme carried out at Wattisham from December 1943 was hindered by a shortage of blades and certain accessories. P-47s of the 56th Group, the first to be processed, were not fitted out (completely finished in American English) until April 1944, at which time the 356th Group had only just started to have paddle blades fitted. On production, paddle blade propellers were fitted from P-47D-16-RE 42-76029 and P-47D-21-RA 43-25634.”
“The water injection system, ... was first available to VIII FC as a kit... Although modification started in the Autumn of 1943, it was late spring of 1944 before all P-47s in the UK had been fitted. The installation was incorporated in production beginning with the P-47D-10-RE and P-47D-11-RA.”
Not a criticism of this awesome video, just some additional info. Keep up the great work!
Thank you for your excellent contribution.
Its companion, by the fellows who developed a formula to take explosive content into account when calculating destructive Power ot WW2 Aircraft (the Williams-Gustin Method) is this book, which also covers theory of operation of all the guns.
users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/volume1/content.html
Hey Greg, great video as usual. I was wondering if you have a simple explanation, or if it would take a video, to explain the differences in construction of wings and the materials they are made out of. This stems from a conversation with a mechanic who does airplanes, and his fascination with WW2 American warbirds. We got into an interesting discussion where he claims that everybody who built airplanes with metal builds, like the mustang, did it wrong, and actually should have built them out of wood, as in his eyes it is lighter while being as aerodynamically sturdy, and points to DeHavilland corporation and their use of wooden builds in their planes. I was curious if there was a NACA report on this, or if somehow, the entire world got WW2 prop planes wrong. Keep up the great work!
Thanks Kollider. I can't comment on that intelligently at this time. I haven't researched it, or thought about it much. I do know that wood works out just fine in airplanes. The Mosquito was awesome, and made out of wood, and in the civilian aviation world, the Bellanca Super Viking had wood wings and had performance equal to or better than it's metal counterparts from other manufacturers. I'll have to look into it eventually as I plan to cover the Mosquito at some point.
“and the Spitfire’s all out of bubble gum”
That got me, not gonna lie.
You gota love the Spitfire. It has a really powerful engine, in a little plane and it's a beauty!
Rowdy Roddy Piper in “THEY LIVE”.
ua-cam.com/video/Wp_K8prLfso/v-deo.html
Nice.👍🏻🇺🇸
Yes, just a pity they stayed with the Mk 9/16 which was a Mk 5 airframe fitted with the 60 series Merlin, whereas the Mk 8 was built from scratch specifically for the 60 series. It could also be fitted with a rear fuselage fuel tank and IIRC, small wing tanks too. According to Jeffrey Quill in his book "The Spitfire Story" was the nicest of them all. @@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Thanks for the "They Live" clip.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles "You gota love the Spitfire."
- That's so easy it's not even a challenge. Loving P47s? That's a task worthy of a man, but you do it so well I'm feeling it can be contagious. :-)
Some airplanes just want to go go go destroy, repeat, let's win the air and the Earth, boys...jeez. Have you ever held a 50 cal in your hand? I have.
I've watched videos from the men who flew them,when the paddle prop became available it could climb as good as any thing flying,to a point.
10:10 Lucky had a cut tail! (edit: cut rudder)
Impressive.
18:23
!?
white stripe darnit!
Hey Greg, nice analysis on the P-47 climb specially at high altitude showing the advantage of the turbo. I don't want to be that nitpicky guy, but looks like there were some details wrong about the 109s, the G-14's engine developed 1800 PS at sea level with MW 50, for what I could find the 1700 PS value is without MW 50 (I suppose they would have used the high octane C3 fuel in that case).
Also the climbrate value for the 109s seems a bit low. The G-6 value at sea level you listed would be with 1.3 ata (1310 PS) instead of the higher power it had available with 1.42 ata (1475 PS) cleared in mid-late 1943. And the G-14's looks a bit too low as well, with full fuel and without wing guns at 1800 PS it would be close to 4500 feet per minute at sea level, very similar to the Spitfire LF Mk IX at +18 boost.
I'll have to answer this later when I am at my other computer. If a correction is needed, I'll add it to the description. Off the top of my head, I think I worded it badly, but not incorrectly.
I really enjoy your videos Greg. Thanks!
I hope this series goes on to touch more on the skewed air-to-air kills vs aircraft loss numbers that surround the P-47.
Everyone knows the P-47 was the true workhorse of the war... but almost everyone scoffs at its performance (mostly due to the misinterpreting the air-to-air kill vs aircraft lost ratio). This is nonsense. The Jug was there to win the air war in '42 & '43 (when the Luftwaffe was at its most dangerous) and performed very well. Then, after the Luftwaffe ceased to be a major threat in early '44, the jug moved on to the ground attack role (again, where the fighting was the most dangerous). Just when the war was starting to get easier for bombers and P-51 escorts...the P-47 jumped from the frying pan to the fire by switching from the hardest part of the air war to the deadliest part of the ground attack war. Heavy losses were incurred from ground fire... and the numbers have been up for misinterpretation ever since.
Well said.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks, Greg.
Not sure if it's possible to determine what portion of the P-47's nearly 3500 losses were due to air-to-air vs ground fire, but I'd be interested to see those figures. Perhaps compare them to other allied aerial aircraft loss ratios for each year of the war. 1942 would be of particular interest...the year when American rookies were facing Luftwaffe veterans. I'd be willing to bet the numbers for P-47 weren't any worse than any other allied fighter of 1942....or 1943....or 1944, etc.
I could be wrong...
Couldn't one consider GM-1 effectively a "supercharger mod", since adding O2 effectively increases boost efficiency?
With the advent of the "AS" series of DB605 engines, having the larger DB603 supercharger, the critical altitude went up, a very useful improvement per Heinz Knocke ("I Flew for the Fuehrer"). And with the advent of the 605D, "paddle" props went on the G-10s and Ks, types that appeared in useful numbers ("a leaner, meaner Messerschmitt" in Allied documents). How do you think these types would compare on the power to weight and climb charts?
Also, the last 190As, A-9 & A-10, ran 2000hp engines and, in some cases, wider chord props. With GM-1, where do you see these fitting on graphs?
I just can't do a detailed look at every possible variant so I tend to stick with the more common stuff. Generally that means P-47D not M vs the more common 109Gs. Could GM-1 be considered "supercharging". Sure, people debate that all the time, but I'll say yes.
jubba jubba jubba jubba
You should have included the earlier Lagg'3 versions, just for lol's
P.S. I love the Lagg-3's
Edit2: Could you please specify about which Spitfire mk.9 you are talking, is it an LF, F, HF?
Same for which engine on the BF-109 G-6. Is it running with or without mw50?
Great video nonetheless.
I am away from my computer I used to make the video, and I forgot. I will however add it to the description in the next few days.
Hi Greg-would it at all be possible to include russian fighters in your comparison? I am thinking specifically of the la5/7 and yak 3. Also, can you possibly do a video of how/where gamws like DCS/il2 get their comparative flight models wrong? I am thinking specifically about how the p51 and to a lesser extent the spitfire seem underwhelming in DCS and how the russian planes seem to have blistering performance in il2. Thanksan really enjoy your videos!
Sounds like a great idea. Greg.. pls
I used to fly online a lot in years gone by and in online games, the fighting always wound up down low and it took forever seemingly to climb...always thought a high altitude spawn would be the ticket or raise sea level to about 15000 ft for some maps...and don't even get me started on damage modelling.
That is a good idea, and I will do it. There is no question in my mind that the Soviet planes in IL2 are significantly over powered. Either that or a large percentage of players have some sort of cheats going on.
One of the most peculiar aspects of IL2 series was the stability of the aircraft...the FW and 109 are so stable and almost dampened that they are far easier to fly and shoot other planes...some planes like the Corsair and Mustang are extremely wobbly and pitch...a short joystick and no forces/sensations on the stick make for difficulty...I've read plenty of anecdotal information about the stability of a gun platform but wouldn't know if there is a way to quantify it.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Sometimes a good portion of "how did X plane do that" occurences is misjudging the oppponents energy levels, that being said there are some problems which affect Soviet planes like more performance at high altitude than they should, I think this is because their power doesn't drop off as quickly as it should once past critical altitude, maybe they have too much ram effect?
Something similar happens to the Fw 190 A-3 and A-5. For example in the A-5 with 2 cannons you can achieve 690 km/h at 8000 meters with maximum power, which is a performance level more characteristic of the D-9 variant. My theory is that of the ram effect, as you see the engine mantaining 1.42 ata fairly high, when the real plane in the charts was starting to lose speed, so the manifold pressure should be decreasing at that point.
I wished hard enough and it came true! A new video from Greg
While the climb rate chart is a direct comparison, the sea level climb rate for the P-51 and P-47 has no real operational bearing in when escorting bombers. The Spitfire may have had need in the Battle of Britain to rise quickly from takeoff to meet the incoming foe, but the P-51 and P-47 in 1943 and 1944 were already at altitude escorting bombers when encountering the enemy, and had also used maybe some of the fuel. It would have been very important for German planes to climb quickly when scrambling for bomber intercept.
This changes when the Allies start having airfields on the continent, but of course the Luftwaffe was not the force it was in 1942. Also entering 1944, P-47 and P-51 were at this point spending more time at lower altitudes in ground attack where climb rate would matter if encountering BF-109s an such.
It's not so much about the rate of climb, it's more that the rate of climb is a good indicator of other capabilities like acceleration and in some cases sustained turn performance.
The P-51's win dogfights, the P-47 wins wars. If looks could kill, then it's the Mustang, but for destructive attack, I'll take the 8 50 cal's on the P-47 and
a few rockets and bombs.
3 P-51s could be purchased for the same price as 2 P-47s. 3 P-51s would do more damage than 2 P-47s...
As I recall, the P-51 pilots would burn the aft fuselage fuel tank during initial climbout on every mission, for center of gravity reasons. Perhaps you could calculate the internal fuel for the P-51 without that 45 gallons or so and be a little more true to likely conditions.
Absolutely true. Full internal fuel is unfair to the Mustang. The bottom line is that I decided to go with full internal fuel for each plane. No matter what I did, it would be unfair to one plane or another, the Mustang got the short end of the stick this time.
P-51 pilots burned the aft fuselage tank first, then the drop tanks, then the remaining fuselage tanks, so a P-51 operated per the book would never go into combat with fuel in the aft fuselage tank.
True, at least normally. However, it's not prohibited, so it's certainly possible that P-51 pilot could have burned all out of the drop tanks first, and there could be situations where he would need to do that.
Yeager mentioned this in his autobiography. He says he was never told to burn the aft tank first, so on one of his early missions he burned his drop tanks first, leaving the aft tank full. The plane wound up with an aft CG and the attendant handling issues.
Oh, don't get me started on Yeager's autobiography.
But how did the injection of melted butter affect climb performance?
It doesn't, it improves turn performance. By clogging the pilot's arteries, he can handle more Gs without blacking out.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks! I should have known...
Ja, das stimpt! @@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
24:38 you should make a video about climb rate comparing the Japanese planes that intercepted high altitude B-29s over Japan. How the heck did they even manage to shoot down B-29s with their planes having radial engine and no turbochargers !!!!
I should make videos about Japanese planes, I just haven't gotten to it yet. As for them shooting down B-29s, yes, they did do that, but not much. For the most part it was very difficult for Japanese fighters to intercept and shoot down B-29s.
Despite its virtues and improvements over time, and its usefulness in the ground attack role - a role the Mustang was tragically ill-suited for but pressed into on too many occasions nonetheless - I'll never get over its coke bottle fuselage for which it got its nickname, The Jug. Each of us who become aviators is branded at an early age with an ideal image of a fighter aircraft. It's emotional, not rational much like a guy who sees a woman across a crowded room and swears he'll marry her one day. And that image, for me, will always be the Messerschmitt 109. Love your videos though.
The 109 even looks dangerous. I love the 109.
I prefer the razorback - a D-22 or D-23 with the paddle prop. Olive drab, invasion stripes and a black and white checkerboard cowling, please.
I am partial to the razorback myself.
My father was a P-47 pilot during WWII in the European Theater. He flew in combat during all the U.S. primary combat period through the end of the war. He was a member of the 365th Fighter Bomber Group, 9th Tactical Air Force. His group's primary mission evolved into Close Air Ground Support, and his group was huge in the development of these aerial combat techniques. Your videos bear out all he told me of the aircraft. He was a big advocate of the P-47 D razorback variation, which he felt protected the pilot better. His stories primarily involved close ground air support missions, which he said the P-47 knew no equal because of their speed, ability to suddenly maneuver and ability to take punishment. I'd like to see one or more videos on this close to the ground capability of the P-47.
Thanks for your post.
I wonder if everything being locked in Germany now is another sad result of the large-scale EU-mandated immigration from the Middle East that has been taking place: Locations like that Bismarck monument often become permanently inhabited and damaged or destroyed unless such measures are taken.
@gruntview Nor should he. Plenty to talk about just covering his topics.
"The spitfire, it's all out of bubblegum" :D
Power to weight! Watch 3 vids you'll get it.
Say paddle-bladded ten times. It took me ten minutes to type that.
thank you , most enjoyable and informative to this old retired Viper driver(F-16)
Thanks a lot for all the excellent explanations and inside views into all these WW2 planes and flying characteristics in general i would otherwise never looked into! Have a good one, greetings from switzerland.
I got three minutes into this and decided it was too good to watch when when tired !
Gonna crash, get up and work tomorrow - and then enjoy this after work . . . a goody to be savored !
Found pt. 5!!! ua-cam.com/video/KahHLtYlveQ/v-deo.html
My guardian angel is a P-47 D bubbletop named Tatiana.
Hey Greg- can you direct me to sources that will help with the chronology of P-47 development? I want to know more about when the paddle props were introduced, when water-methanol was added, when horsepower ratings went up, 130 octane fuel available, etc. and when all of these features were widespread instead of just newly introduced.
I really can't. Finding exact dates certain models or upgrades are introduced is difficult. What I usually do is find the earliest reference I can and say that it was at least available from that point.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles That sounds like a reasonable method to at least get a reasonable idea, I don't need to be very exact. I'll look through the sources in your descriptions and do the same. Thanks!
Thank you for highly informative and entertaining content sir. You have a great voice for narrating charts and graphs, wish you had been there to do the voice-overs for all the ground school videos I had to endure over the last 30 years in aviation. But watching your videos, avgeeking is still a guilty pleasure for me. So thanks again for all the effort.
One pilots testimony (P47 pilot) in Britain pulled away from a Spitfire (he described it) from after ground takeoff to 27,000', increasing the distance between him and the following Spitfire pilot at an even greater rate (opening up gap distance apart even more rapidly) particularly from 7,000' all the way up to 27,000'. They decided to see what the climb behavior of the two aircraft were in a flight test.
The Spitfire couldn't stay with the Thunderbolt.
It may be attributable to that air cooled radial piston type power plant, and that whopper paddle grabber screw.
I just remembered who your voice reminds me of. As a kid, I used to play Jane's Simulations WWII Fighters. It had an interactive museum with many aircraft including the P-47, and the small explanations were similarly voiced like yours. Blast from the past!
I wonder if you've played that Sim? I used to fool around in it, but I played it multiple times over, including all the campaigns haha
Excellent stuff; thank you.
Also, I’d really enjoy a Spitfire video if you wanted to make it. It’s a neat airplane, but I get tired of listening to Englishmen explain to me why it’s the only good piston-engined warplane.
The Spitfire is awesome. Well, let me rephrase that. It's specs make it appear awesome. In practical terms it's the fastest climbing, fastest diving (in terms of mach number) and most maneuverable fighter in the European theater. It has great firepower and decent speed. So why is it, that when we look at it's war record, it's mediocre at best. It had success in the Battle of Britian when it had the home court advantage. Then it failed miserably in the Pacific, failed on the Eastern front, the MKV which was the most produced variant got its but kicked by the 190As and was considered inferior to both the 109Fs and 190s at the time. The MK9 and later variants had minimal impact on the war as compared with 47s, 51s, or various Soviet fighters. I'll cover all of this in a Spitfire video, both the plane's awesomeness, and the issues preventing it from actually being as awesome as it's specs would indicate.
Its an aeroplane.
And a damned fine one.
Harumph.
Won the war doncha know old boy.
Stupid ipad keyboard. Sorry for typos. Does my head in sometimes.
Love ya work btw.
Excepting your predilection for odd italian cars. Noones perfect.
Vive la Peugeot 504/5 cest bon cest ca.
The Spitfire is an awesome aircraft. It’s mix of speed and manouverability was extraordinary. But the Spitfire did *not* play a key role in the depletion of the Luftwaffe between 1941-1944, for exactly the reasons you gave: it lacked the range. The Circus / Rhubarb attacks of 1941 were a disaster, because the Spitfire lacked the range to dictate the terms of engagement. (The Germans based their aircraft just beyond the Spitfire’s reach so they could dictate terms.) So the the RAF really stopped sending Spitfires against the Germans in Western Europe until daylight escort missions by the 8th Airforce began. And even then this operations did not involve the focus of the German air strength, which prioritized targets in Germany. The Spitfire was also not really used in large scale in the Mediterranean until after 1943. This was because fighting in the desert especially was either long range or low altitude. The Spitfire lacked the former and was equaled by competitors in the latter so the 42-43 desert air force was mostly Hurricanes, P-40s, and P-38s.
Don’t get me wrong, the Spitfire was the best in the world, as long as it was handled correctly, from medium to high altitude in 1940 and in many ways probably for the entire war. The Battle of Britain is a peerless feat of world changing military heroism. And it continued to improve each year of the war. But, perhaps in part because of this, the RAF did not invest in its own long range fighter. So the RAF was incapable of participating in equal terms in the destruction of the Luftwafe in late 1943 and especially early 1944. This makes it a bit exasperating to listen to people say the Spitfire destroyed the German airforce.
Seth and Mongoose, you both have valid points. I think we can all agree that the Spitfire was a good plane, but the idea that's pushed by fans of British aircraft is that the Spitfire was the best and most important fighter of the war, and it simply wasn't. On the subject of the 504, I have driven one, and it's very comfy and rides very well. I think it's a solid car by the standards of its day. I will cover the Spitfire in a future video.
These videos are extremely informational!
I love your channel. Thanks for teaching me. I'll share it with my friends and boyfriend too
Thanks Monika.
What Have You Flown?
love this series ... My dad was a thunderbolt pilot... 9th airforce 368th Fighter group, 395th Fighter Squadron..... the " Panzer Dusters".....
How it compares to P-38? I think Lightning could be even better in climb rate.
That's too complex for the comment section, too many models and variables.
I love P-47 crew chiefs!!
If I may ask, where are you finding this climb performance for the P-47 Thunderbolt? I haven't been able to find any test that puts the P-47 Thunderbolt's climb performance above 2,400 feet per minute at 25,000 feet. Any help in the right direction here would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
...either that or a '53 Buick.
Awsome as always! Never stop making these!
Climb every mountain, study every graph...I will never legally pilot anything. Power bicycle? Outto juice, goose.
Interesting video. The P47 is awesome, although I did expect a little more performance from those superchargers and inter/after coolers and that fat prop. Sorry for the noob question but, How steep of an angle did they achieve during their maximum climb rate?
I wish you would explain the difference between Zoom and Sustained Rate of climb to the rest of your viewers! In a zoom climb, the heavier and faster plane has a disproportional advantage in using vertical maneuvers in these low T/W planes, NONE of which comes close to 0.5/1 and thus has very definite limits on its ability to climb vertically!
Unless I'm mistaken Robert S. Johnson was a flying Tiger and also wrote "God is My Co-pilot" as well as Thunderbolt.
Nope, totally different person
Skinny blades and Frankie's ties, we don't romantacise at all...Tubby? Whoa, there...
The P-51 ran its fuselage tank empty before using the drop tanks. A P-51 meeting a German plane would likely be dropping its tanks and having about 68% of its total internal fuel.
Very interesting topic but I would have appreciated going deeper in detail into all the different propeller types used by the P47 which were at least 4 and was a bit more complex than just paddle blade and non paddle blade, how they looked, advantages and disadvantages and how they affected the performance in each case. Anyway I appreciate all the time and effort you put in these videos, it's amazing.
Good stuff. Can you do something on the P-39, my favorite WW2 fighter?
Greg Thanks again! Is there any chance to see where the TA152H would be at the power to weight ratio at 25000ft?
I did make a TA152H video, have you seen it? I'll probably talk more about it at some point, but 25,000 feet is really where it starts to perform compared to others.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yes Sir seen that one 4 times now :) Thats how good your videos are! But it was a lot about speeds not so much about climb I have even seen from ww2 pilots saying that the TA152 turns inside a lot of planes would love to see a video on that! Thanks Greg!
OK, I'll work that into my 190 series near the end.
Thanks Greg for another fantastic vid on the 47. You covered everything in depth that converted the 47 from an also ran to the dominate aircraft Republic produced. Finally after a bit of searching found and purchased "Thunderbolt" the story of Maj. Robert S. Johnson. First edition I might add, not the paperback with the "Bubbletop" of Gabreski's on the cover. What were they thinking? I am looking forward to the rest of the truth about the plane as Gen. Kenney {Commander 8 A.F. Fighter Group} stated "Broke the back of the Luftwaffe". Thanks again!
Nice to see the old Bismark Turm in your video. Can't begin to tell you how that brings back the memories of Cold War years in Germany/Europe. Wish I had a dime for every hike I took back then... Enjoy your work. Thanks.
I love the series about the p47. Would you consider doing similar to the f4u Corsair?
6 dislikes? Why? Must of said bad things about their favorite planes.
The Spit's all outta bubble gum...I could watch the ellipitical climb for an hour. Who will photograph?
Thanks for the great video, Greg. I play a lot of War Thunder on PS4 because I am poor, and it is free. The list of things wrong with War Thunder (Realistic Air Battles, in particular) is very long, but I'd love to see you review it. Thanks again!
Incredibly informative, thanks!!!!
Sorted , your now my official go to man for Knowledge on WW2 aircraft. Thank you.
Great video series on the P-47, I enjoyed it. The bonus footage of Bismarck Tower at Landstuhl Germany was great to see. I've been there a number of times from 1981 to 83 when I was stationed at Miesau Army depot just south of you. I'd taken my NCO basic course there, as well as used the Hospital atop that mountain.
Thanks, I enjoyed hearing that. Not too many people go up to that tower, the town there is pretty small.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yes it is rather the way stop for those on their way to either Kaiserslautern, or Ramstein Air-Base.
Common sense will tell you that a fat paddle propeller will grab more air to power your aircraft faster. The Germans knew that and that's why they had them on almost all their aircraft. You can actually hear the difference even at idle speed.
Spitfire was a small aircraft, built as an interceptor where high rate of climb was part of the package. The compromises gave it a poor range so it’s no surprise the drop tank issue gave serious problems.
Greg you are awesome. Love all these videos.
Incredible detail and research my friend!!! Keep up the fantastic work!!!
The first model aeroplane i made (age about 5) was a P47D.
Always had a soft spot for the jug.
Still prefer a spitfire IXb tho.
Another great vid Greg, especially the Bismarck Turm you showed at the end. Makes me want to go back to Germany.
Cannot wait for your next video.
@Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles - "...all out of bubblegum..." - Mister Piper applauds your deep cut.
I'm glad you understood that reference, I know it's a B movie, but it's one of my favorites.
Gregg, since I found your fascinating videos it has become increasingly difficult to get work done, Thanks a lot!!!!!
Haha. I checked in here last night wondering/hoping I had missed a notification. Nope. But today...voila!
neat
Thank you
8 Ma Deuces "harmonized" to converge at 1,000 yards... can you say flying *bullet hose* ??... I knew you could! Jug FTW! :D
You are going to love the video on the Thunderbolt's offensive systems. I might put that one up next. I am trying to mix up tech heavy with non tech heavy to give my brain a rest every now and then.
terrific attention to detail thankyou.
another in a great line of videos. you cover a complex topic and make it easy to understand for the laymen and informative for the those who know some.
Greg if you did not know... there is a brand new in box, not kidding, P-47N at a farm. From Wkipedia referencing the B-36 "Instead of being completely disposed of, Soplata bought it and transported the pieces by truck to his farm, where it sits today. The bomb bay currently contains a complete P-47N still packed in its original shipping crate.[67]" I can't tell for sure, but it looks like it was still there in 2010
Wow. That's amazing. I hope it's preserved properly. It's a real piece of history.
I am mesmerized by your videos. I have no idea why I keep watching. It must be your soothing voice and the peaceful graphics, and the obvious large amount of study that went into the making of the video
The voice, the diction, the slow pace. You might fit all of those facts in a 10 minute video, but that would feel like an unwatchable avalanche. Also, Chris Bartocci has a similarly aimed channel, but at firearms. He is informative too, but his way of speaking is not so nice.
January 1944 according to Johnson's account had terrible weather and few if any missions so both the January prop arrival and the February power boost came at the same time.
True. From the perspective of the pilots on both sides, both mods hit the sky at about the same time. Of course I'm sure it took time to accomplish all the mods, but in terms of 1944 performance, I think the 64" power setting with the paddle prop is the combo that represents the P-47 in that stage of the war the best.
Thank you for another great video.