"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War " (2 Viewers)

[Clayton Magnet]

That this Greg is a pilot is nice, so are many here, I was too at one time, that does NOT make me an expert on everything aero related

Agreed. I have worked in aviation for some 25 years now, and it has been my experience that pilots are often some of the LAST people you want explaining anything about their aircraft.
Anecdotal story, so it isn't worth anything, but I once watched an instructor pilot pre-flight and accept an aircraft that had its one and only propeller removed for maintenance. He was trained to look at all the specific things on a walk around, but obviously didn't really know what he was looking at. He was quite embarrassed, and rightfully so, when he realized why the journey log was in the maintenance office.

I am not trying to rag on pilots, as I am one myself, and this "Greg" seems to have an unusually high understanding of technical aspects, but ill defer to the actual experts in their respective fields for specifics.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed. I have worked in aviation for some 25 years now, and it has been my experience that pilots are often some of the LAST people you want explaining anything about their aircraft.
Anecdotal story, so it isn't worth anything, but I once watched an instructor pilot pre-flight and accept an aircraft that had its one and only propeller removed for maintenance. He was trained to look at all the specific things on a walk around, but obviously didn't really know what he was looking at. He was quite embarrassed, and rightfully so, when he realized why the journey log was in the maintenance office.

I am not trying to rag on pilots, as I am one myself, and this "Greg" seems to have an unusually high understanding of technical aspects, but ill defer to the actual experts in their respective fields for specifics.

That's why in the Army, we crew chiefs did the pre-flight. We left the panels and doors open. The pilots came behind, looked at their specific things, and closed them up. Then we all got in flew away.

 

[GrauGeist]

Uh, speak for yourself. I'm a Piper Cherokee pilot, that makes me an expert P-47 and P-51 Ace. In fact I could tangle with @BiffF15 in an Eagle. In fact I might head down to the ramp, get in one, put a Twisted Sister tape in the cassette deck and show Doug Masters how its done.



I'll show myself the door now.

I wish we still had my family's Cherokee, because: challenge accepted!

(except White Zombie would be in the deck)

 

[Deleted member 68059]

I really don't think you understand how this all works.

Just because someone has XXX viewers of his videos does not make him an expert. Because he talks with authority and sounds like he knows the material inside and out does not mean he does.

Some terms you might familiarize yourself with before throwing shade on some of the denizens here:

Peer Review
Source Documents
Actual Aero Related Studies/Degrees
Industry Related Experience and/or Military Experience Related to a Specific Field
Source Documents
Peer Review

I put those last two in again because the people you are arguing with, specifically D Deleted member 68059 and drgondog (Just to name two (2)) are experts in their respective disciplines. Why are they considered experts (and not just by us here)? See above.

You're not conversing with armchair experts here, these fellows have done the research of digging out facts to support whatever statement they choose to give. They have done the actual (hard) work it takes to make true written statements that can stand any light shone on them and still stand up as true.

That this Greg is a pilot is nice, so are many here, I was too at one time, that does NOT make me an expert on everything aero related. Far from it and I can point to an actual spot on the ground as my bona fides that attest to that fact.

Pardon the verbose response, I have a tendency to chunter on and it's a bad habit of mine. Apologies.

But dude you're arguing with the wrong people on the wrong subject in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Much as I like a compliment, I think we should be clear here that the reason for the genial disagreement is simply that the overwhelming weight of primary archival evidence simply does not support the central assertion made in the video.

 

[33k in the air]

In fact I could tangle with @BiffF15 in an Eagle.

This type of Eagle?

 

[drgondog]

Agreed. I have worked in aviation for some 25 years now, and it has been my experience that pilots are often some of the LAST people you want explaining anything about their aircraft.
Anecdotal story, so it isn't worth anything, but I once watched an instructor pilot pre-flight and accept an aircraft that had its one and only propeller removed for maintenance. He was trained to look at all the specific things on a walk around, but obviously didn't really know what he was looking at. He was quite embarrassed, and rightfully so, when he realized why the journey log was in the maintenance office.

I am not trying to rag on pilots, as I am one myself, and this "Greg" seems to have an unusually high understanding of technical aspects, but ill defer to the actual experts in their respective fields for specifics.

At the risk of being contradictary, I believe Greg has absorbed a great deal of technical knowledge. I have taken him to task on several specifics that relate more to him not fully understanding all that he reads. I'm not the sharpest blade in the drawer, but in the 60's the 'powers that be' had not stooped to equity based degrees in Engineering, less so for MS. Greg doesn't present that level of knowledge in his dissertation despite having the Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators

At Ga.Tech and Univ.Texas many engineering Freshman student engineering majors became accounting majors when Calculus and Physics and Statics and Dynamics weeded them out the first two years.

A specific that I didn't touch on for Gregs P-80 vs Me 262 discussion - was that he went to excruciating and pedantic list of assumptions to extract guesses about how glide characterisitics of P-80 to extrapolate Drag vs V charts, even fooled around with Power (including piston engine) analogies to Jet to somehow conflate THP to static thrust of Jet engine. All he needed were contained in the 1946 Flight Test Reports of the P-80-

Had he looked into the attached reports from Mike Williams' Spitfire Perfromance.org - on the 1946 Flight tests, the tables recording GW, altitudes, Speed in TAS, g/hr, mi/g, flight time and distance - he had the V cruise and V endurance handed to him. The associated engine performance charts of static thrust to turbine RPM, of Velocity as function of RPM (and noted in tables), are given. The Stall Speed (Clean) is given for easy calc of practical CLmax. The top Speed is given to point to lowest CL attainable - aside from wind tunnel.

In the Tables, the Speed for max cruise is right there. the Speed for max endurnance is right there - both for specific altitudes and engine rpm. The Speed for stall is right there in the report. Given the table Speeds, engine Rpm and altitudes, the THrust is obtainable from from T vs RPM, and cross checked by V vs RPM.

The One thing he has to look up is a wiki summary on Wing Span and Wing area. Aspect Ratio is AR = Area/span or Area/MAC: With that and CL you have all that you need to know to build a CDt vs Speed, CDt vs T, CDi vs Speed, CDp vs Speed; T vs Speed, for a.) V at low speed stall, b.) V at Vendurance c.) V at Vcruise and d.)V at Vmax - for any altitude,

Ditto for his P-47 presentation save his lack of engineering was not as flawed as his lack of understanding of a.) How and under which assumptions were Combat Radius Tables were developed at Wright Field, b.) How operational practices developed for VIII FC evolved to 'slightly' modify assumptions for planning, and c.) how that translated to specific mission tactics and parameter adjustments.

In addition to the scenarios fro flawed understanding of CR, the other MAJOR factors were a.) Weather and b.) Winds aloft throughout the mission profile. With a 90 kt headwind, book CR 'will suffer',

But the worst offense (for me) was his complete blank regarding American Military Aviation history prior to, and through December 7, 1941 which launched into high gear initiatives that led to Long Range Escort delivery. I devoted a lot of ink to that subject in my last book, particularly a deep dive on "Bomber Mafia", "Not Invented in US" themes that may have existed - The latter I found some substance for at Wright Field.

 

[pbehn]

In addition to the scenarios fro flawed understanding of CR, the other MAJOR factors were a.) Weather and b.) Winds aloft throughout the mission profile. With a 90 kt headwind, book CR 'will suffer',

I have read about US formations being slowed to 120MPH by strong head winds which screws up everything including the bomb sight. On what is known as Battle of Britain day 15 Sept 1940 when Goering launched his attacks on London the RAF got huge assistance from the headwinds the L/W bombers were flying into. The Bf 110s had to lower flaps to stay with the bombers leaving them more vulnerable than the bombers. Not only did planes run out of fuel earlier because of the slow progress timing for the later waves was so screwed up that Bf109s supposed to take over had to return before they had anything to escort. In the first raid, bombers found themselves under attack without scort and dropped their bombs on Croydon, which is precisely 90 miles from Calais. It was not in any way a long range deep penetration raid but it was completely screwed by winds. I dont expect a member of the public in USA or UK to know this, but a historian who doesnt, isnt any type of aviation historian. But then, does an actual pilot have to be told about the effect of headwinds on an aircraft?

 

[Deleted member 68059]

I have read about US formations being slowed to 120MPH by strong head winds which screws up everything including the bomb sight. On what is known as Battle of Britain day 15 August 1940 when Goering launched his attacks on London the RAF got huge assistance from the headwinds the L/W bombers were flying into. The Bf 110s had to lower flaps to stay with the bombers leaving them more vulnerable than the bombers. Not only did planes run out of fuel earlier because of the slow progress timing for the later waves was so screwed up that Bf109s supposed to take over had to return before they had anything to escort. In the first raid, bombers found themselves under attack without scort and dropped their bombs on Croydon, which is precisely 90 miles from Calais. It was not in any way a long range deep penetration raid but it was completely screwed by winds. I dont expect a member of the public in USA or UK to know this, but a historian who doesnt, isnt any type of aviation historian. But then, does an actual pilot have to be told about the effect of headwinds on an aircraft?

All this points to the necessity of either sticking to a very narrow remit with your own videos, or doing collaborations to make sure all the things you missed are considered. Nobody knows it all (except the physicist Pauli, who is famous for astonishing insults of anyone he considered in any way inadequate, about whom the following anecdote was published.)

"Pauli was a brilliant lecturer if he prepared his address. Once,
when I invited him to address our colloquium in Princeton, he did
not. The audience became restless and, feeling somewhat respon-
sible for the event, I wanted to help out. He did not define the
mathematical symbols he used and I thought that if he explained
them, it would help us to understand what he was trying to
present.

'Pauli,' I said, 'could you tell us again what your small a stands
for ?' (The 'again' was sheer politeness; he had not in fact defined

Pauli was flabbergasted by my question and stood there speech-
less for a few seconds. However, he recovered.

'Wigner,' he said, 'you just have to know everything.' The
audience did not laugh."

 

[Peter Gunn]

Uh, speak for yourself. I'm a Piper Cherokee pilot, that makes me an expert P-47 and P-51 Ace. In fact I could tangle with @BiffF15 in an Eagle. In fact I might head down to the ramp, get in one, put a Twisted Sister tape in the cassette deck and show Doug Masters how its done.



I'll show myself the door now.

Oh yeah? Well chum, I can ace that, I actually played groundhog with a Cessna so give me a P-39...
the one with the engine behind...
and with Steppin' Wolf blarin', my Airacobra and I will wax your fanny but good.

 

[buffnut453]

I will wax your fanny but good.

I just don't want to know. REALLY....I DON'T WANT TO KNOW!!!

 

[Peter Gunn]

I just don't want to know. REALLY....I DON'T WANT TO KNOW!!!

Actually, I got that from Yeager's autobiography, a term used for mock combat.

Why? What did you THINK I meant...

 

[buffnut453]

Actually, I got that from Yeager's autobiography, a term used for mock combat.

Why? What did you THINK I meant...

I expect there are multiple possible interpretations depending on whether you understand American-English, British-English, Australian-English, or Canadian-English...and those for whom English is a second language adds even more options.

I'll retreat back into my hovel and ponder the runes some more.

 

[Shortround6]

Actually, I got that from Yeager's autobiography, a term used for mock combat.

Somehow I tend to doubt that is what Yeager actually said.

Books at the time used cleaned up language.

 

[pbehn]

There was a UK TV cook called Fanny Craddock who taught cookery on TV with her husband. One day on a programme about mince pies Mr Craddock famously said "I hope all your mince pies turn out like Fanny's"

 

[drgondog]

Somehow I tend to doubt that is what Yeager actually said.

Books at the time used cleaned up language.

Actually, probably verbatim. Dad used that phrase fequently when describing 'emerge victorious from the sporting contest' It was common fighter pilot phrase when I was growing up.

I, in turn, would vocalize in the following was when my father got overly confident competing with me in golf or shooting - "I will kick your ass". He was an excellent shot - I don't recall him shooting less than a 23 in low gun skeet, but equally, not many 25s. I was AA early in life at skeet and trap.

 

[GrauGeist]

Actually, I got that from Yeager's autobiography, a term used for mock combat.

Why? What did you THINK I meant...

Well, across the pond, I believe the term "fanny" translates to girl parts that are directly opposite of the rear-end, as we yanks are accustomed to.

So, basically, in Jolly Olde England, that phrase could be interpreted as a Brazilian Wax Job...

 

[pbehn]

Well, across the pond, I believe the term "fanny" translates to girl parts that are directly opposite of the rear-end, as we yanks are accustomed to.

So, basically, in Jolly Olde England, that phrase could be interpreted as a Brazilian Wax Job...

Which is why no one wants their mince pies to turn out like Fanny's.

 

[z42]

Well, across the pond, I believe the term "fanny" translates to girl parts that are directly opposite of the rear-end, as we yanks are accustomed to.

Directly opposite to the rear-end - we're talking about the forehead then?

 

[GrauGeist]

Directly opposite to the rear-end - we're talking about the forehead then?

Depends on whether they're standing or laying down, I suppose...

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I just don't want to know. REALLY....I DON'T WANT TO KNOW!!!

I believe that is a common expression in the Brazilian AF