P38 vs P47

>>33298961
Both are good, id prefer the p38 but the p47 is very close

File: 1484459208071.jpg (350KB, 2194x1055px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 2194x1055px

>>33298961
p38 because aesthetics.

>>33298961
P-47. P-38 is nice but loses due to excessive manufacturing complexity

Give me two of each and I will perform science on them.

in combat? both have their uses and are situationally better than the other.

purely as a flying machine, P-38 all the way. Also it's fucking gorgeous

>>33298961
Better for what? Ground attack? Air superiority? Long-range bomber escort? Multirole?

>>33299071
Multirole.

>>33299122
Probably P47 just for the reliability and per hour cost. Plus the thing's a fucking tank. But damn, them aesthetics.

I like the P38. All those brownings wrapped around a 20mm cannon? It must have hit like a hammer with that concentration of fire.

>>33298961
Depends on theater.

P38 had no competition in Asia. Nothing could fly fast enough to chase it, or escape from it. Different story in Europe.
Meanwhile the P47 never died and could just do whatever the pilot wanted. Honestly a better version of the P-51, but not as pretty so it didn't get the reputation.

I will argue that F6F was the most important non-bomber of the war however.

>>33299269
CADILLAC OF THE SKIES WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEW

File: Galileo, (Galileo), Galileo, (Galileo), Galileo, Figaro, Magnifico-o-o-o-o-o.png (694KB, 1189x654px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 1189x654px

>>33298961
They performed different roles to be frank.

P47 was a fighter-bomber, P-38 was a heavy fighter. That said, P47 likely better as a multi-role aircraft while P-38 would serve as a good interceptor.

File: Zergyeah.png (1MB, 799x1497px)

1MB, 799x1497px

>>33299269

File: 60da038583b81a494b62e5f04d8607bb.jpg (542KB, 1000x1479px)

542KB, 1000x1479px

>lets stick the largest turbocharger installation we can into a fighter

and the madmen actually did it

File: 0F0sFDl.jpg (92KB, 960x720px)

92KB, 960x720px

>>33299455
Power loss at altitude? What's that?

>Also the P47 makes me hard as diamonds.

File: 9b12c0483fd590f64242b6c93ca88af5.jpg (51KB, 654x417px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 654x417px

>>33299269

>>33299429
>They performed different roles to be frank.

They literally performed all the same roles. The P-38 was not a 'heavy fighter' like a Bf110 was, it literally performed the same purpose as the P47 and P51.

Honestly I wish the discussion of air combat was banned on /k/, you guys know so little about it it's pathetic

File: Northrop_P-61_green_airborne.jpg (708KB, 3144x2400px)

708KB, 3144x2400px

>>33299486
Why have only one R-2800 when you can have 2?

File: 1488879246650.jpg (127KB, 1200x941px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1200x941px

>>33299560

why have a r-2800 at all

>>33299630
Why have 8 .50 Cals when you can have a choice between 12 .50 Cals or 6 37mm cannons?

>>33299555
>P-47
>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
>800 mi range
>fuck all heavy
>can take a beating
>flies relatively well high air altitude

>P-38
>1× Hispano M2(C) 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds, 4× M2 Browning machine gun 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns, and various hard points for a multitude of armaments
>1300 mi range
>good climb rate and flight speed
>can perform recon fairly well
>great nightfighter
>vulnerable to enemy fire
>similarly good air altitude

Though they weren't mutually exlcusive in their roles, there are some things a P-38 can do better than a P-47 and likewise.

Also
>complaining about lack of knowledge and wanting to ban discussion of weapon related technology
>on /k/, no less 4chan

Do you understand where you are?

File: 1488329879995[1].jpg (203KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1920x1080px

a e s t h e t i c s
are not even close
In person the P-47 is fuarking HUGE and tubby looking.
From everything I have read the P-38 was a very good mid to high altitude fighter. It was complicated to fly well but its limits were way up there.

File: ultrabolt.jpg (24KB, 686x217px)

24KB, 686x217px

>>33299661

And why have a turbocharger/intercooler system with lots of ducts when you can have a 5ft diameter remote supercharger driven my liquid couplings

fuck you all

>>33299853
Can't handle your no-altitude, FW-190 babby?

File: Fw190 V18 U1 Kangaroo.jpg (74KB, 880x553px)

74KB, 880x553px

>>33299853

t. naziboo

sorry germany didnt have the alloys or expertise to produce aircraft with turbochargers

File: Girls.png (490KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 449x401px

>>33299853
>>33299866
>>33299872

>>33299853
Friendly reminder that Nazi armor stopped mattering once the Soviets (of all people) got their hands on 37mm cannons and could blast their over-engineered planes out of the sky.

File: 1486180671451.jpg (10KB, 300x235px)

10KB, 300x235px

The jug by far

>>33299759
The p-38 climbed at over 4500 feet per minute clean. Around ten years ago Lockheed went through and corrected a lot of the performance data that was available.

While it had fewer guns it did have them better located and the maximum firing range was a lot better and easier to aim.

>>33299759
You only went and proved his point.

>>33298961
Why don't we use twin booms still? They're sexy

>>33300952
You're not very bright, are you?
OV-10 and the C-119.

Scout aircraft have been unneeded for a long time, and there's no reason to use twin booms on a cargo plane since it means you've shortened the fuselage. They serve no useful purpose. Why would we still use them?

File: Northrop-Grumman Firebird.jpg (26KB, 500x307px)

26KB, 500x307px

>>33300952
>we
Who is "we?"

P-38 was a big ol' piece of shit that could bully Zeroes and Hayabusas but not much outside of that.
P-47 wasn't too bad. A heavy piece of shit but a very fast one at that. And one that could absorb a lot of fire and drop a lot of bombs.
Is my opinion controversial enough yet? Oh yeah and they both look like complete dogshit.

File: 1467010564253.jpg (55KB, 957x621px)

55KB, 957x621px

>>33301058
Git!

File: B-17 bombdrop.jpg (115KB, 1800x1229px)

115KB, 1800x1229px

>>33298961
I'm really conflicted about this. On the one hand, the P-38 had the performance advantage in just about every respect except roll rate and dive speed. On the other hand, the P-47 has every practical advantage and I know that's really more important.

>>33299455
>>33299486
P-38 had TWO of those, though. and one of the highest service ceilings of any aircraft of the war.

>>33299630
Because the R2800 was God-tier.

>>33299866
FWIW the Ta-152 DID manage to take a Fw 190 airframe to (and even above) turbo-tier altitudes using a funky 3-speed supercharger and lots of water injection.

>>33299872
>Builds first axial-flow turbojets
>But somehow lacks the materials and expertise to make turbos
Yeah, not buying it. More like they just had different priorities.
>USAAC
>Focused on strategic heavy bombers which have lots of extra space in nacelles for all kinds of junk
>Develop turbos to occupy that space and give unparalleled altitude performance to said bombers
>Neglect to develop 2-speed superchargers because who needs that pussy shit when you have turbos
>Also shoehorn turbos into some fighters (P-43, P-38, P-39, P-47) with limited success
>End up relying on seriously-underperforming non-turbo, 1-stage supercharged fighters instead since turbos and fighters are not such an easy combo
>EVENTUALLY build a fighter with a healthy balance of cost, complexity and performance using a British engine and 2-stage supercharger

>Luftwaffe
>Obsessed with dive-bombing and light tactical bombers and fighters
>Nothing you're trying to build has much space for turbos
>Stick with compact, tidy but somewhat lesser-performing 2-stage superchargers from the outset
>Not the most beastly solution but it gets the job done (only not really because lolnoheavybombers)

>>33300966
>C-119 which has been retired
>OV-10 which has been retired by everyone that matters
>Still

Why would you use them as examples when things like the Ahrlac, Blackjack and Firebird exist and are actually relevant?

>>33300952
To answer your question we do still use them but the reason they're rare is mostly because engineering capabilities got better. You use/d them for 3 reasons.

1) Design reasons - the C-119 used it because it optimized available cargo space and ease of loading while staying in its "weight class" so to speak.

Scout planes like the Fw 189 to give a wider view for the observer

Booms made these convenient, but you paid for it with a less structurally sound fuselage that was more likely to flutter. Human optical observers are mostly irrelevant with digital cameras and other recording gear and there are other alternatives for cargo like hinged noses that are now reliable and/or relatively cheap to manufacture. Other solutions were found and the trade off was no longer needed.

2) Space concerns for the overall length or size of the aircraft wanted. You want to use two engines, but also want to minimize overall area.This was mostly outmoded by the fact it was no longer advantageous to use two engines.

Jet aircraft were more agile and faster, and individual engines got more powerful. Now even when you do want to use twin engines, they usually aren't as hugely long with the turbochargers that the P-38 had that necessitated the twin fuselage.

3) Lastly, and the only one that's really relevant now is when you want to a pusher prop. This is 99% of the reasons modern twin booms exist. Pushers give you advantages like easier sensor configurations, especially important on UAVs, safer cockpits on small aircraft due to fuel flow/likely forms of failure/etc, and theres also some variable advantages in dwell time.

Most of the niches they used to fill have been filled by other designs as capabilities improved, but some do still exist.

>>33301153
>lolnoheavybombers
Does the He 177 suddenly not count now?

>>33301205
>barely over a 1000 built
no, not really.

>>33301205
fitted with dive breaks and determined unusable for TRANSPORT. No, it doesn't.