Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: SirLoin on June 01, 2001, 03:13:00 AM
-
I'm no expert in varients,but this one doesn't feel right.The darn thing can turn down low.Should it not be a high alt range plane that drops like a brick when in danger?A plane with that much sheet aluminum/steel plating and ammo should squeak when you twitch.I took one for a ride a couple of times and couldn't believe the kills I racked up.Didn't take much effort and left me with an empty feeling about what I thought the Jug should be.
-
No comments ... no wait ... giggling. Hum? Is that a comment? It's a fact ... no a statement.
Anyway, yesterday I took a niki, flew straight into a cloud of red people and got 4 before RTBing. Nice (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Oh? No relation with the current thread? Sorry, it's the morning and I'm about to solo a student (a girl, 17y old), so I blow up some steam in the non sence threads.
Oups, I said non sense? Let me correct that : "so I blow up some steam in the x-file folders".
-
Bah, the D11 is no different from the D25 and the D30 really. On a full fuel load internal it's like 350 lbs lighter (less gas) and has increased side-plate area due to the razorback canopy that gives it better stability at low speed. Other than that, how much fuel you are carrying means more than whether it's a D25 or a D11 in my experience. And I have quite a bit of experience in Jugs.
If you can get kills in the D11, you can get them just as easily in the D25 or D30. Those of us who have been flying Jugs for months find it very similar to the others. Those that are trying a Jug for the first time in a while are just getting surprised at what a capable plane it really is. It doesn't turn, it doesn't accellerate, and it doesn't climb. At arena altitudes, it's slower than many of it's competitors. It can dive, zoom, and hold energy with vertical maneuvers. It has a very good high speed initial turn. It rolls and handles well at all speeds, but particulary at high speed compared to most other planes. It has one of the best gun sets in the entire game. I only rate 4x Hispano .20mm higher than 8 .50's.
If you think the D11 is good... try the D25 and D30. I guarantee you'll find they are just as competitive if you take a bit less fuel than in the D11. Once the Aux tank burns off in all the Jugs, they really start to handle well. When you get 'em down to 50% main tank and less, they'll surprise a lot of people and get you kills.
If you still think something is wrong... what is? Is it too fast? Roll too well? Climb too well? Turn too well? Do some tests and see for yourself. "It should suck more than this" doesn't cut it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer
A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome (http://lephturn.webhop.net) for AH articles and training info!
[This message has been edited by Lephturn (edited 06-01-2001).]
-
Gee,we a little testy Frenchy..How's this for sarcasm..Out of all the avionics dials and switches,there is one knob that causes more aircraft accidents than anything else.What might that be?..You guessed it Captain. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)<This fact brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood Aircraft Maintenance Engineer's(AME) Association."Duh,shouldn't we lower the flaps Captain?We almost at the end of the runway?"
-
SirLoin,
Have you ever woken up with the head of a dead horse staring you straight in the face ?
hmm... didn't think so (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
muhahahahah
Snorkey
56thFG "Zemke's Wolfpack"
-
The D-11 is much easier to control than the d-30, I've noticed quite a bit of difference. And before you say BAH, NUTTZ is purely a Niki dweeb, Looks at my tours i fly the D-30 ALOT and have a decent K/D in it. The D-11 is Much easier to control, turns really nice in comparison to the d-25 d-30 and is down right sweet on deck.
HEY this BBS has a spell checker, well I'll be a...
NUTTZ
Originally posted by Lephturn:
Bah, the D11 is no different from the D25 and the D30 really. On a full fuel load internal it's like 350 lbs lighter (less gas) and has increased side-plate area due to the razorback canopy that gives it better stability at low speed. Other than that, how much fuel you are carrying means more than whether it's a D25 or a D11 in my experience. And I have quite a bit of experience in Jugs.
If you can get kills in the D11, you can get them just as easily in the D25 or D30. Those of us who have been flying Jugs for months find it very similar to the others. Those that are trying a Jug for the first time in a while are just getting surprised at what a capable plane it really is. It doesn't turn, it doesn't accellerate, and it doesn't climb. At arena altitudes, it's slower than many of it's competitors. It can dive, zoom, and hold energy with vertical maneuvers. It has a very good high speed initial turn. It rolls and handles well at all speeds, but particulary at high speed compared to most other planes. It has one of the best gun sets in the entire game. I only rate 4x Hispano .20mm higher than 8 .50's.
If you think the D11 is good... try the D25 and D30. I guarantee you'll find they are just as competitive if you take a bit less fuel than in the D11. Once the Aux tank burns off in all the Jugs, they really start to handle well. When you get 'em down to 50% main tank and less, they'll surprise a lot of people and get you kills.
If you still think something is wrong... what is? Is it too fast? Roll too well? Climb too well? Turn too well? Do some tests and see for yourself. "It should suck more than this" doesn't cut it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
D11 handles sweetly, its not that it turns better its just more stable, it will not turn any harder, only its low speed handling is improved. It handles more like Bon johnson and Bud Mahurin siad it did for them in the War.
ammo out
-
I was wondering about some of the feedback I've heard on this plane. While it something like 650-800 pounds lighter than the -25, it also doesn't convert power as well at lower speeds as it pre-dates the prop change made on P-47s. Anyway, to make a long story short, I did some checking and it turns out that it is underweight. I mistakenly calculated weights based on the 425 round loadout instead of the 267 round loadout. As a result, it is underweight by that difference in weight, about 390 pounds.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
So Pyro, that means you will add more weight to the new Jug?
whoopeeit.
At least we had a few days of joy with it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Pyro, the D-11 should have the same prop as the D-25.
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
www.56thfightergroup.org (http://www.56thfightergroup.org)
This is Yardstick, follow me"
-
Originally posted by Pyro:
I was wondering about some of the feedback I've heard on this plane. While it something like 650-800 pounds lighter than the -25, it also doesn't convert power as well at lower speeds as it pre-dates the prop change made on P-47s. Anyway, to make a long story short, I did some checking and it turns out that it is underweight. I mistakenly calculated weights based on the 425 round loadout instead of the 267 round loadout. As a result, it is underweight by that difference in weight, about 390 pounds.
if you calculated the weight on the 425 rnd loadout instead of the 267 rnd loadout, wouldnt it be heavy? I am missing it. I hope you arent gonna nueter the D-11 though.
-
S! Pyro
The D11 should have the paddle blade prop. All the D model Jugs in operation in January of 1944 were re-equipped with the paddle blade prop. And these were the planes which fought the Luftwaffe between January and June when the 8th AAF won the Battle of Germany. The bubble top versions were not in use during this crucial period. Any Scenario which aspires to having the correct aircraft would require a Razorback Jug with paddle blade prop and water injection.
-
You know maybe it's just that I don't push it as hard in turns as some of you TnB drivers do because I don't expect it to perform. I guess that's the difference. Since turn rate isn't the Jug's strength, I never rely on it, so I didn't see as much of a difference as some others did.
Glad to see Pyro is going to make it all clean and legal. I wouldn't want the Jug to be too popular... that would take some of the fun out of it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer
A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com
Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome (http://lephturn.webhop.net) for AH articles and training info!
-
Prop change happened on the -22.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Originally posted by Pyro:
Prop change happened on the -22.
actually it was a gradual thing. The paddle blade props made it to the 56th FG in early 44. All the AC were not fitted with these in one large swap however over a short period of time. At any one time the unit had 2-3 revisions of the P-47 on the Flightline.
-
S! Pyro
I will quote Robert Johnson from his biography, "Thunderbolt": (Johnson flew with the 56th Fighter Group)
"New Year's day. (1944) And what a present we received. We flew to a maintenance depot at Wattisham to have the Thunderbolts modified. Our engineering officers were making a terrific fuss over a new propellor designed especially for the Thunderbolts. They insisted that the fat paddle blades of the new propellors would bring a tremendous boost in performance, that the increased blade area would permit the props to make the greatest use of the Thunderbolt's 2,000 horsepower. We listened to their enthusiastic ramblings with more than a grain of salt - And never were we more mistaken.
Four days later, (that would be January 5th) we flew a Ramrod to Munster, the first time we went into combat with the paddle blade propellors."
Johnson's entire Group was re-equipped with the Paddle blade props at the same time. The other active P-47 Squadrons also were upgraded at the same time. And Johnson's model of P-47 was the same he had been flying for 5 months, since July when he had his aircraft shot up badly. All the older model P-47's were upgraded.
-
S! Pyro
If you want to be most accurate, you will include both options for the D11. Pilots should be able to select either with, or without the paddle blade prop. That way, the aircraft can be used for scenarios pre-January '44 as well as after.
-
Originally posted by Pyro:
Prop change happened on the -22.
This is correct only as far as factory equipped P-47s went. All jugs already in action were upgraded with paddle blade props around New Years, 1944.
See Buzzbait's quote from Thunderbolt! above. Also, in David McLaren's Beware the Thunderbolt! The 56th FG in WW2, the following entry is made recording the events of January 4, 1944:
VIII FC FO212, Ramrods to Munster. All P-47 groups operational. This was the first mission by the 56th Fighter Group with P-47s now equipped with the "paddle bladed" props. The new props had either Curtiss "long-wide" or A.O. Smith "short-wide" blades. Now all the pilots were equally impressed with the improved version...
A couple months ago, I had the good fortune of sitting next to a real live P-47 pilot on an airline flight we were coincidentally both on. Col. Earl Kiergass of the 368th FG (AH's -30 wears 368th colors) answered my questions and told me some war stories. One of the things I asked him about was when they got the paddle blades, to which he responded early 1944. Paddle blades were retrofitted on existing jugs in theatre well before they were standard equipment, starting as you noted on the dash 22.
--
Sancho
63rd FS, 56th FG
"Zemke's Wolfpack"
(http://www.jump.net/~cs3/sigs/mahurin_sig.jpg)
There is no section titled 'THE UNFAIR USE OF TECHNOLOGY' in the Geneva Convention.
-
S! Pyro
The performance of the P-47 D Razorback with water injection and paddle blade propellor was significantly better than the later model P-47 D’s, and far improved over the Razorbacks without paddle blades.
Here are some more quotes from Robert Johnson, in particular from the first mission to Munster:
“With four Messerschmitts directly beneath me, I rolled to my left to pull in directly behind them. My fighter quivered, and began to shake badly, as if partially stalled. The next thing I knew, I was in a dive and wow! What a dive! I hauled back on the stick, afraid the engine would tear right out of the mounts. What I didn’t realize was that the new propellor was making all the difference. I called to Gabreski, “Get ‘em Gabby! Something’s wrong with my Ship!”
He returned to base to have his fighter checked. A few days later during a test flight he realized what he was feeling was the greatly increased pull of the prop:
“But what a difference these blades made. At 8,000 feet I pulled the Thunderbolt into a steep climb. Normally she’d zoom quickly and then slow down, rapidly approaching a stall. But now – the Jug soared up like she’d gone crazy. Another Thunderbolt was in the air and I pulled alongside, signalling for a climb. I’m not an engineering officer, and I don’t know the exact feet per minute that we climbed. But I left that other fighter behind as if he were standing still. The Jug stood on her tail and howled her way into the sky.”
Of course as Johnson says, these are seat of the pants impressions, not scientific tests. But obviously there was a significant improvement.
Prior to discovering Flight Sims, I had the opportunity to see some data re. the relative efficiency of the Paddle Blade props versus the ordinary ‘toothpick’ props. My memory was that there was a very significant difference. Unfortunately I have not been able to find that data source again. But I know it is out there and I’ll bet you or some of the other very knowledgeable people on this board probably have access to this information.
Even though there is probably not factory acceleration or climb data available for D11’s equipped with paddle blade props, it should still be relatively easy to extrapolate the likely performance of a modified D11. Using the figures from the D-25 and D-30 and factoring the weight difference should provide a good approximation.
AH deserves a Razorback Jug with the performance which it historically had. This aircraft was crucial to the victory of the 8th A.A.F., and should be represented in all its glory. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Dont know about everyone else, but I am nominating buzzbait for President (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://home.nc.rr.com/ammo/public.html/ammo_sig2.jpg) (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
-
S!
Sorry, I don't qualify... I'm a Canuck. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But I love Jugs.
Cheers Buzzbait
-
Why are all 3 P47 latewar ´44 models with water-injection etc??
I mean only one of 4 109 has mw50. The rest is mid/mid-early war.
Why no early P47C without water-injection
niklas
-
Nice to come back to this board and see that nothing has changed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Ok,I found it..It did disappear from the main thread though.How come it's in Today's Active Topics but not in original forum?<S!>
-
Turns out there was something amiss with the Jug..Once again my gut FM feeling was bang on...People,please quit slamming me for my inputs on plane FM's.TY<S!>
-
S! Niklas
You should try not to let your obvious bias colour your comments so much. Instead a little research on your part would be in order.
The P-47C rarely saw in combat. It was very quickly replaced in the spring of 1943 by the P-47D Razorback. From my understand, the P-47D's all had water injection factory installed starting with the D-5 model. And all the earlier model D's in combat formations were immediatly retro-fitted with the modification.
By the way, if you have been reading this board at all, you will remember I suggested the 109G6 with the DB605ASM engine be added to the AH planeset. The G-10 was not introduced until late May and June of 1944. (After the 8th A.A.F. had won the crucial battles leading up to the D-Day invasion) Up until that time, the methanol injected 109's were G-6 models. (And the G-10 we have here is of course, actually a K-4) Adding this 109 model would give a G-6 with a top speed of around 428mph. Not all the 109's were so equipped, but a significant number, especially those used to escort the Heavy Fighter Staffels. These planes are required for an accurate Spring 1944 Strat. bombing scenario.
Of course, so is the P-38J, the B-17F, a Spit IXLF and a B-24.
Cheers Buzzbait
-
Originally posted by Sancho:
This is correct only as far as factory equipped P-47s went. All jugs already in action were upgraded with paddle blade props around New Years, 1944.
Yes, just as the 109G6 was fitted with MW50 at that time. The argument so far for the no-MW50 for the 109G6 was because "it made it suitable for 1943 scenarios".
so, the D11 without paddle prop (I think it indeed has Water injection) is so because "it makes it suitable for 1943 scenarios" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S! Niklas
You should try not to let your obvious bias colour your comments so much. Instead a little research on your part would be in order.
Fact is that germans captured a P47 without water-injection (i have to check when exactly). So this was not as widly used as you try to tell me.
By the way, if you have been reading this board at all, you will remember I suggested the 109G6 with the DB605ASM engine be added to the AH planeset.
I didn´t say anything against you nor can i remember all of your postings. I hope you can understand that i don´t print out your postings and hang them over my bed to have them alway in front of me even while sleeping (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(And the G-10 we have here is of course, actually a K-4) Adding this 109 model would give a G-6 with a top speed of around 428mph
hmm when an aerodynamic poor G-6 was already able to fly so fast, then the AH-performance doesn´t sound so wrong for an improved G-10 with a better engine.
btw
As a result, it is underweight by that difference in weight, about 390 pounds.
Can a mistake of 390pounds for a 15000lb fighter be an explanation?
niklas
-
Who sent out invatations to th luftwhiners? I thought clearly they werent invited (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Seriously, the D11 we have would be historically and accurately protrayed with a paddle blade prop, given that it was an early 44 bird..not a '43 bird and it is also entirely accurate that they were alll fitted in the field with these mods...all of them.
as far as the 109 thing..different thread needs to be opened for that subject, maybe with our concern over the P-47 we have struck some interest up for the 109 for the LWobbles... Your welcome (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Now go make your own thread and provide some evidnece with dates to get your AC corrected.
ammo
-
Hehe!
Interesting how threads content changes rapidly.
P-47 to 109
109 to P-47 as thread "109G-6 with or without MW 50 " is going to...
And this thread was about -11 being too good and now it ends up that -11 should have even better prop, heheh
I haven't noticed any qualities that would rise -11 over to -30. But OTOH, I haven't flown it much...
Uh oh, back to paddle blade prop -subject!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/cool/56th_2.jpg)
-
"So this was not as widly used as you try to tell me."
Oh yes, it was. It wasnt factory installed from until the D-11 onwards, but all P-47s from the C-5 onwards had provisions for it and pretty much all P-47's were retro-fitted with it.
If the P-47 in question was captured early/mid '43, yes then it probably didnt have a water-injection.
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
www.56thfightergroup.org (http://www.56thfightergroup.org)
This is Yardstick, follow me"
-
S!| Niklas
Ok, let`s deal with your points :
You say the Germans captured a P-47C without water injection. So?? Both sides in WWII captured large numbers of enemy aircraft. For example the British captures of German aircraft were substantial including :
30+ 109 E`s
20+ 109F`s
30+ 109G`s
30+ 190`s
Note, these are aircraft in either flyable condition, or possible to make flyable with minor repairs. They do not include wrecks or crashed aircraft.
It so happens that the first 190D captured was a model without MW-50. Does this mean I run screaming to the AH Bulletin board demanding that the 190D have its top speed reduced to 426mph? Of course not.
The fact is, the German`s captured a LOT more P-47D`s with Water injection.
These are the totals of P-47 models produced :
P-47B : 170 The 47B was never deployed to Europe. The 56th Fighter Group received some of these aircraft when it was based in New York, but left them behind when it was deployed to Britain.
P-47C : 602 The first 47C rolled off the production lines on September 14t h 1942, in December `42 it equipped the 4th , 78th, and 56th Fighter Groups in Britain. Last production of this model was in late December `42 or early `43. The Groups equipped with 47C`s were held out of combat until March 10th `43 when they flew their first sweep. They did not see combat until April 15th `43 when 3 P-47C`s were lost. (The 47`s claimed 3 German aircraft) Perhaps one of these was the aircraft you are mentioning. But even after that date missions for the U.S. Fighter Groups were restricted, because the aircraft were not equipped with auxiliary tanks and couldn`t escort the B-17`s any significant distance. Combat was very limited. By this time, the first 47D`s were being delivered to the Combat Groups. The existing 47C`s were also being modified. There was little difference between the late 47C and the early 47D. Their fuselages were essentially the same and they both had the same Pratt and Whitney 2800 Double Wasp engine, rated at a base 2,000 horsepower. It was a simple matter to modify the 47C`s to adopt the 47D`s engine changes. At the same time the 47C`s were modified so they could accept a drop tank.
P47D : 12,602 (note, this figure does not include the 47G, 47M, 47N etc.) The 47D`s began to equip the American Fighter groups in early `43. First models of the 47D did not have water injection, but were quickly superseded by those which did. The 47D`s came standard with a mounting to fit a center drop tank. By July `43 when they began longer range escort missions, all the 47`s equipping the Fighter Groups were either 47D`s or 47C`s modified to be indistinguishable from 47D`s.
From the above production figures, you can see that the 47C was a minor variant when you look at the number produced when compared to the numbers of 47D`s. There is no reason to incude it rather than the 47D Razorback.
Rather than trying to sabotage the creation of an accurate FM for an American aircraft, why don`t you instead put together a well thought out thread on the 109G`s with Methanol. You could go back and find my thread, (which had many positive responses) and bring it back to the top of the board with your own (I would hope) carefully researched facts.
Cheers Buzzbait
-
S! Pyro
The reason I am putting my case on the issue of the Razorback P-47D with Paddle blade prop is that it was the best performing P-47 model prior to the P-47M. (Which is likely to be a perk, if it arrives) Since almost every other aircraft has a best model for the era, it seems only fair the P-47`s also have their `Best`. Nobody complained when the 190D was the later model with MW-50 introduced in January `45, instead of the earlier model without methanol, which was present through the late Summer and Fall of `44.
But by all means, allow it to be equipped with or without paddle blades.
-
S! Buzzbait
I did NOT say that germans captured a P47C !!! I said they captured a P47 without water-injection!!!
the current AH-fw190D HAS ALREADY a topspeed of only 426mph, my friend, with mw50!!!!
I don´t believe that you know exactly how many P47 with w.i. were captured.
Maybe you don´t understand it, but i took the 109 only for a comparison purpose.
You want 3 P47 with paddle blades and water-injection? ok, but tell me where are the main differences then in the planeset?
The 109 series could have 4 smiliar high performance fighter, too. 109k G6 G10 G14, they all could be here as 44-45 models with mw50 and only slight differences in armment ,look and performance- But except for one they´re NOT here.
So why are in opposite to the 109 series 3 P47 included in the game with smiliar performance? What´s so wrong with the question?
And you want to make the difference even smaller.
btw, who is whining at the moment because he doesn´t have "the best performing P-47 model prior to the P-47M" LOL
niklas
-
S! Niklas
If they captured a P-47 without water injection, then it was very likely a P-47C or early P-47D. Either would have occurred likely in early to mid 1943. And no, I don`t know how many P-47`s were captured. My understanding is that the information was lost along with many files during the destruction of Berlin. However I have seen many photographs of captured Allied aircraft in German markings, including 3 P-47D`s. (Bubble top P-47D`s) I have not seen any P-47C`s.
In any case your argument is still specious. The fact is, P-47C`s were saw very little combat. And those P-47D`s without water injection were all upgraded as soon as the kits became available.
What does this mean? It means very few non-water injected P-47`s saw combat. Just because you read of one captured P-47 without water injection doesn`t automatically mean all the P-47`s in Europe are reduced to that equipement type.
So don`t waste any more of our time trying to downgrade the performance of Allied aircraft to the lowest possible standard while you insist on the best possible performance for the Luftwaffe planes.
Have a little balance my friend and you`ll get more respect.
-
P47M..Wasn't that an unarmed recon varient?<S!>
-
Originally posted by SirLoin:
P47M..Wasn't that an unarmed recon varient?<S!>
Now Sirloin, you die! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) get him boys!
<Exicted goup war shoots in the background>
-
Buzzbait I think you and Niklas are having a communication problem. Niklas is just wondering why we have three functionally identical Jugs in the planeset.
It would be useful for scenarios to have one of really high performance (e.g. P-47M) and one of low performance (e.g. dry P-47C), just as it would be useful to have an MW 50 equipped Me 109G-6 to bridge the gap between the dry G-6 and the wet G-10 in the current planeset. This gives scenario designers an extra degree of freedom to create balanced orders of battle.
-
S! Funked Up
I don`t see the point in having a P-47C. As I said it saw combat very rarely. And to emasculate the P-47D Razorback model, which is the best performing unperked P-47 that would be seen, is unfair.
You are calling for a Spit IXLF. (so am I) The reason: The existing Spit IXF is not really representative of the performance which the Spit IX series had. And since you are not going to get the Spit XIV in an unperked model, then you want the best unperked Spit you can get. (Of course when the other pilots see how good the IXLF is, they`ll be screaming for it to be perked... ;) )
The argument is the same for both planes.
By the way, Niklas is wrong about the FW190D. The AH plane has the performance of a D with MW-50. The model without only did 357mph at S.L. This one does 378.
Cheers Buzzbait
-
S! Funked Up
Also for scenarios:
The most likely period for the Razorback D to be required for scenarios is July `43 to July `44. That is when the aircraft saw most service. A D11 model WITH, and WITHOUT paddle blade prop would cover this period nicely.
-
Turns out there was a varient of P47M that was unarmed and for recon.But most had guns..Anyway,Frenchie..What's up man?P47 is my fave WW2 plane and imho would be the plane I'd choose if I was thrown into that Euro theatre for real.I even built a 1/6 flying scale model that sits nicely between two Top Flite F4uD's..I'll send ya a pic if ya want as I sense you are a Jughead too..(No Archie pics though.. :)<S!>
-
Yes yes yes please Sirloin .. send me the picture : Rauns@mindspring.com.
Myself I have this one : http://www.top-flite.com/airplanes/topa0135.html (http://www.top-flite.com/airplanes/topa0135.html) :D :D
And this one : (except that the tail is blue on mine's, don't know why it's yellow on the pic) http://www.revell-monogram.com/store/ModelDetail.cfm?Id=60&SubjectId=2&SkillId=0&ScaleId=11&TypeId=0&StartRow=1&FromSearch=1 (http://www.revell-monogram.com/store/ModelDetail.cfm?Id=60&SubjectId=2&SkillId=0&ScaleId=11&TypeId=0&StartRow=1&FromSearch=1) :D