P-47 size comparison. (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Airframes

Benevolens Magister
62,349
11,466
Aug 24, 2008
Cheshire, UK
Whilst researching for the current Group Build in the modelling section, I came across this size comparison chart in the book "Thunderbolt, a documentary history of the Republic P-47", by Roger Freeman, which I thought might be of general interest. (apologies for the distortion, I had to photograph the page, as the book wouldn't fit on the scanner without damaging the spine).
We all know that the P-47 was a large aircraft, but this shows it wasn't just big, it was huge !
Note in particular its size compared to the Bf-109G.


P-47 build 2 183.JPG
 
The F4U was pretty close (width/length) to the P-47.
Both wingspan were 41 feet, the P-47 being three feet longer at 36 feet.
The Thunderbolt's fuselage was larger, though.

The P-47 is a BIG airplane...

Edited ( I think ) on Graugeist's suggestion, to remove a photo.
 
Last edited:
The Jug certainly is large, no doubt, but you might want to edit that photo before the Mods see it.

Boobs must be covered - forum rule.
Sorry about that -- I'm pretty new here, and don't know how to edit yet. I thought she was a pretty good size comparison.

Sisu
 
We all know that the P-47 was a large aircraft, but this shows it wasn't just big, it was huge !
Note in particular its size compared to the Bf-109G.
Making a fighter around a 2000 HP engine + turbo system as big as that engine, plenty of fuel, 8 heavy guns and their heavy ammo is a far cry vs. making a fighter starting with a 600 HP engine, tiny amount of fuel, two light guns and their light ammo :)
 
Was aircraft volume an engineering specification? or any part of the aircraft besides the engine and tanks for fuel, lubricants, hydraulics, oxygen, nitrous, alcohol/water ADI, etc etc? I thought fuselage volume would be known, but I have never seen it referred to.
 
Was aircraft volume an engineering specification? or any part of the aircraft besides the engine and tanks for fuel, lubricants, hydraulics, oxygen, nitrous, alcohol/water ADI, etc etc? I thought fuselage volume would be known, but I have never seen it referred to.
The volume was always intended to be calculated to be as small as practical, taking into account for nessecary items (as you mentioned) plus radio equipment and other items.

The P-47's fuselage was much larger than other fighters because it had to accommodate the remote turbo system that was located behind the cockpit.
 
The volume was always intended to be calculated to be as small as practical, taking into account for nessecary items (as you mentioned) plus radio equipment and other items.

The P-47's fuselage was much larger than other fighters because it had to accommodate the remote turbo system that was located behind the cockpit.
Thank you GrauGeist. My question is: Was aircraft volume a known statistic for an aircraft? I understand the imperative of making the aircraft as small as possible and as light as possible and the conflict of those imperatives with the bulk, center of gravity constraints and ducting of the turbosupercharger that caused the bulbous look of the P-47. Is it raining a lot in Redding? It started to rain lightly here around 6pm.
 
Thank you GrauGeist. My question is: Was aircraft volume a known statistic for an aircraft? I understand the imperative of making the aircraft as small as possible and as light as possible and the conflict of those imperatives with the bulk, center of gravity constraints and ducting of the turbosupercharger that caused the bulbous look of the P-47. Is it raining a lot in Redding? It started to rain lightly here around 6pm.
I've not seen total volume referred to, wetted area and cross-sectional area are though which obviously impact on volume.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back