Post by: Warren on December 23, 2005, 02:47:50 PM
I'm watching a Warbirds episode on a local channel and man I had no idea.
Especially the M model. Fast, tough and with great range and 8 .50s? Just damn!
Almost 1000 enemy planes destroyed to only 128 lost. And then it went on as a ground attack fighter-bomber as well where the accounted for more non-aircraft ground targets destroyed than any other type of plane. And it was not even designed as a ground blaster.
The enemy would blow huge holes in the thing but it would still keep going. One guy's plane lost 2 cylinders and a lot of oil but he did notice anything until he got back to his field and saw the basketball sized hole in his engine cover.
So, again, wow!
Post by: Chuck Dye on December 23, 2005, 03:57:23 PM
(paraphrasing)
"Oh, the Thunderbolt was a great plane, no doubt, but we greatly preferred the P-38. Flying off of islands in the Pacific we knew we were dead men until we landed again (bailing out and ditching rarely worked) and that second engine hugely improved our chances of doing that."
Like parachutes and guns, having one more than you think you need is good.
Post by: Art Eatman on December 23, 2005, 07:30:17 PM
The Jug was the first prop plane to break the speed of sound.
Sometimes the value oof a second engine is that it gets you to the scene of the crash much more quickly...
, Art
Post by: Chuck Dye on December 23, 2005, 07:50:10 PM
The voice of experience, Art?
Post by: Guest on December 23, 2005, 08:59:47 PM
I pilot a Thunderbolt myself
.http://www.chuckhawks.com/buell_s3.htm
Post by: Stickjockey on December 24, 2005, 05:47:08 AM
Quote
One guy's plane lost 2 cylinders and a lot of oil but he did notice anything until he got back to his field and saw the basketball sized hole in his engine cover.
I've seen stories like this of the Grumman Hellcat, too. Another fantastic plane.
Post by: Art Eatman on December 24, 2005, 11:34:24 AM
I've knoewn a couple of "Jug" pilots, and my father-in-law bought one after WW II. Sans guns, of course. He finally gave up on it, because you could only get 140 Octane AvGas in 55-gallon drums, and it took a lot of hand-cranking to fuel up--for a playtoy that drank 70 gallons per hour.
My own flying time is only some 300 hours, 90% of it in a 172. If I wanted excitement, I'd go back and strap on a race car.
If you decide you don't like it anymore, in a racecar all you have to do is lift your right foot and coast to a stop. In a plane, you still have to make one more landing. 
Art
Post by: K Frame on December 24, 2005, 07:23:58 PM
It was best at under 15,000 feet or so.
It couldn't keep up with the best of the German fighters at bombing height, but was hell on wheels as a ground attack and photo reconnaissance aircraft.
It's interesting to note that America's two highest scoring aces of all time made all of their kills in the Pacific flying Lightnings.
Post by: K Frame on December 24, 2005, 07:34:11 PM
There's a LOT of doubt about whether the P-47 actually broke the speed of sound or not. Apparently a lot of aviation engineers feel that the Jug simply wasn't able to breach the barrier.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 25, 2005, 04:20:15 AM
http://www.acepilots.com/
Post by: Art Eatman on December 26, 2005, 03:21:58 AM
And, as usual, not running out of air under you.Air above you and runway behind you are truly among the most useless items ever known.
, Art
Post by: Stickjockey on December 26, 2005, 05:27:09 AM
Post by: K Frame on December 26, 2005, 08:06:57 AM
Yep, and that's what I'm talking about, the tail vertical dives at full power. Speed indicators said 725 mph on one aircraft, which would have put the aircraft over speed of sound, but again, it's largely disbelieved now days.
Post by: Brad Johnson on December 26, 2005, 11:27:23 AM
An experimental version of the P-47 was, however, the first piston powered aircraft to surpass 500 mph in level flight. The XP-47J was an experimental lightened version of the P47. It was fitted with a specially built Pratt & Whitney R-2800 that pounded out 2800 hp (vs. the production model's stated hp of 2200-2300). On August 4, 1944 it hit 504 mph. Top speed was 507 mph. Unfortunately there was only one example produced. Also, the airframe was not a modification of an existing P-47 frame. Rather it was an all new airframe designed around the concept plane's closely cowled engine, relocated supercharger intakes, and emphasis on lighter components. The lightened wing structure necessitate an armament reduction from eight guns to six.
On the upside, the C variant of the P&W R2800 was so impressive that it was installed in the P-47M, which had an "official" top speed of 470 mph. There is fairly good evidence that the resourceful crewchiefs of the 56th Fighter Group could tweak the hotrod M models until they could hit 500.
Even more impressive was what the big R-2800 Pratt was capable of doing. In one test to determine the limits of manifold pressure-induced detonation, Pratt engineers boosted one example until it was making 3600 hp! Still not impressed? They ran it in this configuration, at full power and on common 100/130 avgas, for 250 hours (ten and a half days straight) with no mechanical failures. Test documents still exist to prove it. Talk about overbuilt!
The P-47 was built in greater quantities than almost any other US fighter. After WWII many of the surplus P-47s were sold to other countries. Every ten or twelve years you hear a story about one of the big birds being discovered (usually as boxes of unlabeled parts) in a corner of an unused warehouse or hanger.
Brad
Post by: Art Eatman on December 26, 2005, 01:04:00 PM
Shifting planes, the South Korea AF had P-51s when I was there in 1954/1955. I was at K-13 airbase at Suwon-ni, in an ack-ack outfit. The USAF had F-86s and F-94s there.
When the 1st MarDiv rotated out of Korea, their air wing went on a "Goodbye, guys!" rampage all over the place. They roared in on us at treetop level. Or lower. I still say the eagle on our Hq flagpole ducked. One airman broke himself up pretty bad, jumping out of the control tower. It upset him to look down on an incoming F4U Corsair...
Art
Post by: Brad Johnson on December 26, 2005, 01:49:33 PM
The F8F was was the Bearcat. They used the 34W version of the venerable Pratt R-2800. Everything I have gives an official power rating of 2100 hp. The last versions went to the P&W R-2800-30W which had an automatic variable supercharger and produced 2250 hp.
The Bear was a tremendous achievement. Developed as a true high-performance hot rod - the smallest, most efficient, most maneuverable airframe around the most powerful engine available - it is widely speculated that, had the war not ended when it did, the F8F would have quickly become the hands-down choice for best fighter of the war. Considering that the Bear had the same engine as the P-47, but was only saddled with half the weight, it's no wonder it porformed as it did! Those that flew them considered it to be a better plane in every way than anything else in the military inventory - even the P-51 Mustang. Only the F4-U Corsair outlived the Bear in U.S. naval service, serving with Marines at the controls well into the Korean War.
At little quick internet checking verified your speculation about rate of climb. Several sources indicated that the Bearcat held the the time-to-10,000 climb record for the better part of three decades.
I've seen the F8F flying with the Confederate Air Force. It's a strange beast - all stubby and hump-backed. Stranger still is the geared prop system it uses. Compared to almost every other radial-engined aircraft of the ear, the prop is just barely turning as it is idling on the tarmac. And the prop is freakin' huge! A big four-bladed affair that looks far too big in comparison to the rest of the plane. If memory serves, the only single engine aircraft with bigger props in military service at the time were the Corsair and the Thunderbolt.
Some later bombers had far bigger props, but they were being spun with the mega-monster Pratt R4360. It was an enormous affair with four banks of cylinders that grunted out 3000 hp and a mind-bending 7,500 lb-ft torque (YIKES!!). Grumman actually considered this behemoth when in the brainstorming stages. They were looking for the most powerful engine available at the time and this was it. Unfortunately, the engine assembly complete with superchargers and oil weighed in at a whopping two tons. This, and the power handling problems associated with that much torque, would have resulted in a plane with a dry weight in excess of the big P-47's max combat weight! That, and the horrendous complexity of the R4360 would have doomed the fighter. Can't remember the exact figures, but each hour of flight time was accompanied by several pre- and post-flight hours of gound crew time. Not what you want in an interceptor-style quick response fighter. Needless to say, the idea was dropped rather quickly.
Brad
Post by: K Frame on December 26, 2005, 03:16:28 PM
I've seen one speculation that the registered airspeed of 725 mph was actually caused by shockwave buffeting/compression as the plane approached Mach 1.
Given the location of the pitot tube so far out on the left wing tip it's very likely that the shockwave from the nose was blasting it to pieces.
Read up on the specs for the late-war Corsair variant for the F2G, which would have used the R-4360 engine. The testbeds were unbelievable.
At least one F2G-1 fitted with the R-4360 engine survived and made it into civilian hands after the war, and flew on the racing circuit.
The R-4360 engine also didn't end life there, either. Post war its most numerous application was in the B-36 Peacemaker bomber.
Post by: Warren on December 26, 2005, 10:23:59 PM
Quote from: Brad Johnson
The Bear was a tremendous achievement. Developed as a true high-performance hot rod - the smallest, most efficient, most maneuverable airframe around the most powerful engine available - it is widely speculated that, had the war not ended when it did, the F8F would have quickly become the hands-down choice for best fighter of the war. Considering that the Bear had the same engine as the P-47, but was only saddled with half the weight, .....snip
Brad
But isn't that weight of the P47 what gave it a lot of survivability?
Brad
Post by: richyoung on December 27, 2005, 04:17:30 AM
Quote from: Art Eatman
The P-38 couldn't turn inside a Zero with just one engine, but it could outfly most of the other Jap planes.
I beg to differ - perhaps you've never heard of the "Lockheed Stomp" - it involved cutting the throttle to the inside engine of the turn. McGuire was supposed ot be a big advocate of it, and claimed no Zero ever out-turned him - the drawback was, a couple of his birds were "class 26'd" with bent main spars after this trick.....
Post by: Stickjockey on December 27, 2005, 05:07:35 AM
Quote
But isn't that weight of the P47 what gave it a lot of survivability?
Yes, but that was the trade-off with the T-Bolt. Above 18,000 feet it lost a lot of it's agility due to the extra weight of armor, guns, and such. Later design improvements improved its performance, and of course nothing could dive with a Jug.
Post by: Art Eatman on December 27, 2005, 07:09:08 AM
Brad, thanx for the refresher. Some stuff gets a bit hazy after 50 years...
, Art
Post by: Brad Johnson on December 27, 2005, 08:52:26 AM
)Brad
Post by: richyoung on December 27, 2005, 10:21:48 AM
Quote from: Art Eatman
richyoung, that "stomp" was a short-term affair. I was thinking of one dead engine, only allowing power from the other.
Brad, thanx for the refresher. Some stuff gets a bit hazy after 50 years...
, Art
OK - sorry I mis-understood you. On the plus side, the -38 had a trick to deal with a Zero if the -38 had a dead engine - go to max power on the good engine and a shallow climb, and the Zero couldn't keep up - saved a lot of recon guys' bacon.
Brad, thanx for the refresher. Some stuff gets a bit hazy after 50 years...
, ArtPost by: Art Eatman on December 28, 2005, 03:43:47 AM
Spin-off stuff: Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines envisioned commuting by helicopter and air-car. 100 mph travel on the expected superhighways would be commonplace...
Misc.: My step-father was a B-24 co-pilot on the "Texas Rattler", out of Henderson Field on Guadalcanal. I still remember, "We used'em for everything from pursuit planes to dive bombers." He said they came back from a raid on Rabaul with 87 bullet and flak holes. But, no combat injuries among the crew during his tour.
Art
Post by: Stickjockey on December 28, 2005, 04:54:00 AM
Quote
My step-father was a B-24 co-pilot on the "Texas Rattler", out of Henderson Field on Guadalcanal. I still remember, "We used'em for everything from pursuit planes to dive bombers."
Art, not to cast doubt, but are you sure that wasn't a B-25 "Mitchell?" Those were modified from here to next Tuesday for different missions. Looks like a Lib, but only two engines. Hot ship.
Post by: K Frame on December 28, 2005, 05:04:34 AM
The B-24 didn't see a lot of service in the Pacific, but did see quite a bit of service in the China-Burma-India theather.
The B-25, on the other hand, was the closest thing we had to a universal, all purpose aircraft in the Pacific.
Some field modifications ended up with as many as 20 M-2s attached.
Post by: mfree on December 28, 2005, 06:54:06 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on December 28, 2005, 07:07:51 AM
In addition to the many B-25's there were more than a few B-24 Liberators in the Pacific theater, along with the patrol variant called the PB-4Y Privateer (a single-tail, long-nosed derivation of the standard B-24 airframe). My high school science teacher was a pilot on a B-24 out of Guam. With it's extended range the Liberator was well suited to the long-range missions in the Pacific.
Mike, you might want to look up more info on the modified B-25 gunships. REAL interesting. With eight (or more) forward facing .50's for strafing runs, these ships were particularly effective at low-level strafing runs and attacks on light marine craft. In addition, there were the B-25Gs that were outfitted with a 75mm M-4 field cannon for anti-shipping duties.
Brad
Post by: K Frame on December 28, 2005, 07:42:19 AM
Yep, I'm familiar with the gunship versions of the B-25.
I came across a late-war picture some years ago that showed a gunship that had been additionally field modified so that it had 20 forward firing .50s, including several hung from each wing. How they did it, I don't know, but it must have been brutal.
Post by: Brad Johnson on December 28, 2005, 07:45:03 AM
Quote
I came across a late-war picture some years ago that showed a gunship that had been additionally field modified so that it had 20 forward firing .50s
Hog hunting would take on a whole new dimension with that kind of firepower. Instant sausage.Brad
Post by: K Frame on December 28, 2005, 07:46:23 AM
Post by: Stickjockey on December 28, 2005, 10:40:23 AM
Yes, the B-24 was used in the Pacific along with it's brother, the PB4Y Privateer. However, usually when somebody mentions "highly modified for ground attack," "Pacific Theater," and "WW2," it's a better than even bet they're talking about the B-25.
Just making sure.
Post by: Preacherman on December 28, 2005, 03:00:01 PM
The usual procedure was for each gun to be fired individually, with an armorer adjusting it to be on target at a specified distance (usually 250 yards, IIRC) in front of the aircraft. This particular model had 12 forward-firing .50-caliber machine guns, eight in the nose, and two each in two "blisters" on each side of the fuselage. Unfortunately, some doofus forgot to switch the firing controls to one-gun-at-a-time... so when the button was pressed, all twelve guns fired at once. The target disintegrated into flying splinters of wood and metal frame, and the entire base turned up at the run to see who'd started World War III in their back yard!
Post by: Art Eatman on December 28, 2005, 04:44:55 PM
Anyway, he had a few photos. Sidebar: He got back, and three days later we got a telegram from the War Department saying he was missing in action.
The B-25 was a good plane. At one point, a 75mm cannon was added. Sorta rough on the airframe. Not popular. "Great idea! Wish it worked!"
My stepfather's brother was at McDill Army Air Corps Base at Tampa, training on B-26s when the war ended. The motto there was, "One a day in Tampa Bay." The laminar-flow wing meant a rather high stall speed.
Art
Post by: Brian Williams on December 29, 2005, 03:57:20 AM
that b-25 gunship for instance
Post by: K Frame on December 29, 2005, 06:55:05 AM
This is one of the middle modification gunships. It has 4 nosemounted .50s instead of the original 2, but still has the 75mm cannon, which was dropped later in favor of even more .50s.
Post by: Brad Johnson on December 29, 2005, 07:51:01 AM
Brad
Post by: saxman357 on December 29, 2005, 11:10:18 AM
