"How much boost?" "Yes"

"how much boost do you want?" "how much boost can we get?"

the embodiment of adding more boosters in ksp

Wow, they were not joking about their engines back then!

not all about the boost pressures, more about the flow rate

The F-4 phantom proves that

That’s just the American way, for planes and cars. More cylinders, more weight, more power.

"For a brick, he flew pretty good!"

Barn

You'd be surprised at how aerodynamic the P-47 is. The front appears flat but that's the cooling and engine intake.

And could carry a bomb load that rivaled some light bombers

Only 4 in the B model (as shown). Also, a single shot to the radiator meant the 51 would be making an early landing...somewhere!

Some P51s had 4x 20mm cannons

@@PTRamos The FW-190, as far as I know, was the only one with a radial engine that used a radiator. There were many, MANY aircraft with air cooled radials.

I have no idea what you are talking about, the FW190 ENGINE cooling was not by radiator.@@fermiticus4034

Or just sit there and eat bullets like nicocado avocado and then fly away like nothing happened

​@@goldenfuntimefoxy5700you can't rely on it every single time. If you are referring to Robert s Johnson, luck had a factor too. If one of the rounds had hit his fuel, him, or the oil/engine, it would have been over.

​@@TacticalPhoenixYTyou certainly have a point but the enemy rounds DID hit vital parts of the plane in Johnson's case because he was on fire for a time, and was leaking oil after the fire went out. Of course it is not universal, and everything in the case of taking damage is highly situational, but there are numerous reports of cylinders being shot off the R-2800 and it still getting the pilot home. The self sealing fuel tanks of the P-47, as well as other fighters, were also supposed to mitigate the ability of a round to set it on fire. How well this actually worked I can't be sure, and if it provided any help in preventing a fire from enemy explosive rounds, I'm sure it was minimal. But that was a stated benefit of self-sealing fuel tanks nonetheless, and I think the fact is that generally planes with them caught fire less than planes without them.

@@danraymond1253 self sealing fuel tanks worked, it's just that they wouldn't work against larger holes. Most likely, the fire was caused by the outmost tanks being damaged by cannon fire, but the remaining tank behind the pilot was most likely fine, which led to some fuel being left for the trip back home

@@TacticalPhoenixYT I must say I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "outmost" tanks, as the P-47 didn't have fuel tanks in the wings. (Except the P-47N which is a different story). It had two internal tanks; one below the pilot, and the other mostly in front of the cockpit. I believe the engine was on fire, not the fuel tanks. Maybe I'm just saying that because it appears to be depicted that way in the Dogfights episode, but I also think it makes more sense that the engine would've been on fire since it went out. If the gas tank was on fire, I don't think it would go out. I suppose it's possible for the tank to be hit and leak a little before swelling, and only the leaked gas caught fire. But I would think that fire would find its way into the gas tank in that scenario, even with the restriction of oxygen in the tank. Not quite sure how that'd work tbh. Regardless he was leaking oil, so he was either hit in the engine or the oil lines at least, and his turbosupercharger or it's ducting, if not the turbine itself, certainly got hit, which would limit altitude and performance.

@@Britishpersun yeah i just saw a video of such bike, but it’s way smaller than the one I was talking about, if you want to see videos/picture of the tractors, you can try searching for “oil addicted pulling team”. It’s only a tractor in name. The other one can be found by searching “team centurie pulling team”.

Yeah I just saw a video of such bike, it’s a way smaller engine than the one I am talking about. If you want to see more, try looking up team oil addicted. If you want to see the other one try team centurie or red thunder. Both tractors are from Denmark.

Wait what?? Wow those ground vehicles are literally the demonstration of power. I mean, the griffon is one of the latest piston engine in WW2 and meteor is a jet...

@@Chleosl its the Rover Meteor not a jet engine, but it runs on methanol in this case with a compressor. It's not even the strongest tractor in the class, it's not uncommon to see tractors with over 10.000HP. Some tractors uses 4 Isotov turbines to compete against some that run 4 v8 Hemi's that are heavily modified and runs on methanol and has large compressors to get even more horse power.

I bet you haven't seen a tractor in your life...

It's worth noting that the exact same Allison engine that was on the P-47 was fitted with a multistage supercharger in USN/USMC service on the F4U Corsair. And IIRC early NACA evaluations called turbochargers "turbosuperchargers" instead. Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles has a fantastic vid where he goes over the entire journey for both turbochargers and centrifugal superchargers (and why alternatives like the Roots supercharger were never really used)

No they did not reffer to it as a supercharger. I read prelnty of documents from that era and about this aircraft. Pilot manuals, Naca test repors, articles public or technical, memos. Yes in the 20s and 30s turbocharging was mostly reffered to as turbo supercharging, or turbine supercharging, but this term was mostly gone by WW2. Even so, it is turbo supercharging not supercharging. You also dont mention that the plane had a supercharger and a turbo charger. Two separate charging systems. The supercharger was single stage single speed mechanically driven, and then there was the exhaust driven turbo charger. I don't want to draw large naratives from one mistake but I already commented on your space shuttle video that it was poorly scripted, you kept repeating the same clauses and words in one sentence. It was as if the script was written by Chat GPT from Wish. Is your content research suffering from something?

​@@Im_TheSaint you sure are fun to be around.

Be kind dude ​@@Im_TheSaint

Sharing honest feedback is one of the highest forms of kindness.@@aeronovus

My dad flew one and he said it was a powerful thing. He told me it had a lever in it marked " emergency war power " said it dumped water into the engine. I didn't believe it until I got into college chemistry and figured out the way water would have done that.

Read a report of one pilot who after a mission found his engine running very rough, only just managed to get back and on landing complained about it to the mechanic, as he left the debrief he was met by said mechanic who informed him of the problem, it hadn't been difficult to diagnose, a cylinder was missing!!, having been torn off by flak. He added that anything with liquid cooling would have dumped him and he would have been a prisoner at best, it was an incredible bit of kit.

Both the F6F, and the F4U used the R2800 engine. The big difference between the USAAF P-47 and the 2 USN fighters was that the Navy fighters used a mechanically driven supercharger. The supercharger was a 2 stage, 2 speed (I have heard 3 speed) intercooled unit that provided a similar horsepower to the same altitude ceiling. It was more compact, lighter, and less complex than the turbo-supercharger on the P-47D. BTW, the F6F Hellcat is only slightly smaller than the P-47D. Also, the USAAF seemed to have a preference for turbo-supercharger for their high altitude aircraft. The B-17, B-24, and P-38 all had similar turbo-superchargers for their engines.

F4U also used it

​@@rokuththe USAAF usually fought at much higher altitudes than most Navy planes did.

​@rokuth The Navy actually uses a single speed, two stage system with a disengage option for sea level operations, hence the misconceptions of Navy aircraft having 3 speeds Because of this set up, Navy aircraft generally loses most of its performance by 15,000 feet (around 4600 meters for the metrics) which was fine, as pacific operations were mostly below those altitudes The Navy didn't receive a carrier based aircraft that can go toe to toe with land based aircraft at all altitudes until the late war -4 Corsairs, which was a beast of a plane

They mastered the Zero with devastating effect using the raw power of that double Wasp.

Except it is not. In every manual and document it says turbo-supercharged. Even on the flight manual he uses on the video it says turbo-supercharger. Maybe he got confused with the fact that engine has an integrated supercharger. Air from the turbo goes throught this supercharger integrated in the engine itself.

Turbos and superchargers are different

@@Geeb69 who said they weren’t?

@@Geeb69turbo is short for turbo-supercharger. superchargers and turbo chargers both “supercharge” air. a turbo is called a turbo because it’s turbine driven.

​@Geeb69 a supercharger is mechanically driven and a turbocharger is driven by a turbine. The superchargers themselves are also called compressors, so you can even hear a turbocharger being called a turbo-compressor.

Even more so in durability. P-47s were the best bullet sponges of the war, besides B17s.

I call BS on that--both those planes would eat this brick up.

@vanman724 Ed McNeph, a double ace, Bud Anderson, the last living American triple ace, as well as many bombers such as Paul Hedicki and Charlie McDaniels, have seen quite different. The P-47 was a VERY effective fighter against both the 109 and 190.

​@@vanman724 the BF109 had a particularly bad roll rate for a WW2 fighter, which is why the P47's roll was quite effective against it.

@@vanman724 History calling and you are the one full of shitte.

Agreed. The Merlin sounds nice and all, but there's just something about a massive radial that sounds so guttural. The 47, the F4, even the F6. Radials all the way baby!

never heard one but it would be nice to post an audio clip here

you got the triple wasp as well. not as sucsessful as the double but they kinda work

It's absolutely amazing aircraft and the engines is amazing! Maintenance had to be a major challenge to maintain and keep at its best proformence! "AMAZING"😊😅

I mean prior to the P-47 the largest single engine fighter most U.S. pilots had flown were P-36's or later P-40's. If you've ever seen them side by side the P-47 looks gigantic. Next to a Zero or ME-109 it looks absolutely massive!

I remember a documentary about one incident in which a German ace emptied his entire ammo supply into a single already-crippled P-47, but it just kept going.

@@TheOriginalJphyper theres another account where a p47 collided with a 109 0r 190 mid air and still made it back to its own airfield

there was an interview with a P 47 pilot who was about to strafe a train when a side door on one of the cars slid open and there was a 20mm AA gun that opened up on him. his engine stopped the round that would have killed him and he flew it back to England missing 2 cylinders and no oil pressure and landed it safely

@@nemo6900 The good ole double wasp, you almost couldn't kill them!

Yes and it went from balloons 1900 to V 1- V 2 Rockets, jets in 40- 45 years. Maned space flights and satellites in 60-70 years. To reusable rocked in about 100-120 years.

I read once some lady that was at Kittyhawk (7 years old at the time) AND at the Apollo 11 launch (73 years old) !!!

Wow, I thought I was the only old geezer on YT. If your HB is still with us, thank him for his service; if you are a vet, thank you also. 👍👍

Only for the Renault C460 to best the P-51. Don't get me wrong, the Mustang is absolutely beautiful but the Renault is the best looking aircraft I've ever seen.

I'd argue the Spitfire is a prettier bird than the Mustang. Acknowledging Liam's love for the Renault, I find the Renault's proportions to be out of place/off.

@@liamhackett7997I looked up the c460 after your comment and wow what a beautiful plane

p39 is prettiest, that or Corsair.

8 fifties Large one second burst by mass of any wwii fighter

48 liters. 18 cylinders.

​@@beyondwhatisknownHe truly couldn't comprehend it.

My grandpa flew in 48 cylinder prop planes in Europe in '43. Lancasters and Halifaxes. 4 engines X 12 cylinders each = 48 cylinders. 107 liters total displacement. Europeans built many thousands of 48 cylinder prop planes back then.

No, thats why the British are so important

It probably took an orangutan to change all the sparkplugs.

Many stories of 47 coming home missing entire cylinders from AAA fire and landing like nothing was going on. They were damn hard to kill.

​@@AvengerBB1flying tank

They needed something to keep up with the B17s

@@Denozo88 and the Alison engined Mustang never got it's turbocharger so couldn't get up there untill it got the Packard Merlin which was not planned at the time the Jug was ordered.

German pilots were said to be terrified of them

yep. there's a reason the A-10 is the Thunderbolt II

Ah yes, Dogfights. Love this show

That German 109 was hitting that P47 (Robert Johnson)with 20 mm cannon shells. It also flew back to england with two cylinders shot off!

THE JUGG

American pilot said "when life gives you lemons 🤷🏻‍♂️"

Saw a video doc on the 47 when a FW ace tried to shoot one down, then gave up and pulled along the side of the 47 and saluted him and flew away. The only draw back from what I heard was its range.

@@user-kb9ey3ev6p If they could have squeezed another 150-200 miles out of her, she would have likely remained the main-line bomber escort for strikes into Germany. Now, I'm not knocking the Mustang, but a lot of pilots weren't happy with the fact that they were extremely touchy and were almost as likely to kill their pilot as the enemy was. The Jug was a stable beast. It took a lot to make one depart from flight.

I thought the P-38 lightning was the fastest dive-speed?

It was a good fighter from the start, but the wide-blade props is what really helped the P-47 achieve its potential. I believe it was Gabby Gabreski who said that the P-47 could climb like a homesick angel and dive like a boulder.

​@@user-kb9ey3ev6pthere is a video on yt that addresses this, the US for some reason would not use the drop tanks on the P47 as a range extender for bomber escorts, as they had the tanks, and used them, the reason seemed to be more political than practical, a move that killed a lot of bomber crews, unfortunately political wrangling is like that, we in Britain had it as did Germany, vestid interests before what is best, and it still is today. Only when those that decide suffer the consequences of their actions may things change.

Extremely tough engines -- I work on them every day. The engineering is very complex but they are a simple machine that has very little problem running while half destroyed. They might backfire and bitch a little, but they will keep running.

Fighters like that could have PISTONS shot out of them, and still fly! Chuck Yeager noted that (though I think he specifically referenced the P-39 in that case.) Another proof of their toughness: a P-47 collided with a chimney, losing half its wing, and the pilot still flew it home.

@@Svensk7119 I’ve seen the R2800 lose a whole cylinder and continue running, the pilots only noticed because the oil pressure was dropping.

the power weigth ratio is horribel 😂

They truly were. The reak deal. No CNC.

@@lukasschmenn329do your research

@@retiredbore378can’t be good if they’re women

P51 the plane to fly if you actually wanted the range to engage the enemy. It was that range which was critical to escorting bombers all the way to and back from targets in Europe that led to Allied air superiority for the allies in Europe.

I mean, the whole reason the P-51 was invented was because they kept having so many guys get shot down trying to do daylight air raids.

​@@jonathanbuzzard1376 Which the P-47 could also do.

@@reinbeers5322The range of a P-47 was 1,660 km where as the P-51 has a range of 2,660 km. That is an extra 1000km of range. It is that range that made the P-51 special. Being able to escort the bombers all the way to Germany and back broke the Luftwaffe and the P-47 didn't have the range to do that.

P-51: The plane to fly if you want to get the thousand guys in B-17s home to their girls...

F4U-1 Corsair was also designed around a similar engine

Uh yea pretty much evry aircraft of that era

THE Ironworks! Grumman "cats" had a reputation of always bringing their crews home. That reputation spilled over to the Lunar Module. North American Aviation's Apollo Service Module failed on Apollo 13. The Grumman Lunar Module, designed for a short duration with a crew of two, kept three Astronauts alive for several days and towed the Command and Service Module back to Earth. After Apollo 13's crew safely splashed down, Grumman sent North American Aviation a tow bill! (Which they paid!) Apollo 12's Lunar Module's Ascent Stage is still orbiting the Sun for the last 54 years!😊

The rumor is, when the first Jugs landed in England the Brits kept standing around after the pilot deplained. When asked why they inquied where was the rest of the crew. They couldn't believe that a plane that large was a single seater, and must have a crew.

If you knew much about the B-29 engine history you might think it was less than ideal.

a more refined version of the wright 3350

And with a bomb load closer to the B-17

Brewster B-239 also used the DC-3 engine

No it absolutely was not the p51 mustang out did in every area especially range dude

​@@derrickmccalep3840battle damage and sustained flight anyone😊.

@@derrickmccalep3840 I respectfully disagree. P-47 M & N models had GREATER range than any model of Mustang, greater firepower, and greater speed. Look it up😉

​@@dankramer7840 None of that matter when a 109 simply out turns you so badly they eventually end up on your tail no matter what you do...

Also while it's certainly very nice to have a tough aircraft that can take a pounding you also have to remember that PEOPLE flew these things. It only takes one bullet or piece of shrapnel in the right place and it doesn't matter if the plane can fly with both wings and tail shot off.

They were also known as the "jug", and there is a very informative book by that title.

Look down in the lower left corner, under the title, where it has the sideways triangle. That's your link. At least, that's where it is for mobile, I don't know about desktop.

@@musewolfman three dots on desktop.

Thank you

Well back then they called turbo chargers superchargers so technically there is no wrong information

Back in the 1940s, they called turbochargers a supercharger too. Confusing times.

Yes, defining things does make a difference; turbocharger is a contraction of turbo-supercharger, a supercharger powered by an exhaust-gas turbine. Having both types of types of supercharger one engine is called "compound supercharging". Defining things makes a difference.

He does point out that he used the nomenclature of the time, and to have not have done so could also have lead to confusion, your done if you do your done if you don't, you make your choice and go with it, from the illustration we all know it wasn't engine driven so why nit pick.

It definitely is. Unless a person actually sees one in person, they can't really understand how huge it is.

I've always liked the Jug over the Mustang. What started it for me was the story of how one survived FW-190 attacks and still got her pilot home

​@@michaelpascual3581which is very impressive considering the fact that the FW 190 wa sa flying Direwolf armed to the teeth and armored itself. Also I think Designs like the P-47 and FW 190 just have a very mighty, Bad Ass and respected installing Aura.

@@michaelpascual3581that story to me sounds like the ammo of the fw190 was sabotaged by some forced laborer. Otherwise the p47 would have tumbled back to earth in many separate parts

@@Delta_3VIII true, the FW-190 is indeed known to be very durable.

Same engine, IIRC. Be interesting to see a similar size comparison like here with the 51.

They used the same engine, just with a different forced induction setup.

Heroine!

Kool, and there are some here whose grandfathers flew them; American teamwork!

Was her name rozy?

that's not a p-51 in the picture. I'm pretty sure that's a bf109

​@@andy347495it's a p51, just not the bubble canopy variant. The bf109 doesn't have a belly intake like that.

Haha no

The ww2 flying tank was the il 2 that thing could handle anything

@@Rostmeo1 except for the things it couldn’t handle

Yes they used turbo-supercharger in every P-47 document, even on the flight manual he used on the video. But he just says supercharger which is just wrong...

⁠​⁠​⁠@@Metrallarojathey quite literally use the term “supercharge” on the second page of the flight manual for the Republic P47 Thunderbolt, Section I; 2. Power Plant “The Pratt & Whitney R-2800-21 engine is a twin row, 18-cylinder, supercharged, Air-cooled engine”

That is because it is supercharger, and then it is also turbocharged. There are two charging systems in it.@@polishorca7232

​​@@polishorca7232 he used the P-47N manual AAF 51-127-4 or the P-47 manual AAF 50-5. In both of them they call it turbo-supercharger. In the one you checked it says turbine supercharger instead. It is the same thing they differentiate it from a supercharger. Flight manuals are not technical documents so terms change. The part you quote says supercharger because the engine has an integrated supercharger on the engine itself that gets air from the turbosupercharger. He does not even explain this on the video... This is explained in the manual you checked in the same part that you quoted. Also explained in every manual.

@@Metrallaroja It's always sad to see the most correct comments with the least amount of upvotes.

P47-M is a monster in RB

You are using it wrong 😅

Lmao wasn't the Jug a good fighter for boom & zoom? I believe it should be

​@@Leadblast yeah and still is, just get high enough and see them try to get to you, or just do a boom and zoom

Bc u has skill issue

Bro just said “before people complain” in the pinned comment. He knows, but he’s sticking with the nomenclature they used in the official documents

@@mrsoisauce9017 He made that comment after i posted ;)

@@Kiwjtastic oh. Mb; didn’t know. Should have checked

The turbocharger compresses the air that enters the engine. At higher altitudes, the atmosphere becomes thinner, there is less air pressure and density, basically there is less air and thus, less oxygen (than there is at lower altitudes). A piston engine, which needs oxygen for combustion (like most engines) normally will be starving when functioning at higher altitudes. Thus the turbocharger's job is to compress the incoming air, increasing the pressure, density, and most importantly the concentrations of oxygen in that air entering the engine so that it doesn't starve and underperform. That's what it does.

The P47 used both types of blowers, a technique known as "compound supercharging".

*Turbosupercharged. See the original NACA evaluations....

@@Stlaind I was actually gonna say that but we all know it’s just a big ass turbo.. MASSIVE turbo. Look up pics it’s pretty wild!

Very tough, all the horsepower, all the guns. Ya pretty much the WW2 A-10.

The P47 Thunderbolt was legendary indeed. From what I have read, the beast was called the Jug mainly cz, well, it looked like one; but Juggernaut would fit well too because of its size and fightability.

There is a reason the A10 is officially named the Thunderbolt II, after the original P47 Thunderbolt, which was nicknamed the "jug"

Here’s another fun fact: the P47’s maximum takeoff weight is heavier than the max weight of the JU-88 bomber.

@@Shaun_JonesWOW I knew the later variants of the 47 could weigh up to 10 tons but think of that. Heavier than a twin-engined bomber!!!

And both are named the Thunderbolt and both have a serious reputation as flying tanks.

There’s a decent amount of A-36 pilots who’ll gladly argue that it wasn’t.

I’ve lost a few rounds because of that one bullet in war thunder