Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "Milk Jug or Unstoppable Force? The Origins of the P-47’s “Jug” Nickname" video.

…except that it was still out-climbed by any contemporary fighter aircraft. The P-47 was a good aeroplane in spite of itself. In any other scenario where it didn’t have the advantage of altitude it would have struggled. Johnson’s memoir is an entertaining read but not short on bombast and hyperbole.
2
@petesheppard1709 Johnson also claims that no German fighter ever out-climbed him again…. And probably didn’t before. The point was that there was never a need for the P-47 to have to climb because it always had the advantage of altitude and the Allies usually had air superiority over Germany.
2
@johnshepherd9676 He’s talking about tactics. I don’t necessarily agree with his assumptions but I don’t agree with current mainstream opinion, either.
2
She was only four years old when the war ended.
2
@RemusKingOfRome Yeah… not seeing it.
2
Luftwaffe pilots were more impressed by the P-51 Mustang and compared their aircraft to that. There were two aircraft that the Luftwaffe lost sleep over: the P-51 and the de Havilland Mosquito. They talk about both of them in their memoirs and in RLM reports. Galland mentions them in his book, ’The First and the Last’. These days the P-47 is no longer underrated and is now somewhat overrated. Most people don’t realise that, as good as it was, in any other tactical scenario where it lacked the advantage of altitude, it would have struggled. Even at the end of the war, late model P-47s could easily be out-climbed by pretty much any contemporary fighter.
1
@yosemite-e2v Probably just a less competent and experienced pilot. By late 1943 or early 1944, the Germans were sending guys in who were half trained at best and most didn’t last very long. Is that the same Ken Dahlberg who was partly implicated in the CREEP/Watergate scandal? I think it might be.
1
@yosemite-e2v That video is region locked so I can’t access it. Thanks anyway.
1
@yosemite-e2v I couldn’t get mine to work. Maybe I need to wait a few more minutes.
1
@danraymond1253 "The P-47 with a paddle-blade out-climbed almost any other fighter plane at high altitudes where they would protect the bombers." The P-47's rate of climb was not competitive until at least 25,000'. There is a chart compiled by Squadron Leader T.S. Wade listing the comparative performances of the Spitfire XIVe, Mustang III, Thunderbolt II, Meteor, Tempest and Spitfire IX. Now, while the Meteor was the next generation, the others, with the exception of the Mk IX Spitfire, were roughly similar era. Wade found that the Thunderbolt II (a British designation for the P-47D 'Bubbleback') comfortably trailed the rest until 30,000 feet. I wouldn't argue with the figures but I would question the need for that kind of performance, especially when the rest of its climb rate was uncompetitive. "In fact, the only plane that I can think of off the top of my head that out-climbed the P-47 at that altitude (25,000 feet and up) was the Spitfire Mk IX and later, which had its own problems as a fighter." The Mk XIV - which I regard as the best model of Spitfire - out climbed it at all altitudes. "As far as I can tell (and do note that this is a near impossible statistic to measure) the P-47 had the best zoom climb of any plane in the war, barring jets. Another notable zoom climber was the Typhoon and Tempest. Generally, heavier, more powerful planes excelled in this category. This is in part what made the P-47 such a great boom-and-zoom aircraft. You also have to take into account climb speed, which is almost never mentioned for some reason." The P-47 did, indeed, have excellent zoom and boom capabilities. Wade found that it was exceeded by the Tempest but did better than all the others But the irony is that zoom and boom requires altitude. The Tempest was never intended to be any more than a low to medium altitude fighter. The Napier Sabre ran very little boost. "This is in part what made the P-47 such a great boom-and-zoom aircraft. You also have to take into account climb speed, which is almost never mentioned for some reason. The P-47 didn't excel in climb rate down low, however, its peak climb rate was at a relatively fast speed. Most other fighters had better peak climb rates but at lower speeds." Wade's chart covers this. The P-47 was handily beaten by all comers until 30,000 ft. "The P-47 can absolutely win that fight if he's smart and keeps his fight in the vertical." Yes. It will come down to tactics. The P-47 would require very careful flying at 10,000 and the pilot would have to be sure not to enter a climbing turn fight with a Bf-109. "It's not true that the P-47 would almost always have altitude advantage. For the initial confrontation when escorting bombers, yes that is the case. But for the rest of the fight it wasn't, and there are plenty of cases of Thunderbolts lower than enemies when attacked and still coming out on top. Plus, if that was the case, and the Thunderbolts always got kills because they were higher, wouldn't the Germans just learn to climb higher to avoid death? " It's very difficult to be precise with generalisations! However, as bomber escort, yes, it would have sat at 30,000 because that's where its best performance was. The USAAF virtually always had air superiority, simply by weight of numbers and the advantage of altitude. Yes, the P-47 was used in low level attacks as 'Jabos', as the Germans called them. But remember that against Bf-109 the P-47 was a fast aircraft in a straight line. According to the British, it had excellent handling characteristics. The 109, on the other hand, had problems with aileron snatch. The Germans had little choice when it came to interception, the Germans were far more focused on shooting down bombers than on escort fighters, whether P-47s or P-51s. The other problem was that the interception time left little option for the Germans to get much higher. As long as they were high enough to make effective attacks on viermots. I'll ry to find the chart I'm referring to but I am not allowed to post links. As soon as I find it, I'll try to point you in the right direction.
1
@Flyingcircustailwheel Far from true. A -D model had a 2,000 hp engine and that was largely typical. The P-47’s climb rate was never very competitive, which was largely a function of its weight.
1
@Flyingcircustailwheel No, no way I’m believing that. A cursory examination of R-2800 variants shows no in-service examples with that power rating and certainly no examples that were specifically fitted to any model of the P-47. Furthermore, the -D model was fitted with the paddle prop. But it doesn’t matter anyway. A Mk XIVe Spitfire could still easily outclimb an -N model and that information is not hard to find. I’m sorry but there’s no way I’m believing this. None of the evidence I have (and I assure you, I have more than just what’s on the Wikipedia R-2800 page) supports any of the claims you’re making. It’s like those Napier Sabre fanbois who insist there was a 4,000 hp version but it got nobbled by bureaucracy or something. It’s like the Spitfire fanbois who talk about the Griffon 101 version that did 494 mph as though it was a service aircraft and did it on a daily basis. You can make the facts fit any kind of narrative by simply using the most rose-tinted figures: a test bed engine that was never produced, power ratings based on ‘what ifs’, theoretical manifold pressures and a collection of hyperbolic remarks that may or may not be accurate. It doesn’t matter: Wade’s figures are from aircraft representative of their time and actually flown. They’re not some hypothetical Franken aircraft flown with no armament or zero fuel or a special hotted up engine that was fitted to only one aircraft. Look them up for yourself.
1
@Flyingcircustailwheel There used to be a cherry-picked claim on the P-47 Wikipedia page that ‘the P-47 could easily outclimb a Spitfire’ until I did the research. The samples chosen were a P-47-D and a Spitfire Mk VC. These aircraft were not contemporaries and the VC was not in any way comparable to the P-47, having been designed specifically for low altitude work. In service they were known as ‘clipped, cropped and clapped’. They were well-worn service examples which were bodged up to do a specific job. Their peak climb was at a paltry 5,000 feet. And why wouldn’t it be? That was what it was designed to do. Yet this was the type pitted as representative of overall Spitfire performance and accepted by all until I pointed out that the P-47 in question was a contemporary of the widely-produced Mk IX Spitfire and not a clapped out old airframe with a cropped supercharger and clipped wings for low altitude. A classic example of comparing apples with oranges and not representative of anything. When compared with the much more numerous Mk IX, the P-47 was easily beaten in climb. You can believe whatever you like. It’s not for me to tell you you can’t. But I can tell you you’re wrong.
1
@Flyingcircustailwheel By the way, there’s no way that engine in WEP could be flat rated to 32,000 feet.
1
@Flyingcircustailwheel You’re obviously unfamiliar with how aero engines work at different altitudes, different mixtures and different throttle settings and supercharger stages.
1
@Flyingcircustailwheel Jesus Christ, are you serious? There was one bench tested R-2800 that ran at 2,800 hp. Once. Look it up. It was not an every day occurrence and there were no examples of service engines rated at 3,200 hp in any block of R-2800 engines. I don’t care how large the turbocharger is. I care what the power curve showed and not one curve is going to show an R-2800 flat rated at 2,800 hp to 32,000 feet. Total nonsense. As for referencing Greg’s videos; I’ve already taken some of these matters up with him. So much of what he says relies on rose-tinted optimism and cherry picking that it’s impossible to take him seriously. One of his favourites is his assumption that crew chiefs would have run the manifold pressure at some almost imaginary level, like ‘XX inches of mercury because there’s no reason it couldn’t’. Classic case of making the facts fit the story. If you can’t cite better information than that then you don’t know much. Greg is wrong on so many counts that it’s time someone produced a video to correct some of his errors. I have already cited the performance data collected by a real test pilot and not an internet expert which shows that the P-47 was not competitive with contemporary fighter aircraft in climb. What it did at 32,000 feet is no indication of what it did at any other altitudes and no pilot would claim it was.
1
@Flyingcircustailwheel ”please educate me” Educate yourself and stop listening to Greg.
1
At low altitude the P-47 would have stood zero chance against a contemporary Spitfire IX.
1
@petesheppard1709 🙄
1
@yes_head …and a conspiracy theory or two. Greg’s videos are good but should be taken with a pinch of salt. The problem is that a lot of his assumptions are based on rose-tinted optimism, rather than combat reality. I have had the conversations with him directly. His claims about the R2800s power output are based on some pretty shaky foundations. In one video he says something like, ‘Let’s assume the manifold pressure was XX inches of mercury*, because there’s no reason it couldn’t have been and if the crew chief was any good…’. Greg is a pilot by profession but that is poor history. History is not decided by optimistic assumptions. History is a record of what happened. What Greg also doesn’t address is that in any other tactical scenario, the P-47 would have struggled because, even with the addition of the paddle prop, it was still out-climbed by any contemporary fighter, allied or axis. But since it was almost always operated in situations where the allies either had the advantage of altitude or air superiority, the picture is somewhat distorted. *inches of mercury might be useful to a pilot (and I used to fly myself in a private capacity) but it is the most nonsensical measure ever invented.. I can even understand PSI, though bar or atmospheres are better.
1
@WisGuy4 Life would be pretty boring if people didn’t challenge the internet stereotypes.
1
@johnshepherd9676 ”He has feelz.” Oh, you’re one of those. Sorry, I didn’t realize.
1
@johnshepherd9676 ”the more durable your aircraft the better the chance of survival.” Another way of saying the same thing he said.
1
@johnshepherd9676 ”Try again.” I’m not interested in validating your existence for you. You really are one of those.
1
Those are almost entirely propaganda.
1
@ewhartiii It came from a life magazine article about operations in North Africa and the Mediterranean. Apparently it was from the rankings of a clearly traumatised German prisoner who was brought within earshot of the reporter. There doesn’t seem to be any other anecdotal example.
1
I believe that was mainly propaganda, like ‘forked-tailed devil’.
1