109 was better according to Bulgarian pilot for Mcloud thread

Join the club...

I've always liked the phrase: "Everything you know is wrong".

Another favorite is : "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

 

No I'm not. Every P-47 had the turbo, right from the start.

"The XP-47B was designed around the 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp 18-cylinder radial with a very large turbo supercharger and a big three-bladed propeller. The armament was eight .50 caliber machine guns, four in each wing. The new fighter flew for the first time in May 1941. Because of its large radial engine, and the turbo supercharger and its ducting, the P-47 was one of the largest single engine fighters built during WW II."

http://www.chuckhawks.com/p47.htm


"The most-produced version of Thunderbolt was P-47D. Machines of early production block numbers differed only slightly from the initial production versions -B and -C, incorporating more extensive armour protection for the pilot, slight modifications of the turbocharger ducting and water-injection system for the R-2800-21 or -59. However, evolutionary improvements were incorporated through the entire production programme."

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1999/01/stuff_eng_detail_p47.htm

 

Hummm... perhaps you are correct. However please look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_R-2800

says that clearly R2800 had two stage supercharger. In the books of P-47 it states that the prototype had remote turbo, not the production versions and not the D model. I need to check the R2800 variants and see what supercharging system was used.

Thanks for the correction. Definitely grounds for further research!

 

OK !!! Looks like in fact the P-47D did come with the remote turbo-supercharger system.

That is very trick that such a complicated system went beyond the prototype/limited production. I wonder why the F6F and Corsairs did not use the same system?

Here is a excellent link for the P-47D !

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47.htm

much better diagram of the turbo-supercharger system too !

Thanks TURBO !

 

Here's the exact quote...

Looseleaf;
American technology in metallurgy made jet turbines possible, not British nor German.

Now where is the source? And how bout them Uber Italian Torpedoes?


The average 262 combat would be less than an hour, therefore these jets could do many combats until engines wore out, unbolt it, strap a new one on, same jet continues combat.

 

No. those 262 engines had to be scrapped after 50 hours- the upper limit, depending on use and quality of fuel. They did not have high temp alloys for the exhaust blades.

American high temp alloys were used in making turbo superchargers- "jet turbines".

I said before:
go do the research yourself. go read some books. go find a girlfriend, go get laid.

 

Want to see some amazing pics from Grumman and Republic? Check this out:

http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13327&start=765

Some great P-47-related pics at the tail end. I'm lucky, because I actually got to work on a P-47 in the late 70s, but only stripping paint. Probably a D. Getting rid of zinc chromate and stuff. Nasty, old chemicalsfound in WW2-era hangars. Those old dudes never worried about toxic stuff the way we do today Of course the old hands did the important restoration stuff.

But to be in a hangar at Roosevelt/Mitchel Field, that was cool

I remember standing underneath the engine and just being in awe. Big We were repainting the propeller, too, and there was some controversy because one of the old timers had done a less-than-perfect job -- there were drips! But everyone felt respect for the old chap and didn't want to cause a big fuss.

Then I went to study at a Grumman facility and studied toward an Airframe and Powerplant certification, but I never took the FAA test.

If I had known then what I know now...

 

Didn't argue the engines weren't scrapped, read what I said before posting. I said... they could & did perform operations despite the 50 hours limit, 1 combat is less than 1 hour usually. 50 hours would allow for many combats, then old engine unbolted & new one put in its place. Please try & read what I said this time.

& where is that US metal technology in the turbines source? Can't you even supply 1 decent link for your assertions? Get a boyfriend & get laid if you can't present any legit data.

How bout then Italian Uber torps?



It must also be mentionned that the sliding bubble canopy on the Mustang generated problems (like enormous turbulences,leading mechanics to add the famous metal triangle at the vertical stabiliser base..!) but also some security problems,where the Messerschmitt style of canopy was frankly better generally speaking:


Spitfire carried crowbars for use when the canopy would jam.

http://www.spitfirespares.com/spitfirespares.com/pages/canopy.html

 

Does your boyfriend help you spell check ? I bet he found you boring too.

Just how many spare engines do you believe the 262 had available?

Just what legitimate data have you presented?

Now get off your lazy ass and do some work:

"..Italian torpedoes used by the Germans were denoted by the manufacturer, w for Whitehead (Fiume) and i for Silurificio Italiano (Naples). ..."

If you did any reading at all you would know the famous defective magnetic triggers the Germans had in some of their torpedoes.

Germans bought thousands of Italian triggers and torpedoes.


Like I said, you are boring !!!!

 

You're welcome.

 

No, I am NOT a "know it all". I read many years ago about the R2800 engine where the description said " two stage supercharger" and then gave a list of all planes that used the engine. I also read about the P47M version that "used the new GE turbo-supercharger" and had many problems.

Your statements got me to go back and look around. Yes, I had seen that the R2800 was supercharged in conventional form in bombers. I did not look deeper into the variants and types that detailed what type of supercharging.

Also due to the fact that turbos were not given to the Brits in their P-38s, the US kept turbocharger technology to themselves.


BTW: did you like the references I found, turbo?

Here's another:

"R-2800 Pratt and Whitney's Dependable Masterpiece"
by Graham White

 

Looseleaf, forget black hornet. Did you notice how he avoided my thread about the grief bomber? why do thnk he would do that?

 

Where again is the source for these Italian torps? why can't we get those? because you haven't got any. Now get off your lazy ass & back up your assertions.

HE 177 was a buggy kite. No need to dodge that topic.

 

I did the research years ago and have a life. I told you what to look for.

Now if you only want to research the superiority of the World War2 Nazi/ Germans and pout your own flavor of Ubervolk, go right ahead. You are free to believe anything you want.

 

Yes, I see, the troll is very selective...

Happy St. Pat's Day BTW !



I'm off for a Guinness, corn beef, and a friend has some Jameson's 12 year old that we will sing some of the old songs again.. and remember the time we did some ******* for the I*A ... ha ha ha...

My friend's father who flew 35+ missions from England in WW2 over the Continent called the brits: "the real enemy" .... he knew about their affection for owls.. etc....

 

I can chalk it up as complete arrogance. The fact that there isn't a factual discussion, but rather a "we are superior" response convinces me this guy is obsessed and see no wrong with his uberness and is only wanting to pick a fight. Now, if he were to use all this effort and knowledge to correct incorrect modeling in WBFH, then we'd be going in the right direction. Course he and his co-hort probably cannot fly worth a hoot. So, no, this black hornet is nothing but a google junkie with less hands on experience than you. And now, here is "t-u-r-b-o" jumping in to post so quickly. Well, black hornet's other login, "t-u-r-b-o"isn't impressing me either.

 

If you did the research, share it then. I started no fight, Looseleaf & MCloud started fights with I. Thats the pot calling the kettle black.

& any superiority was in reference to German aviation, not myself. That bull.

The reactionary emotionalism is silly. Japanese were ahead in stereos for a good many years, so what! I don't get bent out of shape over it. US is ahead in heart medicine technology, great. Again I don't have an insecurity complex over it.

 

Oh the brits are very into owls, and so are the germans too.
Black Hornet on youtube, (note aircraft type)

actually black hornet it was mumble who first noticed your mental problems with the 109, do some research.

 

You do some research, I gave you tons of data for free. You're obviously in need of it, take advantage of the free education. Your obsession of hating a machine could use some analysis as well. & hating a complete stranger because of which WW 2 fighter he likes is as well not the sign of a well balanced person.

 

German aviation was not superior, just another choice of aircraft that Germans developed. All German aircraft were defective with design flaws in different ways, as were other countries who manufactured aircraft. Germans started/entered the war way before the Americans, and ended up with seasoned pilots who were able to practice on inexperienced opponents with slower, weaker, armor-less aircraft. Once German aces started getting knocked out of the sky, the new replacements fell victim to the former. Like I've always said before, because I know it for a fact in my own experience, that it's not the plane, it's the pilot. In a WWII simulator, when someone screams about an aircraft not competing well enough against another, I change into that one, fly it myself, and realize the person complaining does not have the knowledge, experience, skill or ability to compete against more advanced pilots or, it's a fault with current modeling, as is becoming the case in WBFH.