Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: MjTalon on October 08, 2009, 03:40:14 PM
-
Didn't the M have the option to run completely slick? ( No DT hard points )
Curious. IIRC there was some information floating around the net in regards to the M being able to run completely clean without the DT hard points. Can anyone confirm?
-
I've seen pictures that seem to lack the pylons for drop tanks. It would be a nice option for them to be removed if you do not load drop tanks.
-
I've seen pictures that seem to lack the pylons for drop tanks. It would be a nice option for them to be removed if you do not load drop tanks.
Yea, that's what I'm referring too. Would be lovely to have those wings completely clean if you choose to run slick.
-
Absolutely, just think of how much benefit it would be! :airplane:
-
That would be nice. :joystick:
-
I think the issue is that in actual operations, the 56th always flew with pylons and drops. They didn't take pylons off for missions and fly slick.
-
You see, that's quite interesting... Because one of the arguments for having a -M that folks bring up over and over is less drag, no pylons, etc...
Admitedly this is news to me, but I recall folks kept bringing it up, even claiming that alone was +15mph (or whatever), and turns out wasn't even the way it was flown!!! :rofl
-
Well, the increased engine power is the biggest boon to its performance, not drag or weight reduction, even though both were envisioned when the design analysis began. On paper, IIRC, the design concept began with 6 X caliber .50 and no pylons. Ultimately, the realities of ETO forced a more practical setup. The biggest problem is that there is so much misinformation about the P-47M in a lot of "trusted" documentation about the Jug. You really have to weed through it to get the true picture.
But, given all of that extra horsepower, the pylons don't knock too much performance off, compared to the utility of the drop tanks.
-
Ever run into anything that says 400rpg were used on the M?
-
No, not specifically, but since the airframe is the same as the D-series, it would have had the capability, regardless of whether or not the 56th loaded them that way. For the most part, the heavy ammo package was a 9th AF load, from what I've read--IIRC...
-
Well, the increased engine power is the biggest boon to its performance, not drag or weight reduction, even though both were envisioned when the design analysis began. On paper, IIRC, the design concept began with 6 X caliber .50 and no pylons. Ultimately, the realities of ETO forced a more practical setup. The biggest problem is that there is so much misinformation about the P-47M in a lot of "trusted" documentation about the Jug. You really have to weed through it to get the true picture.
But, given all of that extra horsepower, the pylons don't knock too much performance off, compared to the utility of the drop tanks.
As I stated on another thread, I've got a book that says the M had only six 0.50's. You seem to have info to the contrary. So the M did have eight guns?
On this issue of the pylons, what would the effect on stability if they were removed? The design intent is to allow airflow on the lower wing surface, but they are a fairly large vertical surface in their one right. Though they are probably too close to the centers of gravity and lift to be significant.
-
As I stated on another thread, I've got a book that says the M had only six 0.50's. You seem to have info to the contrary. So the M did have eight guns?
On this issue of the pylons, what would the effect on stability if they were removed? The design intent is to allow airflow on the lower wing surface, but they are a fairly large vertical surface in their one right. Though they are probably too close to the centers of gravity and lift to be significant.
Like I've said in other threads, there are a lot of books that have muddied the waters as far as the M goes. The original design for the P-47M, as I understand it, was to decrease some weight, strap on the new powerplant, and make a very high performance fighter/interceptor. Probably, Republic determined that this was the most effective method to remove or reduce the number one criticism of the Jug--its climb performance. So, the long-range escort fuel and heavier firepower were not part of the design concept. However, after the initial testing, once the aircraft rolled out of the factory, they didn't have the dorsal fin or the pylons as standard equipment. The airframe was still a D-series airframe, so it had the capability to carry 8 guns, even though the earlier concept was for 6. Once fielded, the 56th quickly modded the aircraft to carry pylons and added the dorsal fin. During combat, they continued to normally equip the aircraft with 8 guns.
As far as added stability, I have no idea. I would guess that they probably affected roll stability, but the Jug was a very stable aircraft, in general, so I doubt they really had a noticeable impact in that regard. Yaw stability was affected by the dorsal fin more than anything. The higher speed from the lost drag was probably the most conspicuous difference.
-
This is the only existing photo of the "unofficial" XP-47M test mule. After being used as a testbed for the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 C series engine, it was fitted with 27 inch long wing extensions (at the wing root), and used to test the flight characteristics of the modified wing. When the request for a long range Thunderbolt came along, this fighter was wheeled out, dusted off and presented to the Air Material Command. The photo shows the fighter prior to receiving the modified wing.
In May of 1944, an Expenditure Order was issued and $101,000 was allocated to Republic to develop a “wet” wing to be installed on one of the three YP-47M prototypes. Within 30 days Republic was able to present a test report based upon their earlier testing, along with a full set of drawings as a proposal to the Air Material Command. The new drawings illustrated the new wing design. The inserts were now just 18 inches in length, and contained an integral fuel tank for 100 gallons of fuel. In the contract, the #3 YP-47M was specified as the test aircraft (S/N 42-27387). Twenty hours of flight time were expected after the new wing had been installed. In July, the fighter was officially designated as the XP-47N and the unofficial test mule was re-designated as a P-47C-5-RE once again. The final disposition of the test mule is unknown. It did, however, retain its new wings and the more powerful C series engine for as long as the aircraft appeared on the company inventory.
The modifications to the existing YP-47M were considerable. Aside from simply installing the wing inserts and fuel tanks, the flaps were required to be redesigned, and the ailerons had to be modified to fit with the new squared-off wing tips. Due to spacing the wings out from the wing root, the landing gear track increased by more than 3 feet. The overall wing span had increased to just over 42 ft 6 inches. The empty weight of the fighter had gone up by nearly half a ton to 12,950 lbs.
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html
-
Like I've said in other threads, there are a lot of books that have muddied the waters as far as the M goes. The original design for the P-47M, as I understand it, was to decrease some weight, strap on the new powerplant, and make a very high performance fighter/interceptor. Probably, Republic determined that this was the most effective method to remove or reduce the number one criticism of the Jug--its climb performance. So, the long-range escort fuel and heavier firepower were not part of the design concept. However, after the initial testing, once the aircraft rolled out of the factory, they didn't have the dorsal fin or the pylons as standard equipment. The airframe was still a D-series airframe, so it had the capability to carry 8 guns, even though the earlier concept was for 6. Once fielded, the 56th quickly modded the aircraft to carry pylons and added the dorsal fin. During combat, they continued to normally equip the aircraft with 8 guns.
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.
-
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.
Perk the field mods!! :aok
sorry, i couldn't help myself. :D
-
What is a "field mod?" Why does it intrigue?
-
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.
-
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.
-
109G-6/14 are like that too. Capacity for 200 rounds of 20mm, but 150 was the normal loadout.
-
I agrre with krusty. I want more cannons in the 38
-
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.
-
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.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/F6F-3N_NAS_Jax_1943.jpg)
(http://ftp.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Philippines/img/USMC-C-Philippines-p1.jpg)
-
^ F6F-5N?
-
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.
-
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.
-
^ 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.
-
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
-
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. :rolleyes: :D
-
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.
-
...and from a reputable source.
-
A another tank option found in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-47_Thunderbolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-47_Thunderbolt)
"215 U.S. gal (810 l) belly tank, a wide, flat steel tank developed by VIII Service Command that allowed performance-degrading wing pylons to be removed, was first used in February 1945. "
Note: The website didn't say if these were used on the M model. However note the "performance-degrading wing pylons" wording used above.
Also, check out this article:
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/10/flying_with_the_thunderbolts_i.html (http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/10/flying_with_the_thunderbolts_i.html)
-
You COULD put 20mm cannons on an F6F-5P, but there's no photo evidence that this ever happened.
Krusty, F6F-5Ps were photo birds, the number of which is unknown as they were not modified by Grumman. Something less than 200, and all were modified F6F-5s, never having had cannons installed (although every F6F-5 had that capability).
I think you screwed up on the designation (you meant F6F-5N) and now you're using that for CYA.
About 1/3 of the 1,400+ F6F-5Ns built were delivered with 20mm cannons installed at the factory. Of those, more than half had the cannons replaced with more reliable M2 Browning machine guns in the field (actually onboard carriers). F6F-5Ns were not reserved for night time use. Almost all flew day time sorties as well. During the Okinawa operation, in an effort to beat off the kamikaze raids, everything that could fly went up, including the night fighters.
My regards,
Widewing