P-47

[Guppy]

Originally posted by frank3
The P38 meight be better, but in the war there just where to few planes, he biggest part of all the kills was made by the Thunderbolts

The P-47 Groups certainly comprised the backbone of 8th Air Force's fighter strength well into 1944, and were instrumental in attriting and pushing back the Luftwaffe.

Nonetheless, the P-47's limited range was a serious problem. Although the P-38s didn't do so well in terms of kills (and the persistent engine failures exacerbated the "too few" problem), their presence was important to fill the gap in long-range escort until P-51 numbers could be increased.

While we're on the topic of having too few P-38s, spare a thought for the poor MTO units, who were at the back of the queue for upgrades - one particularly beloved P-38F was retired with flak damage in late May, 1944, after 17 months in combat!

[-ammo-]

Lets not also forget that the P-47 groups were up against a mighty LW in late 43 on till the demise of the LW.  They didn't have a checklist on how to defeat the 109 and the 190 there in the UK waiting on them, they had to create their own tactics and fight that healthy LW.  That in itself is a significant tribute to the P-47 and the FG's that employed it.

[Stegahorse]

When pilot after pilot repeats the same story time after time, it still is anecdotal? HARRUMPH!

[Kweassa]

Depends.

 Pilots repeated stories of bouncing .50 bullets under the bellies of tanks to destroy it.

 However, that is nothing but one of those "war tales" that is spread from pilot to pilot, mouth to mouth - which everyone believed it to be true, until now.

 ...

 Objective examination of what pilots have to say, and what might have caused them to say such things, is always necessary. Their comments may be absolutely true, or may be relatively. It could also be partially false or absolutely false.

 To historians, first hand experience is actually the trickiest of historical data to handle.

[rshubert]

Originally posted by Stegahorse
This is Directly off the Thunderbolt Pilots assn message board:
 
 The Corsair's and Evansville Built Thunderbolt's wing ends were built by the same company in Evansville. Their primary manufacturing was the Higgin's Boats.
It just ain't right!!!

Off subject, but I live in Evansville.  We are going to be visited next month by a real, live WW2 LST.  Y'all come on down!

BTW, the Republic factory is still here--it is now owned by Whirlpool, and they make refrigerators.  The Kaiser Aluminum plant is also still here, now owned by ALCOA.  The LST shipyard burned down under mysterious circumstances in 1946, and the site is now a pharmaceutical plant.

shubie

[rshubert]

Originally posted by Shiva
Turbochargers and superchargers both work by compressing the air entering the engine, allowing more air to be driven into the cylinders on each stroke. Essentially, hooking a high-pressure pump over the air intake. Superchargers are directly driven by the engine itself; turbochargers work like the compressor and turbine rotors in a jet engine -- the hot exhaust gases spin the turbine, which spins the compressor to push more air into the engine.

Turbochargers are inherently more efficient, because they use wasted energy -- the hot exhaust gas -- to drive the compressor. However, they also add back pressure to the exhaust, reducing the efficiency at lower RPMs (less boost at lower RPMs compared to a supercharger), and 'turbine lag' (the time between punching the throttle and getting boost from the turbocharger) limits its responsiveness to sudden throttle changes. Superchargers don't suffer from turbine lag, being driven directly by the engine. However, they're more complicated to make and maintain.

Only one disagreement--the hot section of a turbocharger is sometimes the source of problems, with oil cooking, blade degradation, and high temperatures.  Mechanical superchargers have only a compressor section and a clutch (usually), so they are less prone to heat damage.

[Stegahorse]

Turns out that the 47D-11 may have been a Pacific fighter


42-22864/23113      Republic P-47D-11-RA Thunderbolt
            22896 (35th FG) lost Mar 11, 1944, SW Pacific.
            22920 (35th FG) lost Mar 14, 1944, SW Pacific.
            22949 (8th FG) lost May 12, 1945, New Guinea.
            22953 (58th FG) lost Apr 11, 1944, SW Pacific.
            22963 (69th FS, 58th FG) crashed on takeoff Mar 6, 1944, Padzap, PNG Mar 6, 1944.
            22979 lost in controlled flight Jun 16, 1944 and pilot bailed out 20 mi off
 Hehehehe

[Urchin]

Whats crazy is look at the dates... all 1944.  A rolling plane-set would absolutely gut the US fliers.

[-ammo-]

An RPS would likely cause me to delete my account.

[Wilbus]

One of the best planes in AH, also one of the most underestimated. Easy kill when a newbie or even an average pilot flies it. Put an experienced pilot in it, specially one who has flown energy planes before such as 190, P51 or similair and he'll be able to outturn most things aswell as outfight them using any technique available, not one of the easy planes to fly, it is however, one of the very best.

[rshubert]

Originally posted by -ammo-
An RPS would likely cause me to delete my account.

Just out of curiosity, Why?  It would be different, granted, but is different neccessarily bad?

shubie

[Urchin]

Actually the P-47 isn't that good.  For the MA, the P-51 and P-38 are better than the P-47 for any kind of fighting.  I'd take a 190A-5 over a P-47 also, and any of the 109s (although the P-47 has a lot more firepower).  The La-7 is markedly superior in all respects, the Spit IX is superior at everything other than top speed, so is the N1K2.  So yea, you can put an experienced pilot in a P-47 and he'll do ok, but he'll do better in any of the above planes.

[SFRT - Frenchy]

Originally posted by Urchin
Actually the P-47 isn't that good.  For the MA, the P-51 and P-38 are better than the P-47 for any kind of fighting.  I'd take a 190A-5 over a P-47 also, and any of the 109s (although the P-47 has a lot more firepower).  The La-7 is markedly superior in all respects, the Spit IX is superior at everything other than top speed, so is the N1K2.  So yea, you can put an experienced pilot in a P-47 and he'll do ok, but he'll do better in any of the above planes.

Listen to urchin, he's the clever one:p

[-ammo-]

Because I want to log in and fly what I want, when I want.  The P-47 is my ride of choice, however I do fly other AC. All the P-47's in our planeset were introduced into theatre 1944 or later.  

I am a full time father, husband, USAF member, and college student.  I dont have alot of time to spare.

[Wilbus]

I agree with ammo, RPS would suck big time.

As for P47, it will outturn 190 easily, D11 will outturn P51 too most likely. P47 accelerates like the devil (although IMO it doesn't accelerate good enough), firepower like a 190 but thanks to 50 cal it's easier to hit. I'd take a Jug over a niki or spit or LA7 any day.