Just how big is the P-47

[Thorlifter]

Pretty cool comparison chart, I thought.

 

[Torch]

Wow she is a big one,great chart.

 

[fubar57]

Never thought it was that much bigger than the 190.

Geo

 

[stona]

I'd like to see it compared with a Typhoon/Tempest. I don't reckon there'd be much in it.

German single seaters were notoriously small. The Luftwaffe even developed a flying suit specifically for them, the 'Kombination, Winter, fur Flugzeug mit beschranken Raumverhaltnissen' (abbreviated as KW FL bR/40).

Cheers

Steve

 

[GregP]

We have one of each to the Planes of Fame but I've never seen them parked together before. It does, however, drarf anything it is parked next to except the P-38 and the B-25.

 

[Greyman]

I'd like to see it compared with a Typhoon/Tempest. I don't reckon there'd be much in it.

 

[vikingBerserker]

What a hoss!

 

[davebender]

Check out B-36 at USAF Museum. That thing is a monster. XB-70 is pretty big also.

 

[stona]

Wingspan: Typhoon 41' 7" P-47 D 40' 10" Tempest V 41' 0"

Length : Typhoon 31' 11" P-47 D 34' 10" Tempest V 33' 8"

Height : Typhoon 15'3" P-47 D 15' 7" Tempest V 16' 1"

Data from Mason (Typhoon/Tempest) and Dean's 'America's Hundred-Thousand' (P-47 D).

I'd check the scale on that super imposition. No doubt nonetheless that the P-47 was a BIG beast

Cheers

Steve

It also makes you wonder which of these two (if either) is the more accurately scaled.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

According to Wikipedia:

Vs. the Hellcat?

Length F6F-5: 33' 7" vs P-47D: 36' 1"
Wing Span: F6F-5: 42' 10" vs P-47D: 40' 9"
Height: F6F-5: 13' 1" vs P-47D: 14' 8"
Wing Area: F6F-5: 334 ft^2 vs P-47D: 300 ft^2
Max T/O Weight: F6F-5: 15,415 lbs vs P-47D: 17,500 lbs

AHT provides a P-47D length that is in accord with Steve's value. 34' 10"

 

[GrauGeist]

The P-47 was a beast, no doubt but the Tiffy was a big girl, too...

 

[rogerwilko]

I've always loved that Tiffy's Clutch Cargo chin!

 

[Elvis]

...another way to look at it...

General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 36 ft 1 in (11.00 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 9 in (12.42 m)
Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)
Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²)
Empty weight: 10,000 lb (4,535 kg)
Loaded weight: 13,300 lb (6,032 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 17,500 lb (7,938 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt Whitney R-2800-59 twin-row radial engine, 2,535 hp (1,890 kW)

Performance
Maximum speed: 433 mph at 30,000 ft (697 km/h at 9,145 m)
Range: 800 mi combat, 1,800 mi ferry (1,290 km / 2,900 km)
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 3,120 ft/min (15.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.33 lb/ft² ()
Power/mass: 0.19 hp/lb (238 W/kg)

Armament

8 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns (3400 rounds)
Up to 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of bombs
10 × 5 in (127 mm) unguided rockets

General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 38 ft 10 in (11.84 m)
Wingspan: 50 ft 0¼ in (15.25 m)
Height: 15 ft 8¼ in (4.78 m)
Wing area: 400.3 ft² (37.19 m²)
Empty weight: 11,968 lb (5,429 kg)
Loaded weight: 18,106 lb (8,213 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 25,000 lb (11,340 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-3350-26WA radial engine, 2,700 hp (2,000 kW)

Performance
Maximum speed: 322 mph (280 kn, 518 km/h) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m)
Cruise speed: 198 mph (172 kn, 319 km/h)
Range: 1,316 mi (1,144 nmi, 2,115 km)
Service ceiling: 28,500 ft (8,685 m)
Rate of climb: 2,850 ft/min (14.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 45 lb/ft² (220 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.15 hp/lb (250 W/kg)

Armament

Guns: 4 × 20 mm (0.79 in) M2 cannon
Other: Up to 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) of ordnance on 15 external hardpoints including bombs, torpedoes, mine dispensers, unguided rockets, and gun pod.

Suprisingly similar in size, but definitely built for two different purposes.



Elvis

 

[GregP]

Hey Stona,

Isn't that pic a Tempest and P-47? Looks like Tempest with a mighty, if fast turning, Sabre ...

 

[stona]

Hey Stona,

Isn't that pic a Tempest and P-47? Looks like Tempest with a mighty, if fast turning, Sabre ...

Yep. It's Hasegawa's 1/32 P-47 and PCM's 1/32 Tempest V. Dragged out of my display cabinet for a moment in the sun...or on my work bench

Obviously comparing models is not the same as comparing the real thing as I don't know how accurately scaled the two are. I doubt that either is miles out though.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Top views would be real interesting, as would adding the F6F and/or F4U

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I was thinking the same…

vs. the Corsair according to AHT:

Length F4U-4: 33' 8" vs P-47D: 34' 10"
Wing Span: F4U-4: 40' 11.7" vs P-47D: 40' 9"
Height: F4U-4: 15' 1.25" vs P-47D: 14' 8"
Wing Area: F4U: 314 ft^2 vs P-47D: 300 ft^2
Max T/O Weight: F4U: 14,670 lbs vs P-47D: 17,500 lbs

 

[Thorlifter]

So let me ask this question. WHY was the P-47 so large? I mean it had the same engine as the F4U and F6F, and while those planes are very similar it length, height, and wingspan, the Jug was heavier and had a much larger body. Was it for ruggedness? Was it to carry a larger payload? Was it to support the 8 x .50's?

 

[GregP]

The turbocharger is located behind the cockpit and the deep belly is all ducting to get the exhaust and fresh air toithe turbo and the compressed air back to the carburetor. The bottom 1/3 of the fuselage is pure ducting. Maybe that has something to do with the size.

The P-47N was a formidable opponent with heavy armamaent, high speed, and high altitude capabiilities.

 

[Shortround6]

So let me ask this question. WHY was the P-47 so large? I mean it had the same engine as the F4U and F6F, and while those planes are very similar it length, height, and wingspan, the Jug was heavier and had a much larger body. Was it for ruggedness? Was it to carry a larger payload? Was it to support the 8 x .50's?

As Greg has said it is to house the ducting for the turbo charger in part. It was to carry the extra pair of .50 cal guns (and ammo, 425rpg is over 250lbs for two guns) and in part the fuel. Early P-47s carried 55 gallons more than an F6F inside the plane.

Leaving external loads aside the P-47 was designed to carry a heavier war load at a higher altitude than the Navy planes.

Size of the airplane is determined by the initial engine, prop, useful load (weapons/fuel) and field characteristics. What they could cram in later with longer runways, 20-40% more power and better props had very little to do with the size of the airframe as designed.