P-47 Thunderbolt ideas.

[tomo pauk]

DoubleThud - since we don't want to wait for 1945 to have 450mph bird, having proper combat range in the same time
Sure enough, P-61 & A-26 have strong competition now.

[Pablo1965]

The XP-72 looks like a way to mount a turbojet on a P-47.  (in the fat belly)

It isn't a turbojet but have a turbine.....


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Daryl J.]

More features of the P-43 Lancer were retained.  Pointy tail, shorter fuselage, F6F prop, 6 guns rather than 8 or 4 cannons from the Hawker Typhoon.   

[Pablo1965]

Or twin seat, with night radar and 45º canon. 

[kitbasher]

An P-47 with F4U wings would rock...

Something like this maybe?

....or this?

(see also http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,17867.msg251631.html#msg251631 and http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,18916.msg266668.html#msg266668)

[Zaskar24]

Just like that.  Thank you for the links as well!   

[NARSES2]

I'd completely forgotten the "Stukabolt" - nice to see old friends again 

[famvburg]

   Um, WHAT tip tanks on an F4U? F4Us only had one tank unless they  carried drop tanks........

An P-47 with F4U wings would rock...

Something like this maybe?


The biggest disadvantages would be the loss of a .50 Cal per wing as well as some range unless the tip tanks of the F4U wings were made self sealing and non-folding.  I would yhink that the F4U wing would help with prop clearance on take off and landing though with the bigger late war ones used on the P-47.

[Pablo1965]

Hey, what about a pull and push with twin fuselage.

[Zaskar24]

   Um, WHAT tip tanks on an F4U? F4Us only had one tank unless they  carried drop tanks........

I believe that earlier versions of the F4U had tanks towards the wing tips that were used just for ferrying since they were non-sealing.  I would have to look it up but I am pretty sure that I read it somewhere.

[famvburg]

       True, the very early & I'm not sure when they stopped, had leading edge tanks in the outer wings, but they weren't tip tanks, tho IIRC, at least one, a -4 I think, tested tip tanks. I do know that most if not all production Corsairs had only the fuselage tank.

   Um, WHAT tip tanks on an F4U? F4Us only had one tank unless they  carried drop tanks........

I believe that earlier versions of the F4U had tanks towards the wing tips that were used just for ferrying since they were non-sealing.  I would have to look it up but I am pretty sure that I read it somewhere.

[tahsin]

After decades of denial, P-47 finally makes it to Korea... Must be true, because with all those books on type history it would be outright silly to make it up. One readily imagines Ns on cold weather testing flying themselves in via Alaska because ground attack would be where they shine even if l don't know how they would outperform the paper specs of the F-82.
(Scroll down all the way to the bottom.)

[rickshaw]

After decades of denial, P-47 finally makes it to Korea... Must be true, because with all those books on type history it would be outright silly to make it up. One readily imagines Ns on cold weather testing flying themselves in via Alaska because ground attack would be where they shine even if l don't know how they would outperform the paper specs of the F-82.
(Scroll down all the way to the bottom.)

Considering it makes claims about "British-Australian landings" in Burma I rather think it is bullshitting about the P-47 in Korea as well...   

[NARSES2]

After decades of denial, P-47 finally makes it to Korea... Must be true, because with all those books on type history it would be outright silly to make it up. One readily imagines Ns on cold weather testing flying themselves in via Alaska because ground attack would be where they shine even if l don't know how they would outperform the paper specs of the F-82.
(Scroll down all the way to the bottom.)

Considering it makes claims about "British-Australian landings" in Burma I rather think it is bullshitting about the P-47 in Korea as well...   

Beat me to it Brian, although I am currently building a Korean War P.47

[jcf]

Ah, yes WarBlunder, one of many craptastic history blogs that clog up da interwebs.
I regularly see crap from these sources posted in some of the various Facebook groups
I've joined.
Those of us who laugh and point out the BS are often jumped on by folks who evidently have
some need to believe the source, especially if it fits their pre-conveived notions or repeats long
discredited myths to which they cling. it can be hilarious.