P47-M question

[Hap]

What is a "field mod?"  Why does it intrigue?

[Stoney]

Here's my question then:

If these were a field mods, then shouldn't the P-47M as modelled in the game have no pylons and 6x.50cal? That was my impression of HTC's take on field mods, regardless of how widespread they were.

They weren't "mods" in that sense.  For the armament, the gun bays on the M were capable of holding 8 guns, because the airframe was really just a D airframe.  The pylons were simply attached to the pre-existing attach points and plumbing (because again, it was a D wing).  The only "true" mod was the dorsal fillet, as this required modifying the airframe to attach. 

[Krusty]

Stoney you bring up another issue...

HTC doesn't model "what a plane COULD do"... they model "what a plane did do" --- You could strap 5 20mm cannons on the nose of a P-38, there was room, but it was never flown this way.

You COULD put 20mm cannons on an F6F-5P, but there's no photo evidence that this ever happened.

You COULD do a lot of things, but HTC models the field practices. The 47M was technically a "D" frame and wing, so it could theoretically carry 2500lbs of bombs, 10 rockets, and 400rpg overload ammo for heavy ground attack and strafing.... However, If this plane only ever saw service as a fighter, with no ground ord, no rocket rails, etc, HTC will not model them as an option.

So finding out what weapons load it flew with is in the best interest of HTC.

Otherwise, the spit5 "COULD" have flown with 120 rpg for the cannons, but for the model we have in-game, it never did. Same for this model of P-47. What it did, and what it could do, are 2 different things.

[Anaxogoras]

109G-6/14 are like that too.  Capacity for 200 rounds of 20mm, but 150 was the normal loadout.

[texastc316]

I agrre with krusty. I want more cannons in the 38

[Squire]

None of the P-47s in game can have the pylons removed, so it makes sense the same would be true for the P-47M. Looking at its speed, it doesnt seem to suffer much from them.

My question is regarding the fuel, they only used 150 octane I take it, to pull 72 inches Hg? just curious. Im pretty sure that all of VIII AF Fighter Command was using 150 juice be the time the P-47Ms arrived.

[Megalodon]

Stoney you bring up another issue...


You COULD put 20mm cannons on an F6F-5P, but there's no photo evidence that this ever happened.

[Tec]

^ F6F-5N?

[Stoney]

Stoney you bring up another issue...

HTC doesn't model "what a plane COULD do"... they model "what a plane did do" --- You could strap 5 20mm cannons on the nose of a P-38, there was room, but it was never flown this way.

You COULD put 20mm cannons on an F6F-5P, but there's no photo evidence that this ever happened.

You COULD do a lot of things, but HTC models the field practices. The 47M was technically a "D" frame and wing, so it could theoretically carry 2500lbs of bombs, 10 rockets, and 400rpg overload ammo for heavy ground attack and strafing.... However, If this plane only ever saw service as a fighter, with no ground ord, no rocket rails, etc, HTC will not model them as an option.

So finding out what weapons load it flew with is in the best interest of HTC.

Otherwise, the spit5 "COULD" have flown with 120 rpg for the cannons, but for the model we have in-game, it never did. Same for this model of P-47. What it did, and what it could do, are 2 different things.

I think HTC did a good job of configuring it in its "normal" operational state--8 guns and pylons, but no ord.  This was the way the 56th FG flew these things.

[Krusty]

109G-6/14 are like that too.  Capacity for 200 rounds of 20mm, but 150 was the normal loadout.

There are many sources that listed 200 rounds, even some flight tests had that as the loadout. That's a different situation.

Supposedly only a single FG used the overload ammo option on P-47Ds, and it wasn't the 56FG.

[Krusty]

^ F6F-5N?

Precisely. I said P, not N. Ps were daytime fighters without the radar on the wing. Even most Ns flew with 6x 50cals and no 20mms.

[pipz]

Osprey "56th Fighter Group" page 109

While two 150-US gallon drop tanks could be carried under the wings of the P-47,the drag they created was considerable.The shackle pylons on the wings also caused drag,affecting both manueverability and speed.Dave Shilling had discussed these problems with Cas Hough,who was in charge of the experiment station at Bovingdon,and the latters solution was the 215-US gallon belly tank.Basicly a wider version of the "flat" 150-Us gallon tank,it was fabricated in steel by a British firm specificly for the 56th FG.Use of this tank allowed the wing pylons to be removed,thus further maximising the Thunderbolt's performance.


From what I have read it wasnt just the M model that they would do that to.If the mission to be flown was of short range they might remove the pylons.Other than the engine installed The M is not much different in fit than the late D.

Pipz

[Strip]

In all seriouness...why would you want more ammo on a P-47?

I take the light ammo load on the eight guns and it seems to go on forever.

Strafing would be the only thing....even then....thats ground stuff. 

[Stoney]

Osprey "56th Fighter Group" page 109

While two 150-US gallon drop tanks could be carried under the wings of the P-47,the drag they created was considerable.The shackle pylons on the wings also caused drag,affecting both manueverability and speed.Dave Shilling had discussed these problems with Cas Hough,who was in charge of the experiment station at Bovingdon,and the latters solution was the 215-US gallon belly tank.Basicly a wider version of the "flat" 150-Us gallon tank,it was fabricated in steel by a British firm specificly for the 56th FG.Use of this tank allowed the wing pylons to be removed,thus further maximising the Thunderbolt's performance.


From what I have read it wasnt just the M model that they would do that to.If the mission to be flown was of short range they might remove the pylons.Other than the engine installed The M is not much different in fit than the late D.

Pipz

Nice find there Pipz. 

[Anaxogoras]

...and from a reputable source.