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?
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!
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?
@@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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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 !
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!
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)
Greg, I really like your videos. No nonsense, well researched, no bugus claims and a smooth narrative style without ums and errs. And just so informative. The quirky little videos of historical interest from off the beaten path are cool too. Neat.
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.
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.
@@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 my 3rd or 4th time watching this series and I have to thank you Greg for turning me on to the P47! I have watched all your videos so far as of Oct 2022 and you are definitely my favorite channel. I'm 57 and have been interested in anything WW2 for most of my life but mostly the aircraft. I always thought I knew alot and would have considered myself a fairly good WW2 historian especially with the equipment like aircraft and ships, subs, jeeps and deuces. I think I have learned more in the past 5 years because of the ease of the internet and UA-cam. I have certainly learned a really big chunk of the aircraft stuff from you, I mean the real technical stuff. I think those of us who love your channel know how boring this stuff is to most other people so I wish there was a way or a place where I could meet some of your viewers or like minded people who love this stuff as much as I do. I have no one to talk to who is remotely interested. If anyone who reads this knows a place or can relate to what I'm saying please hit me up, and thanks again Greg for all your hard work, it definitely has an impact in my life and has kinda reignited my passion for this again in a much more serious way.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thank you so much for responding to me in person, it's a real honor to hear from you! It's no accomplishment when you love everything your watching and hearing! Thanks again Greg and happy flying!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
@@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. :-)
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.
Liked and shared. Was already subscribed. I learned more by inference from this single, revealing, lecture than I obtained in any way from any lectures I audited in school.
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.
Again another great video from you Greg! Been watching it two times and probably will watch it at least two or three times just to absorb all data provided in this video. Thx for upload ! :D
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.
Another awesome video! So often, raw performance statistics are used in a vacuum to describe different aircraft's performance and many fallacies and myths come as a result. I love how you break down the nuances and real world variables (such as fuel octane, available modifications and maintenance) and still give a cohesive, real world analysis of their performance. One thing I would add about the P-51: there was a common practice to burn off most of the gas (leaving roughly 15 gallons) in the aft tank before switching to the drop tanks. This was due to the negative CG flight characteristics with all that weight aft weight. This would change the "point of tank drop" performance quite a bit. That being said, the 51 was never a climber and it was possibly one of it's biggest weaknesses (along with acceleration). It would be interesting to compare them each with a fuel load equal to the lightest fuel load (probably the Spit or 109?). It would be interesting to see a comparison at say 80 gallons each. Of course, I am not suggesting you do that because I know how much work you put in to these videos. Not to mention information not directly available. I truly appreciate you interesting content and efforts!
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.
Great video as I've come to enjoy...the explanation of the paddle blade prop was excellent as I always wondered how a prop could add so much horsepower(1000)...which it didn't but what it did add was quite significant for sure.
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.
There were 109G6AS and G14AS, the higher altitude versions. In short, guys at Daimler Benz just put a DB603 supercharger (which was bigger) to a DB605 engine.
That's funny, as I feel like I have a lot of subscribers. I never expected this channel to have more than a few hundred. Not only am I grateful for the support, I'm happy to hear that there are others who love these planes as much as I do.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles I have yet to see someone who does as much research as you do, in such a professional way. You also go over everything, nice and concise, and there’s no BS. Keep up the incredible work, you’re doing great!
The P-47's performance just kept getting better, but it was always rugged, able too absorb significant battle damage and get it's pilot back home safely, and It always had massive amounts of firepower as well as decent range. It's my personal favorite for all of that but I especially love the way it looks.
Things I want to see: Airframe differences b/w P-51 and Bf 109 Match-Up b/w P-51D(-10, -20) vs Fw 190 D-9 Turn comparison b/w P-51 vs Bf 109 Individual video on each plane like reviews (Ex: How good was Fw 190 D-9 on WW2?) Face reveal Lol, thanks always for your specific topics. Your aviation vids are really helpful to understand the most complex and tech-heavy combat that is air combat. Keep on, I’ll always love em.
P-51 vs. 109 airframe differences, I will do. P-51 vs. 190D9 will happen. I will work turn comparisons into some of the videos. Face reveal, I'll be in front of the camera in at least one upcoming video. I'm a chubby 52 year old, nothing exciting to look at.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles Haha regardless your videos’ quality is awesome, and I enjoy car stuffs as well :) Thanks for letting me know about NACA, and thanks for these rare and never-was-before contents.
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.
I love this stuff, thank you for keeping my nerdself filled with random aircraft knowledge, this made me feel better on a day I am not feeling so great :)
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 👍🇫🇷
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.
Haah, what, they locked the tower ? I am from that town below and have been up there many many times, it's a truly amazing view from up there. Btw, Philipp Fauth, the guy on the stone, mapped the moon in great detail. NASA used it to choose Apollo 11's landing zone. It took satellites and computers to get better maps of the moon than his. Right there, he made part of those maps for Apollo 11 decades later. Life can be funny. You make great videos !
Very interesting as usual - more the better. Two queries - not criticisms. First, I read test pilot Boone Geyton's memoirs of his year as lead guinea pig for the Corsair in 1940-41. What was striking is how "seat of the pants" the whole effort was. The data gathered on the new bird, as I understand it, was written down in pencil on a checklist in Geyton's lap - sometimes interrupted when things got dicey. I'm sure that Vought had a very good idea of how the Corsair was performing - but it doesn't sound like the data was good enough to provide the kind of precision we'd take for granted in our age. I got much the same impression from the "Report of Joint Fighter Conference NAS Patuxent River; MD 16-23 1944" (Schiffer publications - 1998 - in print) a week long gathering of 200 or so representatives from all US companies producing fighters, engineers & pilots from Army and Navy, an RAF contingent and five NACA honchos from Langley Field. All active US fighters were evaluated (also the Bell jet, Tigercat and Bearcat), the RAF brought a Mosquito and Seafire and they looked at Zero M5 for fun. 350 pages of transcript and data. They argue about everything - everything. (I guess that's the point of trade-off.) There are figures and graphs galore, but they they're not done in great detail. Much of the aircraft evaluation appears to be very subjective. (They agreed with one point made in your video. The rating of "Best Fighter" was split between "25,000 Feet" - P51D, and "30,000 Feet" - P47M.) I talked with Francis Dean, an ex-Boeing engineer and WWII fighter guru who edited this report for publication, and he noted that the theoretical knowledge of aeronautical engineering always ran a little ahead of results in that time with many things a little fuzzy. Dean claimed that made the field incredibly interesting in that era - perhaps more so when massive design teams get together for a decade or more to create a high tech plane today. Anyway, I wonder if the performance figures from that era might have contained some "slack." Secondly, I was told by pilots that every plane was a little different and they got more different the more hours logged - and unlike a bottle of Lafite, fighter performance did not improve with age. I wonder how that would have played out. By 1944 German industry was producing big numbers of planes (until about September) but were they as well made as those from a year or two earlier? The allies weren't losing as many planes - but any fighter was "hot" and put through stress comparable to a F1 car. Wonder if there weren't planes flying that were kicking out good but not peak performance. Maybe unanswerable. Again, great stuff. Look forward to a piece on the Spit or P51.
There is some slack in the figures but we can still form some conclusions with absolute certainty by comparing multiple reports, and other evidence, which is what I try to do. On the subject of wear and tear I suspect the US engines suffered the least. The US had a good maintenance program with realistic times between overhauls and from the safety of bases in England the US mechanics could adhere to the schedules. Furthermore the power and time limitations on the P-47's engine were ultra conservative. For example, it was run in one test at 2600hp for 7 hours, not 5 mins like the official limitations, and in civilian transports it was often run at relatively high cruise power for hours and a time with relatively little maintenance between flights. In other words, I do think that many planes were not at peak performance, but the US planes probably suffered from this a lot less than the Germans.
No quibbles whatsoever. It may well be that the USAAF actually knew more about the performance of all of the aircraft involved a few months after the war when there was time to examine enemy planes at leisure - and the last models of the P-47 and other US AC - were becoming very refined and engineers must have known the planes intimately. When I did my book about air warfare in the South Pacific I put in a list of the basic aircraft and their basic performance figures - speed, critical altitude, range and armament. Obviously I wasn't making my own figures - and I didn't find two sources that were in perfect agreement. That's why I like your analysis - aircraft performance will always be shaped by conditions: there isn't a simple figure for, say, climb rate. You make that very clear. I'm sure the flight sim fans love this stuff. I hope the history fans do too. The technology involved certainly conditioned operations and the more people understand the categories, the better they'll understand the big picture. For instance, I've had people on me for years because I both defended and criticized the Zero. I wrote that it was an excellent plane for what it was designed to do (1942 carrier escort fighter) but not so hot for the war it actually had to fight (land based attrition vs second generation US aircraft.) There was nothing wrong with the Zero - the problem was the inability of Japanese industry to replace it with a reliable plane in 1943 - as Mitsubishi planned to do but failed. And aside from everything else, analog technology is very sweet. One can actually understand it - I don't think I'll ever really get the world of the F-22. Looking forward to a Spit Flick - that's an interesting airplane.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
My father was a mechanic for Pratt & Whitney during ww2 and he said that almost all crew chiefs were running at 70" in 43. Pratt & Whitney knew this but would not acknowledge it for warranty reasons.
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.
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!
FYI, from "Check Six!" by Jim Curran: "I drooled at having so little paint to slow me down, but that was really secondary compared to the paddle prop, water-alcohol injection and the turbo that could turn at a higher rate. These attributes equaled a super-performing Jug. With the Lindbergh fuel economy technique, I could reduce fuel consumption from 30 to 35 gallons per hour, depending on the load. Compare this to the standard fuel consumption on Windy City Kitty of 60 gallons per hour. Believe me, I was in hog heaven with that aircraft and my fellow pilots stood in line to fly it."
Footnote says: The ultimate Razorback Thunderbolts, the P-47D-22-RE (Republic) and P-47D-23-RA (Evansville, Indiana factory) blocks, featured a 13-foot paddle-blade propeller, either a Hamilton Standard Hydromatic 24E50-65 or Curtiss Electric C542S, which enabled the aircraft to make full use of additional power provided by water injection. With this larger propeller, there was only six inches of clearance between the blade tips and the ground during takeoffs and landings. But this added 400 feet per minute to the climb rate.
Sir if you kindly please tell me how have you prepared the climb rate chart (the climb rate part) that you have shown in this video (from 21:52 to 25:16)
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles sir, I tried to figure out the climb rate of several aircrafts using the formula in Aerodynamics for naval aviators, and even using conventional formulas, but as always I either get absurd results or run out of data that's needed to be plotted in the conventional formulas. Sir in addition to that if you kindly please tell me what chart making tool you are using.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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 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!
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.
Thanks Greg, for intelligent gimmick-free explanations.
My Dad flew a Thunderbolt.
very cool. We are grateful for your Dad's service.
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 !
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.
The best climb rte through WW2 for the P47D regardless of variant was 3180ft /min Oct 44
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)
Greg, I really like your videos. No nonsense, well researched, no bugus claims and a smooth narrative style without ums and errs. And just so informative. The quirky little videos of historical interest from off the beaten path are cool too. Neat.
Be careful with that. He relies on secondary source data. So it should be viewed in a critical fashion.
@@debbest8546very rarely and if done it's always with a disclaimer.
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.
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 my 3rd or 4th time watching this series and I have to thank you Greg for turning me on to the P47! I have watched all your videos so far as of Oct 2022 and you are definitely my favorite channel. I'm 57 and have been interested in anything WW2 for most of my life but mostly the aircraft. I always thought I knew alot and would have considered myself a fairly good WW2 historian especially with the equipment like aircraft and ships, subs, jeeps and deuces. I think I have learned more in the past 5 years because of the ease of the internet and UA-cam. I have certainly learned a really big chunk of the aircraft stuff from you, I mean the real technical stuff. I think those of us who love your channel know how boring this stuff is to most other people so I wish there was a way or a place where I could meet some of your viewers or like minded people who love this stuff as much as I do. I have no one to talk to who is remotely interested. If anyone who reads this knows a place or can relate to what I'm saying please hit me up, and thanks again Greg for all your hard work, it definitely has an impact in my life and has kinda reignited my passion for this again in a much more serious way.
Thanks Robert. Watching all the videos on this channel is quite an accomplishment.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thank you so much for responding to me in person, it's a real honor to hear from you! It's no accomplishment when you love everything your watching and hearing! Thanks again Greg and happy flying!
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.
Keep up with the videos Greg they are very interesting!
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.
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 wished hard enough and it came true! A new video from Greg
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.
love this series ... My dad was a thunderbolt pilot... 9th airforce 368th Fighter group, 395th Fighter Squadron..... the " Panzer Dusters".....
Sorted , your now my official go to man for Knowledge on WW2 aircraft. Thank you.
“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. :-)
I really enjoy your videos Greg. Thanks!
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.
Liked and shared. Was already subscribed.
I learned more by inference from this single, revealing, lecture than I obtained in any way from any lectures I audited in school.
I feel the same about your supercharger lecture.
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.
Awsome as always! Never stop making these!
@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.
Greg you are awesome. Love all these videos.
Incredible detail and research my friend!!! Keep up the fantastic work!!!
Gregg, since I found your fascinating videos it has become increasingly difficult to get work done, Thanks a lot!!!!!
These videos are extremely informational!
i really appreciate your translation of all this info for us. huge help to understand it all.
Another excellent analysis, Thank you Greg.
terrific attention to detail thankyou.
I love this type of technical details. Keep up the good work sir!
Again another great video from you Greg!
Been watching it two times and probably will watch it at least two or three times just to absorb all data provided in this video.
Thx for upload ! :D
Thanks SkyLord, I subscribed to your channel, and look forward to watching your videos this weekend. I'll comment on them over there.
As always a well produced video of which i enjoyed immensely Thank you
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for your excellent work.
I love your channel. Thanks for teaching me. I'll share it with my friends and boyfriend too
Thanks Monika.
Another awesome video! So often, raw performance statistics are used in a vacuum to describe different aircraft's performance and many fallacies and myths come as a result. I love how you break down the nuances and real world variables (such as fuel octane, available modifications and maintenance) and still give a cohesive, real world analysis of their performance. One thing I would add about the P-51: there was a common practice to burn off most of the gas (leaving roughly 15 gallons) in the aft tank before switching to the drop tanks. This was due to the negative CG flight characteristics with all that weight aft weight. This would change the "point of tank drop" performance quite a bit. That being said, the 51 was never a climber and it was possibly one of it's biggest weaknesses (along with acceleration). It would be interesting to compare them each with a fuel load equal to the lightest fuel load (probably the Spit or 109?). It would be interesting to see a comparison at say 80 gallons each. Of course, I am not suggesting you do that because I know how much work you put in to these videos. Not to mention information not directly available. I truly appreciate you interesting content and efforts!
You are of course correct about the aft tank in the 51. No question that effects the numbers in a way that's unfair to the Mustang.
Incredibly informative, thanks!!!!
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.
Great video as I've come to enjoy...the explanation of the paddle blade prop was excellent as I always wondered how a prop could add so much horsepower(1000)...which it didn't but what it did add was quite significant for sure.
Thanks Bob, I'm happy to hear that. I was wondering if I was putting too much emphasis on Johnson's 1000hp comment.
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.
Thank you for another great video.
There were 109G6AS and G14AS, the higher altitude versions. In short, guys at Daimler Benz just put a DB603 supercharger (which was bigger) to a DB605 engine.
That's one thing about the 109, anytime it's discussed, there is always another version that comes up.
impressive. highly recommended.
Your videos are absolutely amazing it’s a true shame that you don’t have more subscribers.
That's funny, as I feel like I have a lot of subscribers. I never expected this channel to have more than a few hundred. Not only am I grateful for the support, I'm happy to hear that there are others who love these planes as much as I do.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles I have yet to see someone who does as much research as you do, in such a professional way. You also go over everything, nice and concise, and there’s no BS.
Keep up the incredible work, you’re doing great!
I can't stop watching your videos HELP ME!
your the best
Haha. I checked in here last night wondering/hoping I had missed a notification. Nope. But today...voila!
The P-47's performance just kept getting better, but it was always rugged, able too absorb significant battle damage and get it's pilot back home safely, and It always had massive amounts of firepower as well as decent range. It's my personal favorite for all of that but I especially love the way it looks.
Things I want to see:
Airframe differences b/w P-51 and Bf 109
Match-Up b/w P-51D(-10, -20) vs Fw 190 D-9
Turn comparison b/w P-51 vs Bf 109
Individual video on each plane like reviews
(Ex: How good was Fw 190 D-9 on WW2?)
Face reveal
Lol, thanks always for your specific topics. Your aviation vids are really helpful to understand the most complex and tech-heavy combat that is air combat.
Keep on, I’ll always love em.
I will do that.
P-51 vs. 109 airframe differences, I will do. P-51 vs. 190D9 will happen. I will work turn comparisons into some of the videos. Face reveal, I'll be in front of the camera in at least one upcoming video. I'm a chubby 52 year old, nothing exciting to look at.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles Haha regardless your videos’ quality is awesome, and I enjoy car stuffs as well :)
Thanks for letting me know about NACA, and thanks for these rare and never-was-before contents.
jubba jubba jubba jubba
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.
Nice. I like this kind of tech talk.
I love this stuff, thank you for keeping my nerdself filled with random aircraft knowledge, this made me feel better on a day I am not feeling so great :)
Greg, I love your videos!! Keep going!!
hi greg ...awesome as usual appreciated
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.
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.
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.
Very good job! Thank you for upload! God Bless!!!
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!
"The spitfire, it's all out of bubblegum" :D
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.
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.
Haah, what, they locked the tower ? I am from that town below and have been up there many many times, it's a truly amazing view from up there. Btw, Philipp Fauth, the guy on the stone, mapped the moon in great detail. NASA used it to choose Apollo 11's landing zone. It took satellites and computers to get better maps of the moon than his. Right there, he made part of those maps for Apollo 11 decades later. Life can be funny.
You make great videos !
Thanks, that's one of my favorite towns.
Very interesting as usual - more the better. Two queries - not criticisms. First, I read test pilot Boone Geyton's memoirs of his year as lead guinea pig for the Corsair in 1940-41. What was striking is how "seat of the pants" the whole effort was. The data gathered on the new bird, as I understand it, was written down in pencil on a checklist in Geyton's lap - sometimes interrupted when things got dicey. I'm sure that Vought had a very good idea of how the Corsair was performing - but it doesn't sound like the data was good enough to provide the kind of precision we'd take for granted in our age. I got much the same impression from the "Report of Joint Fighter Conference NAS Patuxent River; MD 16-23 1944" (Schiffer publications - 1998 - in print) a week long gathering of 200 or so representatives from all US companies producing fighters, engineers & pilots from Army and Navy, an RAF contingent and five NACA honchos from Langley Field. All active US fighters were evaluated (also the Bell jet, Tigercat and Bearcat), the RAF brought a Mosquito and Seafire and they looked at Zero M5 for fun. 350 pages of transcript and data. They argue about everything - everything. (I guess that's the point of trade-off.) There are figures and graphs galore, but they they're not done in great detail. Much of the aircraft evaluation appears to be very subjective. (They agreed with one point made in your video. The rating of "Best Fighter" was split between "25,000 Feet" - P51D, and "30,000 Feet" - P47M.) I talked with Francis Dean, an ex-Boeing engineer and WWII fighter guru who edited this report for publication, and he noted that the theoretical knowledge of aeronautical engineering always ran a little ahead of results in that time with many things a little fuzzy. Dean claimed that made the field incredibly interesting in that era - perhaps more so when massive design teams get together for a decade or more to create a high tech plane today. Anyway, I wonder if the performance figures from that era might have contained some "slack." Secondly, I was told by pilots that every plane was a little different and they got more different the more hours logged - and unlike a bottle of Lafite, fighter performance did not improve with age. I wonder how that would have played out. By 1944 German industry was producing big numbers of planes (until about September) but were they as well made as those from a year or two earlier? The allies weren't losing as many planes - but any fighter was "hot" and put through stress comparable to a F1 car. Wonder if there weren't planes flying that were kicking out good but not peak performance. Maybe unanswerable. Again, great stuff. Look forward to a piece on the Spit or P51.
There is some slack in the figures but we can still form some conclusions with absolute certainty by comparing multiple reports, and other evidence, which is what I try to do. On the subject of wear and tear I suspect the US engines suffered the least. The US had a good maintenance program with realistic times between overhauls and from the safety of bases in England the US mechanics could adhere to the schedules. Furthermore the power and time limitations on the P-47's engine were ultra conservative. For example, it was run in one test at 2600hp for 7 hours, not 5 mins like the official limitations, and in civilian transports it was often run at relatively high cruise power for hours and a time with relatively little maintenance between flights. In other words, I do think that many planes were not at peak performance, but the US planes probably suffered from this a lot less than the Germans.
No quibbles whatsoever. It may well be that the USAAF actually knew more about the performance of all of the aircraft involved a few months after the war when there was time to examine enemy planes at leisure - and the last models of the P-47 and other US AC - were becoming very refined and engineers must have known the planes intimately. When I did my book about air warfare in the South Pacific I put in a list of the basic aircraft and their basic performance figures - speed, critical altitude, range and armament. Obviously I wasn't making my own figures - and I didn't find two sources that were in perfect agreement. That's why I like your analysis - aircraft performance will always be shaped by conditions: there isn't a simple figure for, say, climb rate. You make that very clear. I'm sure the flight sim fans love this stuff. I hope the history fans do too. The technology involved certainly conditioned operations and the more people understand the categories, the better they'll understand the big picture. For instance, I've had people on me for years because I both defended and criticized the Zero. I wrote that it was an excellent plane for what it was designed to do (1942 carrier escort fighter) but not so hot for the war it actually had to fight (land based attrition vs second generation US aircraft.) There was nothing wrong with the Zero - the problem was the inability of Japanese industry to replace it with a reliable plane in 1943 - as Mitsubishi planned to do but failed. And aside from everything else, analog technology is very sweet. One can actually understand it - I don't think I'll ever really get the world of the F-22. Looking forward to a Spit Flick - that's an interesting airplane.
10:10 Lucky had a cut tail! (edit: cut rudder)
Impressive.
18:23
!?
white stripe darnit!
Thanks for another great video
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.
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.
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.
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.
10:40 - not to nitpick, but the d25 bubble canopy was not in service until May of '44
I said that manifold pressure level was available in Feb of 44' not the D25. I suppose I could have worded it better.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Ah, ok, apologies for the misdirect.
Your videos are OUTSTANDING!!!
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.
Great series thanks.
My father was a mechanic for Pratt & Whitney during ww2 and he said that almost all crew chiefs were running at 70" in 43. Pratt & Whitney knew this but would not acknowledge it for warranty reasons.
Thanks David, I am 100% certain your dad was correct.
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.
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!
FYI, from "Check Six!" by Jim Curran:
"I drooled at having so little paint to slow me down, but that was really secondary compared to the paddle prop, water-alcohol injection and the turbo that could turn at a higher rate. These attributes equaled a super-performing Jug. With the Lindbergh fuel economy technique, I could reduce fuel consumption from 30 to 35 gallons per hour, depending on the load. Compare this to the standard fuel consumption on Windy City Kitty of 60 gallons per hour. Believe me, I was in hog heaven with that aircraft and my fellow pilots stood in line to fly it."
Footnote says:
The ultimate Razorback Thunderbolts, the P-47D-22-RE (Republic) and P-47D-23-RA (Evansville, Indiana factory) blocks, featured a 13-foot paddle-blade propeller, either a Hamilton Standard Hydromatic 24E50-65 or Curtiss Electric C542S, which enabled the aircraft to make full use of additional power provided by water injection. With this larger propeller, there was only six inches of clearance between the blade tips and the ground during takeoffs and landings. But this added 400 feet per minute to the climb rate.
Grand, Great ... Quality!
Thank you man, thank you soooo much I can not say how much :-)
You rock.
"The Spitfire is all out of bubblegum." I didn't expect to hear a They Live reference here, nice.
I love that movie. Coincidentally, I also saw the reference recently on "I fly Central"s discord. That made me smile.
The game duke nukem 3d also took references from said movie.
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.
Sir if you kindly please tell me how have you prepared the climb rate chart (the climb rate part) that you have shown in this video (from 21:52 to 25:16)
Sure, I plugged numbers from test data into an online kid's education chart making tool.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles sir, I tried to figure out the climb rate of several aircrafts using the formula in Aerodynamics for naval aviators, and even using conventional formulas, but as always I either get absurd results or run out of data that's needed to be plotted in the conventional formulas.
Sir in addition to that if you kindly please tell me what chart making tool you are using.
great work, thank you
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
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.