Author Topic: 47m vs 47n  (Read 2873 times)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: 47m vs 47n
« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2013, 01:59:40 PM »
The overall wingspan increased by about 10 inches (per wing), but that included chopping the wingtips to square them. The added inner section was 18 inches, which means that the baseline of the guns was increase by 36 inches (0.9 meter). This is not huge, but not insignificant either.

The wingtips weren't chopped so much as redesigned entirely. They didn't just (literally) stick plugs on the wing of a 47D. The entire thing was redesigned to act as a wet wing. It was built new. For example, the ailerons are actually larger than those found on the D/M. They reach out further.

As for the gun emplacement, from what I've been able to tell, trying to overlay wing profiles from the D40 and the N, the innermost #1 and #2 guns on the N start about where the #3 and #4 are on the D so that they're superimposed over each other.

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
Re: 47m vs 47n
« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2013, 01:53:01 PM »
The wingtips weren't chopped so much as redesigned entirely. They didn't just (literally) stick plugs on the wing of a 47D. The entire thing was redesigned to act as a wet wing. It was built new. For example, the ailerons are actually larger than those found on the D/M. They reach out further.

As for the gun emplacement, from what I've been able to tell, trying to overlay wing profiles from the D40 and the N, the innermost #1 and #2 guns on the N start about where the #3 and #4 are on the D so that they're superimposed over each other.
:airplane: A little info on the developement of the "N", might help with this discussion!

The P-47N version of the Thunderbolt was the last version to be manufactured in quantity. It was a specialized long-range version built specifically for service in the Pacific theatre.

Four P-47D-27-RE airframes (serials 42-27385/27388) had been taken off the production line at Farmingdale and fitted with the Pratt & Whitney R-2800-57(C) engine driving a larger CH-5 turbosupercharger. This engine could produce a war emergency power of 2800 hp at 32,500 feet with water injection. These aircraft had been redesignated YP-47M and served as the prototypes for the P-47M series.

However, the war in the Pacific required fighter ranges even greater than did operations over Germany. In pursuit of better long-range performance, in mid-1944 the third YP-47M prototype (42-27387) was fitted with a new "wet" wing of slightly larger span and area. The aircraft was redesignated XP-47N. For the first time in the Thunderbolt series fuel was carried in the wings, a 93 US gallon tank being fitted in each wing. When maximum external tankage was carried, this brought the total fuel load of the XP-47N up to an impressive 1266 US gallons. This fuel load make it possible for a range of 2350 miles to be achieved.

The new wing also incorporated larger ailerons and squared-off wingtips. These innovations enhanced the roll-rate of the Thunderbolt and improved the maneuverability. The dorsal fin behind the bubble canopy was somewhat larger than that on the P-47D. However, the increased fuel load increased the gross weight of the aircraft. In order to cope with the increased gross weight, the undercarriage of the XP-47N had to be strengthened, which increased the weight still further. The maximum weight rose to over 20,000 pounds.

The XP-47N flew for the first time on July 22, 1944. Such was the USAAF confidence in the Thunderbolt design that they went ahead and ordered 1900 P-47Ns in June 20, 1944, even before the first XP-47N had flown.

The P-47N was destined to be the last version of the Thunderbolt to be manufactured. The first P-47N-1-RE appeared in September of 1944, and 24 were delivered by year's end. The P-47N-5-RE and subsequent batches had zero-length rocket launchers added. The R-2800-77 engine was installed in late production models such as the P-47N-25-RE.

The P-47N gave excellent service in the Pacific in the last year of the War, particularly in escorting B-29 Superfortress bombers in raids on the Japanese mainland. P-47Ns were able to escort the bombers all the way from Saipan to Japan and on many other long, overwater flights.

A total of 1667 P-47Ns was produced by the Farmingdale plant between December 1944 and December 1945, when the Thunderbolt line finally closed down. 149 more P-47Ns were built by the Evansville factory. V-J Day cancellation of 5934 Thunderbolts brought production of the type abruptly to an end.

Performance of the P-47N-5-RE included a maximum speed of 397 mph at 10,000 feet, 448 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 460 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2770 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2550 feet per minute at 20,000 feet. Range (clean) was 800 miles at 10,000 feet. Armanent included six or eight 0.50-inch machine guns with 500 rpg and two 1000-lb or three 500-lb bombs or ten 5-inch rockets. Weights were 11,000 pounds empty, 16,300 pounds normal loaded, and 20,700 pounds maximum. Dimension were wingspan 42 feet 7 inches, length 36 feet 4 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, and wing area 322 square feet
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: 47m vs 47n
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2013, 02:35:55 PM »
:airplane: A little info on the developement of the "N", might help with this discussion!

Not really. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude. It's just that we know the basics of the history. It would appear the discussion has run its course.

Offline icepac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7061
Re: 47m vs 47n
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2013, 07:50:04 PM »
I guess that means you got what you wanted out of the discussion?

Offline bj229r

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6732
Re: 47m vs 47n
« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2013, 08:49:49 PM »
Not really. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude. It's just that we know the basics of the history. It would appear the discussion has run its course.
WEEEElllllll...as long as KRUSTY is happy...(I thought it was very interesting :aok)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers

http://www.flamewarriors.net/forum/

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: 47m vs 47n
« Reply #35 on: February 12, 2013, 01:06:05 AM »
Bullplop. The topic had run its course, all questions had been discussed, pros and cons weighed, and even a side topic about the wing differences was discussed. Then the thread was dead for 2 weeks and he copy+pastes some wikipedia answer of stuff that was already known or covered. Relevant, yes. Helpful, no. 2-week-dead-thread, yes.

So I'm sorry if I'm coming across as rude. Icepac and bj229 are just coming across as intentionally flamebaiting by trying to throw it back in my face. My point is still more than valid and if earl feels slighted let him speak up. He can post plenty of helpful topics and I've seen him do so before. This topic had run its course and was in the archives for 2 weeks.

Any additional comments after 2 weeks are of a high probability to be breaking #2, #4, or #10.

Offline icepac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7061
Re: 47m vs 47n
« Reply #36 on: February 12, 2013, 08:11:03 AM »
I was just asking what criteria you used to determine that "discussion has run it's course".

Are you the guy who determines that for everybody else?.......because it seems that way from the posting.

Offline LilMak

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1341
Re: 47m vs 47n
« Reply #37 on: February 12, 2013, 08:26:07 AM »
Krusty if you were actually trying not to be rude, you wouldn't have posted anything at all. He posted something he thought was relevant to the thread and you beat him up about it. If anyone is baiting, it's you.
"When caught by the enemy in large force the best policy is to fight like hell until you can decide what to do next."
~Hub Zemke
P-47 pilot 56th Fighter Group.

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
Re: 47m vs 47n
« Reply #38 on: February 12, 2013, 03:51:00 PM »
Bullplop. The topic had run its course, all questions had been discussed, pros and cons weighed, and even a side topic about the wing differences was discussed. Then the thread was dead for 2 weeks and he copy+pastes some wikipedia answer of stuff that was already known or covered. Relevant, yes. Helpful, no. 2-week-dead-thread, yes.

So I'm sorry if I'm coming across as rude. Icepac and bj229 are just coming across as intentionally flamebaiting by trying to throw it back in my face. My point is still more than valid and if earl feels slighted let him speak up. He can post plenty of helpful topics and I've seen him do so before. This topic had run its course and was in the archives for 2 weeks.

Any additional comments after 2 weeks are of a high probability to be breaking #2, #4, or #10.
:airplane: No problem Krusty and the info I provide did not come from Wikipedia, although in looking at their info on the "Nancy", most of it came from a web site which "Jug" lovers use. Good info and I really thought it might be helpful to someone who just came into the game. Good topic though and we need to see more of them.
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!

Offline Killako

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: 47m vs 47n
« Reply #39 on: February 13, 2013, 06:20:38 PM »
Well, historically, the 47 N had wing tanks (internal) to be able to escort B29s. :rock

Offline bj229r

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6732
Re: 47m vs 47n
« Reply #40 on: February 13, 2013, 07:51:26 PM »
And it's FAR cooler :aok
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers

http://www.flamewarriors.net/forum/

Offline BaldEagl

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10791
Re: 47m vs 47n
« Reply #41 on: February 15, 2013, 12:33:26 AM »
Bullplop. The topic had run its course, all questions had been discussed, pros and cons weighed, and even a side topic about the wing differences was discussed. Then the thread was dead for 2 weeks and he copy+pastes some wikipedia answer of stuff that was already known or covered. Relevant, yes. Helpful, no. 2-week-dead-thread, yes.

So I'm sorry if I'm coming across as rude. Icepac and bj229 are just coming across as intentionally flamebaiting by trying to throw it back in my face. My point is still more than valid and if earl feels slighted let him speak up. He can post plenty of helpful topics and I've seen him do so before. This topic had run its course and was in the archives for 2 weeks.

Any additional comments after 2 weeks are of a high probability to be breaking #2, #4, or #10.

First of all 12 days is not two weeks.

Second, 12 days will break no forum rules whatsoever, particularily as slow as the forums have become over the past few years and even more so in this forum which tends to be even slower moving.

It's no wonder you have little credibility given your propensity at exaggeration.

You're just mad because someone questioned the all knowing Krusty and you didn't get the last word. 

Finally, to start with "not to be rude" meant you knew you were being rude and went on anyway.

What a clown.
I edit a lot of my posts.  Get used to it.

Offline Ray77

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 127
Re: 47m vs 47n
« Reply #42 on: February 20, 2013, 09:10:52 AM »
Because of this thread I tried out the p47m with 8 guns 50% ammo.   I love it.   With a long wep time it feels almost as fast as a 51.   What I shoot at and hit goes down.  Now my question.   If I take 100% ammo and fire off half of it, will I still have a weight penalty? 
Don't tread on me.

Offline bj229r

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6732
Re: 47m vs 47n
« Reply #43 on: February 20, 2013, 09:32:16 AM »
You're only talking about a couple hundred pounds in a 14000 pound plane
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers

http://www.flamewarriors.net/forum/

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Re: 47m vs 47n
« Reply #44 on: February 20, 2013, 10:48:52 AM »
Because of this thread I tried out the p47m with 8 guns 50% ammo.   I love it.   With a long wep time it feels almost as fast as a 51.   What I shoot at and hit goes down.  Now my question.   If I take 100% ammo and fire off half of it, will I still have a weight penalty? 
No, the flight model calculates your current weight depending on fuel and ammo on board.
I always take the full ammo load. I am an extremely bad shot, so I go trigger happy till the counters show 1000 and then start to aim before shooting. 1000 on the counter is about the amount of the reduced load.
Why leave ammo in the hangar when you can throw it at the enemy?

You're only talking about a couple hundred pounds in a 14000 pound plane
The straw that broke the camel's back?
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs