The P-47 was absolutely designed as a dogfighter. Why else would you put so much effort into installing a complex turbo-supercharger, which is especially good for extreme altitudes, instead of the simpler and easier mechanically-driven compressor? It was just good fortune for the allies that the heavy armor and massive firepower that were designed to make the Thunderbolt a relentless dogfighter also made it superlative at low altitude attack missions where its turbo wasn't even needed. BTW, the P-47 shot down more enemy fighters in Europe than the vaunted P-51 Mustang.
The supercharger argument is a bit sus. The supercharger was there for a couple reasons, but mainly it was to provide the necessary altitude advantage over the adversaries for BOOM’N ZOOM attacks. The turn radius is shit, it’s not meant to dogfight. The fact, that the 47 shot down more planes in the war was the fact it flew more missions escorting the bombers, and also that it did strafing runs on airfields. It could also be the fact, that in the 1944-45 the German Air Force was just so depleted, the the mustangs had nothing to shoot at.
That was a fun watch. To be honest Cap, if this had been an hour long I'd have still watched 👀 to the end. Your constant chatter and RC's laid back approach meld really well.
@@grimreapers @Cap: is it viable strategy for the A-10 pilot? ... to just focus on getting much superior altitude & then constantly dive-bomb on the P-47? (if ya miss just use your dive impetuous to climb back into higher altitude safety) I would like to think this strategy is true as I'm a little shocked that the A-10 is losing to the 'ww2 era' plane?? *I'd like to think the A-10 could squash the P-47 with ease if used intelligently
One needs to remember - just for reference, that the (P-47) Thunderbolt was originally designed as a high altitude bomber interceptor - hence the complex turbo-supercharged engine. Its ruggedness is what recommended it for the task of ground attack - but that was not its intended purpose.
14:28 I think that SuperCap forgot that the P-47D was designed for high-altitude air-to-air combat, so the higher Cap took the fight, the better the P-47's performance got...😏😁🤣
I think you’re right. I think the A-10’s high-bypass turbofans give best thrust at low altitude where those fans can get a bite of thicker air. But so, too, can that big prop on the P-47. Another thing, maybe some aerial gunnery practice would be useful for the A-10. So you could get a feel for where the bullets go along that “snake” in the HUD. I wonder if you can set up some “target” AI planes to circle and ignore all threats. Then you could practice some nice easy turns to learn aerial gunnery, no? A target banner tow aircraft in DCS might be fun and useful. One that records every bullet hit so you can review it later…or even in real time in kneeboard view or such.
@@clivedoe9674 12.7 vs 30.... Yeah, they were pea shooters.. Effective or not, still little guys comparatively.. LOL Now, against "infantry".. Yep, the M2 is quite the force multiplier..
Another fun video thanks Cap! The Thunderbolt was a very effective fighter, especially at high altitude. The TH-cam channel Greg’s Planes and Automobiles has some excellent videos on the P-47’s capabilities and he gets into the subject of it’s use as a fighter.
@@Krobear I mean some people call this a living lol. I don't. I am the audience, I have a right to comment on the quality of videos of a content creator
The best trick, it seems, that you can learn in aerial combat is how to stick with the strengths of your plane. The moment you start fighting 'their' fight, you start losing.
Nail-biter! The selection is more clever than what one would think at first. P-47 was an energy fighter but has to resort to turning-fights. A-10 is sluggish but must now become an energy fighter. Very smart of you to come up with this match! I rooted for the P-47 because my uncle flew in one. It was called the F-47 then.
Remember the P-47 had the guns set up at points of convergence so the engagement was at a fixed ranges where two of those weapons crossed and that would be for all four pair, where as the A10 point the nose at what you want to go boom so there was no convergence, Effective firing range 4,000 feet (1,220 m) Maximum firing range Over 12,000 feet (3,660 m)
Americas top Ace of WW2 was a gentleman named Gabby Gabreski who was a P-47 pilot, but by the end of the war it was often used in CAS and attack roles.
The funny thing is that the P-47 had more air-to-air kills than the P-51. The P-51 looks "sexier" and the main reason it was chosen for the long range bomber escort role was that it was more fuel efficient than the P-47. There are videos of interviews with WW2 pilots saying they preferred the P-47.
Of course, the P-47 was in the war a lot longer than the P-51. So looking at the numbers, you have to look at how many enemies were around when each plane was in service.
@@TeargasHorse You should look that up, then. The P-47 started service in November 1942. The P-51 started in January 1942. So it had a 10 month head start.
@@TeargasHorse And the P-51 didn’t enter until the best enemy pilots had already been killed off. Many of the pilots they faced had very little seat time or training after D-day. So there is that. It just chaps me that the Mustang and Corsair get all the glory when the Jugs, Warhawks, Wildcats and Hellcats carried so much of the load when the chips were down. And the real thing to remember is the men who got in them and faced down superior planes and pilots every day.
the p47 is actually a high altitude air interceptor capable of 473 mph. its initial operating range was 35000 feet. it took the ground attack roll because it was nearly indestructible in the ground attack roll, as the mustang was a glass cannon so they swapped rolls towards the end of ww2
As a general remark, do not dive more than you can pull in a turn. SuperCap buried his nose unnecessarily plenty of times which led to excessive speed, bad geometry, and limited options. Also, prop RPM should always be at max in a dogfight. It allows you to run the engine harder without killing it. Lower RPM does not help with cooling as such and leads to detonation when combined with high manifold pressures. Reduce RPM only when diving at a reduced power setting to keep the propeller from driving the engine (other high-speed situations may apply).
The "snake" is SUPER easy, Cap. All you do is get a good pursuit angle, put the bogey in the center of the two lines, when each line touches its respective wingtip on the bogey (Left line on left wingtip, right line on right wingtip), pull the trigger. A half-second burst should be more than enough.
My Opinion on this doffight: While the Jug can out-turn the 'Hog, the 'Hog has speed on it's side and one maneuver that makes it able, under specific conditions, to "out-turn" the Jug - the Immelman. By creating distance through speed, you can perform a half-inside loop in a shorter distance and close on your target faster than trying to out-turn to get on his six. Merge or tail chase, the target's angle of approach makes for an easier kill despite the lack of tracers. At least you can set up a merge easier with an Immelman in a Hog. This reminds me a bit of the 1940 German tank invasion of France Scenario using A-10s... ;^)
Nice! Can't wait for the next one. High altitude would have tilted the odds even more in the P-47's favor. Of course, tracers would have helped the A-10 as well. Pretty cool!
How about a drag race! Get the A-10 and P-47 line abreast at 1000’ and 150 kts, and then lay in full power and see how they perform in a 10-20-mile dash, on the level. Then repeat at 10,000’ and 25,000’.
This video shows how flexible 70+ year old technology really was during WW2. The ability to perform CAP for bombers and also the ability to perform air to ground missions with a single type of airframe is truly remarkable. P47 Thunderbolts earned their nickname (Jug/Juggernaut), the A10 Thunderbolt II certainty represents this rugged depiction, being a worthy successor to the WW2 P47s legacy/lore. Note: More than 15000 P47 Thunderbolts (various models) were produced during the WW2.
Ok, hold on man. Back then the only way to beat other fighters was to turn and shoot better than them. All aircraft were built around that idea. Plus, jet engines massively outclass props, especially nowadays. And let's talk about missiles. Even the A-10 would carry Sidewinders for any scenario that involved it merging with a bandidt. In WW2, they really didn't have time to properly build and make specific combat worthy airframes for a battle that could happen on the next hour, so they worked with what they had. If anything, it shows how good those pilots were to perform multiple tasks with zero computers and assistances. Nowadays a Hornet can escort and perform ground attack too, but the warzone is much different now. Long gone are the days of strafing with machineguns, taking 100 planes to bomb a single airbase. Nowadays it only takes 1 or 2 aircraft to strike a valuable target. Tactics have changed as technology has evolved, and as the WW2 days where the biggest air defense threat was loads of Flak. Today you have SAMs that can single handedly take care of an entire city. And since we're talking about SAMs let's talk about missiles. Aircraft today are built for launching a missile from hundreds of kilometers away while invisible and without the aircraft even knowing it was there, They're built in a very different manner, for flying high, fast and for long periods of time. Yes, dogfights are fun, but it's like putting a ninja blindfolded and handcuffed to fight against against granny. The A-10 is not a dogfighter. It has a benefit of turning well, but it wasn't at all built around it. So it's not much suprise that the Warbirds win when everything has to go their way. But still I have mad respect for the crazy techniques used back then
Yet I've see A-10's practically turn on themselves if doing a hammerhead style turn during some air show. Is there some advantage they have with yaw in differential thrust that's just not being used in this case?
About 20:40, you might have needed the flaps and/or airbrakes to cut the overspeed and tighten the turn. I also noticed you had gun/PAC set - I think A-A is better without the PAC, and might be why you kept missing shots that look like they should hit.
P47 you shouldn't have the cowl open at all, intercooler set to neutral and leave it (aerodynamics), and oil cooler start at neutral and open it if your oil starts to heat up. It didn't appear that you were using water injection, which you have ten minutes of, and boosts your manifold pressure at max power to 72". It seemed your boost lever and throttle lever were linked the whole time, which is fine between 7-15k feet, but at the deck you should move them seperately, more power throttle first, reduce power boost first. It looses almost 400 hp when moving them together at lower alts. Above 20k feet you keep the throttle at max power, and fly with the boost lever making sure not to over rev the turbo. P47 also can use flaps to it's advantage. With water on the 47 isn't easy to overheat...
love you guys.. so much fun... id take 25 mins more of this pls... (you know when you keep trying to move the camera with your head.. but then you remember its not your trackir... immersion lol)
P-47 was a high altitude fighter. At altitude the turbocharger would have an advantage in the jug. The Jug wasn’t thought of as a turn fighter it’s attributes a high roll rate, high speed in a dive, and zoom climb. Plus depending on the prop if equipped with paddle blades a descent rate of climb.
Hi Cap. I was thinking if prop damage is modelled - is there a "hit-box" for the prop. Also could you drop a belly-mounted bomb through the prop in a 90° dive? I know that the Stuka has some kind of mechanism to distance the bomb from the belly while dropping so it clears the prop. Great video and nice to hear RC.
Just spotted dash shot at 10:56, you definitely did NOT have water injection on. You were running at 50 manifold and 2500 RPM at max throttle I think right there, so water on, full RPM you would have had 30% or more power available, and more acceleration because of the higher RPM. I am guessing your approach to the fight kept the A10 in the fight waaaaay longer that you could have, and also the A10 was not fighting to it's advantage of better high speed climb rate.
Perhaps I misheard the video, but the P47 (according to what I could find on-line) carried "eight .50-caliber (12.7 mm) "light-barrel" Browning AN/M2 machine guns, four in each wing." More than enough to poke holes in most aircraft.
I personally would really like to see a Simba vs RC 1 v 1 guns only dogfight. RC, don't take it personally and, Simba, don't take it personally. Nothing against either of you whatsoever. Make it like Mad Max 3 (worst movie of the franchise) Beyond Thunderdome. One man enters. One man leaves. Cortana, I'm very sorry, you're a fantastic pilot and asset to this channel however I can' never forgive your namesake for leaving me to die at the end of Halo 3 that made me rip my XBox out and hurl it up the backyard whilst standing over it like an abusive husband yelling "LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!!!" *Not an abusive husband for the record* nor a husband at all, I'm imagining small, light fighters or maybe even something (is it in DCS yet?) the F20 TigerShark. Great videos all of you. Thanks for you hard work and dedication. Cortana, I;m just joking. You will destroy those two. -TJ
Had a great uncle who flew the P47. My one end goal in life is to find one that is either airworthy, or I can restore to airworthiness. Unfortunately there are far fewer P47s than there are P51s around.
P47 was a great fighter early in the U.S involvement in the European theater in was tasked for escorting B17's until the P51C/D came into service with the USAAF then the P47 because of its ruggedness it was put into the the ground attack role.
A-10 can out last the p47 in the air especially at low alt. Dont turn fight, extend and come in fast. P 47 stays on defence and theres nothing it can do. P 47 didnt win, Lazy A10 with bad gunnary lost the first fight. Immelman is ill advised as it bleeds too much speed which is the killer in this matchup. Slow steady climb and easy turn in to attack. The 47 has no chance if the A-10 has decent gunnary. Dont get into a knife fight when you are packing a thompson-A1.
If you can't turn with them, run, gain altitude and do slashing attacks like the Flying Tigers did. The P40 couldn't turn with the Japanese, so they climbed high, dove down, fired as they went past and kept diving away using their superior speed to outrun the Japanese planes. In this scenario, that's what you should have done with the A-10. Climb high, get positioned, and dive. Pull up using the energy from the dive and climb away again.
Does the DCS P-47 model that you are using have the late-model paddle bladed prop? Those that did could climb on par with a P-51 (about 3100 fpm). Also, the P-47 was designed for 35,000 feet.
@@appa609 Yeah, the Spit will definitely beat a P47 in a turn fight. That's why I never turn fight with them. I try to force the one circle because while I can't turn with the Spit I have good nose authority at all speeds before departing flight. If that goes poorly I can dive away, and try to force my hand again. I'm not a great sim pilot, I just started around 6 months ago, but I've learned the fighter that turns the best isn't necessarily the one that's going to win the fight.
@@appa609 Turn is only one of the factors. The Spit IX is typically the more capable dogfighter in a traditional sense, but it had VERY limited range, same with the 109. 47 is very capable, especially as it goes higher where the enemy didn't really have anything to match that wasn't a jet or a TA 152. It's too bad that the M isn't available, late war in the ETO it was king, or even give the ability for field tuning / skin slicking as mechanics would "hot rod" out the 47. Unofficial reports have some D15 hitting 500+mph TAS slicked+tricked out. It was an absolute beast of an airframe, and really the P51 replaced it (and the 38) primarily on cost, which the 51 was much cheaper to produce. The range thing is really debatable, see Greg's Airplanes series. P47N ended up replacing the P51 in the PAC.
@@CaseyBartley I really wish DCS had kept parity with all the warbirds in DCS. If you're going to throw the 109 K4 in there make all the warbirds late war models. I hope at some point, considering they already have the base flight models, they have the late war models on offer for all the WW2 aircraft.
I've probably mentioned this a half dozen times before, but the GAU-8/A has a spread 40feet in diameter at a mile's distance - perfect for chewing up tanks. I'd think, given its 4,000 rounds/minute fire rate, it could provide a good enough shower to make hitting a WW2 fighter close to its gun sights pretty easy. Does the software take the Avenger cannon's spread into account or does it assume an accurate "thin stream" of rounds?
*FIGHT CARD:* *U. S. Army Serial No. 44-20011* (Republic P-47D-28-RA SerNo 5419) *U. S. Air Force Serial No. 77-0240* (Fairchild Hiller A-10A-15-FH SerNo 165) +GrimReapersAtomic *The P-47, although competitive in top speed with the USN / Grumman F6F-4 and second in roll rate only to the USN-USMC / Grumman F4F-4* among WWII Allied pursuit planes, requires serious energy management on account of limited effective T/W from the Pratt & Whitney GR-2800 radial eighteen with the turbo-supercharger abaft the cockpit.
Caliber is pretty much irrelevant to a2a firepower. A M61 is quite more effective than the GAU-8, even if it somehow had a2a radar. The entire point of the A10's gun was to punch through tank armor and it sacrifices a lot in every other aspect in order to do that well.
@@nickrubalcaba1585 True enough I was speaking more facetiously than anything of the sheer bullet size of 30 mm GAU. I do believe the A10 had a HEAT round. I wonder what that would do to a warbird. Confetti? The A10 was definitely never designed as a2a for anything at all though.
How about the I-16 vs A-10C? 😄. Now, you’d think the I-16 would have no chance at all…but I wonder. Will the .30-cal bullets have any effect whatsoever? If the F4U would have the option of four 20mm guns (F4U-4), that might work better. But it will probably have the same success as the P-47 with six 50’s. Mosquito vs A-10? Apache vs A-10? Coming up!! 😄
Mosquito VS Pucara F-4 Phantom VS A-4 Skyhawk F-15 STOL/MTD VS F-16I Sufa MB-339 Aerimacchi VS Viggen T-45 Goshawk VS F-14 Tomcat MIG-28 VS MIG-29 P-47 VS Super Tucano AV-8 Harrier VS MIG-23 Flogger F-86 Sabre VS SU-25 FrogFoot MIG-19 VS MIG-21 Please fly the Planes on the left😁👍
The gun funnel in the a-10 works the same way as in the F-16. The distance between sides of the funnel is I think 30ft. So look at the plane you are fighting and if the wingspan is 30ft, put the plane in the funnel and move the funnel so that the wingtips touch both sides of the funnel and shoot.
A supercharged piston engine loses very little power with altitude until it's no longer able to provide sea-level air and only then does the thrust start to fall. Even a seemingly puny Cessna T206 can maintain all of its horsepower up to 17,000 ft. Propellers do have to run at a higher AoA to maintain the same RPM as air gets thinner which does lead to some loss of power/efficiency.
That A-10 model just doesn't look right the way it turns....or rather doesn't want to turn. Having watched lots of A-10 strafing runs they normally peel up and around very quickly...what's wrong with the model?
It just depends on who is flying as you have to learn how to fly it. Yes you can make it turn much faster by just pulling the stick more but when you yank the stick like that you lose a lot of kinetic energy. It's better to make slow gradual turns to conserve power so you can climb out of the dive with enough speed.
Your perception is lying to you. When you see a Hog do a run you are perceiving it in a biased way. The reality is you're looking at an aircraft that you couldn't fit in an average house length or width wise, is traveling at a speed you've probably never seen in real life, and you're stationary. I'm not even going to get into what a camera does to perception, if you saw it on video. Whatever distance you think it's traveling, feet you think it's climbing, diameter you think it's turn radius is, triple it. The model isn't perfect by any means, but it's probably pretty close.
@@JohnnyKaw11B I've seen them in person and you are right....they're a BIG aircraft. Looked at the wing loading comparing Hog to P-47 and it looks to have about triple the loading...which if that's true it would explain a lot about how the A-10 was having trouble turning with it. I didn't notice a G readout which would tell the tale...is there on on the display that I didn't recognize? Still... a very fun video and I always love the 'what would happen if' type comparisons they do.
I have a simple 2 person one. I’d like to see a flat out drag race between a F14 and a F15. Do the various versions. Take off side by side and climb to like 30,000 feet. I know the F15 will outrun the F14 but I’m guessing the F14 will eventually catch it. I want to see how long that takes.
It would also depend on engines and how the test is ran. The older F16 with the J79 engine on the standby run beats the newer low bypass engines because of spool up time. Standby is the plane waiting for the call to scramble. when called start the engine and fly to 30,000 ft. You don't waste fuel setting there.
Can the Jug have API ammo in the game? Grandpappy used to bitch about different pilots having different load outs on the same aircraft in the same flight.
I would have liked to have seen some P47's go after the Russian column that was staled north of Kyiv last year. I would say the p47 would be a most cost effective ground attack plane even today than the A10...
Hey Cap, how about a wargame with say the best that Russia can throw at Sweden in order to make a landing at Gotland to cut the Baltics off the rest of NATO? I mean this is quite a current topic - whatever is happening in Ukraine might be a prelude to a bigger conflict with NATO and Baltic States are most likely to be the start.
Hey have you guys ever tried Risners push or Pardos push??
th-cam.com/video/wctlNoQOYhU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/a6VbCQz8VFg/w-d-xo.html
The P-47 was absolutely designed as a dogfighter. Why else would you put so much effort into installing a complex turbo-supercharger, which is especially good for extreme altitudes, instead of the simpler and easier mechanically-driven compressor? It was just good fortune for the allies that the heavy armor and massive firepower that were designed to make the Thunderbolt a relentless dogfighter also made it superlative at low altitude attack missions where its turbo wasn't even needed. BTW, the P-47 shot down more enemy fighters in Europe than the vaunted P-51 Mustang.
There's barely any armor in the P-47. The heavy armor is a legend.
Not sure turbo-supercharging is an argument for dogfighting
@@smithy2389 The way they set it up did. You aren't doing strafing runs at 25,000 feet.
The supercharger argument is a bit sus. The supercharger was there for a couple reasons, but mainly it was to provide the necessary altitude advantage over the adversaries for BOOM’N ZOOM attacks. The turn radius is shit, it’s not meant to dogfight. The fact, that the 47 shot down more planes in the war was the fact it flew more missions escorting the bombers, and also that it did strafing runs on airfields. It could also be the fact, that in the 1944-45 the German Air Force was just so depleted, the the mustangs had nothing to shoot at.
@@tomurban7904 Go to the TH-cam channel Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles and learn why almost everything you just stated is factually incorrect.
That was a fun watch. To be honest Cap, if this had been an hour long I'd have still watched 👀 to the end. Your constant chatter and RC's laid back approach meld really well.
:)
@@grimreapers @Cap: is it viable strategy for the A-10 pilot? ... to just focus on getting much superior altitude & then constantly dive-bomb on the P-47? (if ya miss just use your dive impetuous to climb back into higher altitude safety)
I would like to think this strategy is true as I'm a little shocked that the A-10 is losing to the 'ww2 era' plane??
*I'd like to think the A-10 could squash the P-47 with ease if used intelligently
One needs to remember - just for reference, that the (P-47) Thunderbolt was originally designed as a high altitude bomber interceptor - hence the complex turbo-supercharged engine.
Its ruggedness is what recommended it for the task of ground attack - but that was not its intended purpose.
14:28 I think that SuperCap forgot that the P-47D was designed for high-altitude air-to-air combat, so the higher Cap took the fight, the better the P-47's performance got...😏😁🤣
Thanks
I think you’re right. I think the A-10’s high-bypass turbofans give best thrust at low altitude where those fans can get a bite of thicker air. But so, too, can that big prop on the P-47.
Another thing, maybe some aerial gunnery practice would be useful for the A-10. So you could get a feel for where the bullets go along that “snake” in the HUD. I wonder if you can set up some “target” AI planes to circle and ignore all threats. Then you could practice some nice easy turns to learn aerial gunnery, no? A target banner tow aircraft in DCS might be fun and useful. One that records every bullet hit so you can review it later…or even in real time in kneeboard view or such.
"I'm gonna use what the A-10 does, and that is speed speed speed".. That has certainly never been said before.
Maybe some Hog pilot said it sarcastically.
ha ha i thought the same thing;)
I doubt anyone has ever called 8 .50 cals "pea-shooters" either.
@@nocount7517 Maybe about the fire rate of the GAU-8.. LOL
@@clivedoe9674 12.7 vs 30.... Yeah, they were pea shooters.. Effective or not, still little guys comparatively.. LOL
Now, against "infantry".. Yep, the M2 is quite the force multiplier..
Another fun video thanks Cap!
The Thunderbolt was a very effective fighter, especially at high altitude. The TH-cam channel Greg’s Planes and Automobiles has some excellent videos on the P-47’s capabilities and he gets into the subject of it’s use as a fighter.
I'm constantly amazed by how much content you're able to put out. Good stuff too!
Quantity over quality
@@Krobear I mean some people call this a living lol. I don't. I am the audience, I have a right to comment on the quality of videos of a content creator
@@Krobear you sound like a child. I'll let you ramble and continue along your wokeness lol. Good day
The best trick, it seems, that you can learn in aerial combat is how to stick with the strengths of your plane. The moment you start fighting 'their' fight, you start losing.
Truer words have never been spoken.
Yup, damn straight.
Nail-biter! The selection is more clever than what one would think at first. P-47 was an energy fighter but has to resort to turning-fights. A-10 is sluggish but must now become an energy fighter. Very smart of you to come up with this match! I rooted for the P-47 because my uncle flew in one. It was called the F-47 then.
Remember the P-47 had the guns set up at points of convergence so the engagement was at a fixed ranges where two of those weapons crossed and that would be for all four pair, where as the A10 point the nose at what you want to go boom so there was no convergence, Effective firing range 4,000 feet (1,220 m)
Maximum firing range Over 12,000 feet (3,660 m)
Americas top Ace of WW2 was a gentleman named Gabby Gabreski who was a P-47 pilot, but by the end of the war it was often used in CAS and attack roles.
Gabby was probably top in Europe. Bong was top dog.
The funny thing is that the P-47 had more air-to-air kills than the P-51. The P-51 looks "sexier" and the main reason it was chosen for the long range bomber escort role was that it was more fuel efficient than the P-47. There are videos of interviews with WW2 pilots saying they preferred the P-47.
Yes it was lower drag. It was remarkably low drag for its size. That's why it's awesome.
Don’t forget the P-51 was cheaper and faster to build. That apparently influenced the decision to favor it over the jug. P-47 for me, thanks.
Of course, the P-47 was in the war a lot longer than the P-51. So looking at the numbers, you have to look at how many enemies were around when each plane was in service.
@@TeargasHorse You should look that up, then. The P-47 started service in November 1942. The P-51 started in January 1942. So it had a 10 month head start.
@@TeargasHorse And the P-51 didn’t enter until the best enemy pilots had already been killed off. Many of the pilots they faced had very little seat time or training after D-day. So there is that.
It just chaps me that the Mustang and Corsair get all the glory when the Jugs, Warhawks, Wildcats and Hellcats carried so much of the load when the chips were down. And the real thing to remember is the men who got in them and faced down superior planes and pilots every day.
the p47 is actually a high altitude air interceptor capable of 473 mph. its initial operating range was 35000 feet. it took the ground attack roll because it was nearly indestructible in the ground attack roll, as the mustang was a glass cannon so they swapped rolls towards the end of ww2
probably the best dogfight ive seen on all dcs channels.
As a general remark, do not dive more than you can pull in a turn. SuperCap buried his nose unnecessarily plenty of times which led to excessive speed, bad geometry, and limited options. Also, prop RPM should always be at max in a dogfight. It allows you to run the engine harder without killing it. Lower RPM does not help with cooling as such and leads to detonation when combined with high manifold pressures. Reduce RPM only when diving at a reduced power setting to keep the propeller from driving the engine (other high-speed situations may apply).
thx
The "snake" is SUPER easy, Cap. All you do is get a good pursuit angle, put the bogey in the center of the two lines, when each line touches its respective wingtip on the bogey (Left line on left wingtip, right line on right wingtip), pull the trigger. A half-second burst should be more than enough.
thx
The P-47 actually performs somewhat better at high altitude than low altitude. It’s turbo is designed to give it a wicked high ceiling
My Opinion on this doffight:
While the Jug can out-turn the 'Hog, the 'Hog has speed on it's side and one maneuver that makes it able, under specific conditions, to "out-turn" the Jug - the Immelman.
By creating distance through speed, you can perform a half-inside loop in a shorter distance and close on your target faster than trying to out-turn to get on his six. Merge or tail chase, the target's angle of approach makes for an easier kill despite the lack of tracers. At least you can set up a merge easier with an Immelman in a Hog.
This reminds me a bit of the 1940 German tank invasion of France Scenario using A-10s... ;^)
As seen here the most important thing in a fight it's not the size of the dog but the size of the fight in the dog.
Piston engine gets a lot better with altitude when the turbos are tuned. Google for p-47 altitude performance charts and you see what i mean
That was a LOT of fun to watch!
Great simulation. It would be awesome to pit the A10 against the P47's planned replacement-the (x)p72.
Alexander Kartveli designed the P-47 as a high altitude interceptor. And above 30000 feet it ruled.
Nice! Can't wait for the next one. High altitude would have tilted the odds even more in the P-47's favor. Of course, tracers would have helped the A-10 as well. Pretty cool!
How about a drag race! Get the A-10 and P-47 line abreast at 1000’ and 150 kts, and then lay in full power and see how they perform in a 10-20-mile dash, on the level. Then repeat at 10,000’ and 25,000’.
Cool
With practice, you can become a surgeon with the GAU-8. It really is precise.
GS did this a while back and I'm stoked GR is having a go!
P47 was a dogfighter. Officially it shot down more German aircraft in WWII than any other allied fighter.
This video shows how flexible 70+ year old technology really was during WW2.
The ability to perform CAP for bombers and also the ability to perform air to ground missions with a single type of airframe is truly remarkable.
P47 Thunderbolts earned their nickname (Jug/Juggernaut), the A10 Thunderbolt II certainty represents this rugged depiction, being a worthy successor to the WW2 P47s legacy/lore.
Note: More than 15000 P47 Thunderbolts (various models) were produced during the WW2.
Ok, hold on man. Back then the only way to beat other fighters was to turn and shoot better than them. All aircraft were built around that idea. Plus, jet engines massively outclass props, especially nowadays. And let's talk about missiles. Even the A-10 would carry Sidewinders for any scenario that involved it merging with a bandidt.
In WW2, they really didn't have time to properly build and make specific combat worthy airframes for a battle that could happen on the next hour, so they worked with what they had. If anything, it shows how good those pilots were to perform multiple tasks with zero computers and assistances.
Nowadays a Hornet can escort and perform ground attack too, but the warzone is much different now. Long gone are the days of strafing with machineguns, taking 100 planes to bomb a single airbase. Nowadays it only takes 1 or 2 aircraft to strike a valuable target. Tactics have changed as technology has evolved, and as the WW2 days where the biggest air defense threat was loads of Flak. Today you have SAMs that can single handedly take care of an entire city.
And since we're talking about SAMs let's talk about missiles. Aircraft today are built for launching a missile from hundreds of kilometers away while invisible and without the aircraft even knowing it was there, They're built in a very different manner, for flying high, fast and for long periods of time.
Yes, dogfights are fun, but it's like putting a ninja blindfolded and handcuffed to fight against against granny. The A-10 is not a dogfighter. It has a benefit of turning well, but it wasn't at all built around it. So it's not much suprise that the Warbirds win when everything has to go their way.
But still I have mad respect for the crazy techniques used back then
Yet I've see A-10's practically turn on themselves if doing a hammerhead style turn during some air show. Is there some advantage they have with yaw in differential thrust that's just not being used in this case?
You have no idea how long I've been waiting for someone to make this video
cool
About 20:40, you might have needed the flaps and/or airbrakes to cut the overspeed and tighten the turn.
I also noticed you had gun/PAC set - I think A-A is better without the PAC, and might be why you kept missing shots that look like they should hit.
The last production P47 is located in the Cradle of Aviation Museum in the old Mitchel Field, NY.
P47 you shouldn't have the cowl open at all, intercooler set to neutral and leave it (aerodynamics), and oil cooler start at neutral and open it if your oil starts to heat up. It didn't appear that you were using water injection, which you have ten minutes of, and boosts your manifold pressure at max power to 72". It seemed your boost lever and throttle lever were linked the whole time, which is fine between 7-15k feet, but at the deck you should move them seperately, more power throttle first, reduce power boost first. It looses almost 400 hp when moving them together at lower alts. Above 20k feet you keep the throttle at max power, and fly with the boost lever making sure not to over rev the turbo. P47 also can use flaps to it's advantage. With water on the 47 isn't easy to overheat...
thx
Another good one. Entertaining. Sneaky and cheeky-L’audace, L’audace, toujours L’audace…
love you guys.. so much fun... id take 25 mins more of this pls... (you know when you keep trying to move the camera with your head.. but then you remember its not your trackir... immersion lol)
I'd love to see a Pucara go up against one of these warbirds or the A-10 and see what happens
P-47 was a high altitude fighter. At altitude the turbocharger would have an advantage in the jug. The Jug wasn’t thought of as a turn fighter it’s attributes a high roll rate, high speed in a dive, and zoom climb. Plus depending on the prop if equipped with paddle blades a descent rate of climb.
Okay, I'm *_finally_* getting the whole Grim Reaper brand of whimsy. Yeah, took me long enough. 😂
Hi Cap. I was thinking if prop damage is modelled - is there a "hit-box" for the prop. Also could you drop a belly-mounted bomb through the prop in a 90° dive? I know that the Stuka has some kind of mechanism to distance the bomb from the belly while dropping so it clears the prop.
Great video and nice to hear RC.
Will investigate
I actually thought the P-47 would mop the floor with the A-10.
Just spotted dash shot at 10:56, you definitely did NOT have water injection on. You were running at 50 manifold and 2500 RPM at max throttle I think right there, so water on, full RPM you would have had 30% or more power available, and more acceleration because of the higher RPM. I am guessing your approach to the fight kept the A10 in the fight waaaaay longer that you could have, and also the A10 was not fighting to it's advantage of better high speed climb rate.
Perhaps I misheard the video, but the P47 (according to what I could find on-line) carried "eight .50-caliber (12.7 mm) "light-barrel" Browning AN/M2 machine guns, four in each wing."
More than enough to poke holes in most aircraft.
Douglas A-1 Skyraider or the Vought F4U Corsair next vs the A-10 those should be interesting matches.
I love these videos soooo much! This is such a cool simulation game!
Great dog fights!
Next suggestion for the A-10 Vs ??? would be the F4U Corsair
I personally would really like to see a Simba vs RC 1 v 1 guns only dogfight. RC, don't take it personally and, Simba, don't take it personally. Nothing against either of you whatsoever. Make it like Mad Max 3 (worst movie of the franchise) Beyond Thunderdome. One man enters. One man leaves.
Cortana, I'm very sorry, you're a fantastic pilot and asset to this channel however I can' never forgive your namesake for leaving me to die at the end of Halo 3 that made me rip my XBox out and hurl it up the backyard whilst standing over it like an abusive husband yelling "LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!!!"
*Not an abusive husband for the record*
nor a husband at all,
I'm imagining small, light fighters or maybe even something (is it in DCS yet?) the F20 TigerShark.
Great videos all of you. Thanks for you hard work and dedication. Cortana, I;m just joking. You will destroy those two.
-TJ
Had a great uncle who flew the P47. My one end goal in life is to find one that is either airworthy, or I can restore to airworthiness. Unfortunately there are far fewer P47s than there are P51s around.
Your channel is highly enjoyable.
P47 was a great fighter early in the U.S involvement in the European theater in was tasked for escorting B17's until the P51C/D came into service with the USAAF then the P47 because of its ruggedness it was put into the the ground attack role.
Sad news: Not a combat pilot, but a legend has passed. Col. Gail S. Halvorsen, the Berlin Airlift "Candy Bomber" at the age of 101. RIP
A-10 can out last the p47 in the air especially at low alt. Dont turn fight, extend and come in fast. P 47 stays on defence and theres nothing it can do. P 47 didnt win, Lazy A10 with bad gunnary lost the first fight. Immelman is ill advised as it bleeds too much speed which is the killer in this matchup. Slow steady climb and easy turn in to attack. The 47 has no chance if the A-10 has decent gunnary. Dont get into a knife fight when you are packing a thompson-A1.
P38 Lightning vs F35 Lightning II ?
Great intro!
I know there probably isn't a model for this, but I would say that the F2G-1 Super Corsair is more comparable to the A-10. Just my opinion.
Idea for a dogfight: A1 Skyraider vs a Jug!
It's like you guys read my mind. I was thinking about this exact fight a few days ago.
If you can't turn with them, run, gain altitude and do slashing attacks like the Flying Tigers did. The P40 couldn't turn with the Japanese, so they climbed high, dove down, fired as they went past and kept diving away using their superior speed to outrun the Japanese planes.
In this scenario, that's what you should have done with the A-10. Climb high, get positioned, and dive. Pull up using the energy from the dive and climb away again.
Does the DCS P-47 model that you are using have the late-model paddle bladed prop? Those that did could climb on par with a P-51 (about 3100 fpm). Also, the P-47 was designed for 35,000 feet.
I like flying the P47 as a dogfighter in DCS. Not against the 109, but literally anything else is killable.
really? The MkIX spit should win a turn fight.
@@appa609 Yeah, the Spit will definitely beat a P47 in a turn fight. That's why I never turn fight with them. I try to force the one circle because while I can't turn with the Spit I have good nose authority at all speeds before departing flight. If that goes poorly I can dive away, and try to force my hand again. I'm not a great sim pilot, I just started around 6 months ago, but I've learned the fighter that turns the best isn't necessarily the one that's going to win the fight.
@@appa609 Turn is only one of the factors. The Spit IX is typically the more capable dogfighter in a traditional sense, but it had VERY limited range, same with the 109. 47 is very capable, especially as it goes higher where the enemy didn't really have anything to match that wasn't a jet or a TA 152. It's too bad that the M isn't available, late war in the ETO it was king, or even give the ability for field tuning / skin slicking as mechanics would "hot rod" out the 47. Unofficial reports have some D15 hitting 500+mph TAS slicked+tricked out. It was an absolute beast of an airframe, and really the P51 replaced it (and the 38) primarily on cost, which the 51 was much cheaper to produce. The range thing is really debatable, see Greg's Airplanes series. P47N ended up replacing the P51 in the PAC.
@@CaseyBartley I really wish DCS had kept parity with all the warbirds in DCS. If you're going to throw the 109 K4 in there make all the warbirds late war models. I hope at some point, considering they already have the base flight models, they have the late war models on offer for all the WW2 aircraft.
I've probably mentioned this a half dozen times before, but the GAU-8/A has a spread 40feet in diameter at a mile's distance - perfect for chewing up tanks. I'd think, given its 4,000 rounds/minute fire rate, it could provide a good enough shower to make hitting a WW2 fighter close to its gun sights pretty easy.
Does the software take the Avenger cannon's spread into account or does it assume an accurate "thin stream" of rounds?
The A-10's computer is made to calculate CCIP for the gun. It does not have the same thing fighters have with their radars
Remember that winwing technology is your ultimate hardware solution :) 37
Agree
*FIGHT CARD:*
*U. S. Army Serial No. 44-20011* (Republic P-47D-28-RA SerNo 5419)
*U. S. Air Force Serial No. 77-0240* (Fairchild Hiller A-10A-15-FH SerNo 165)
+GrimReapersAtomic *The P-47, although competitive in top speed with the USN / Grumman F6F-4 and second in roll rate only to the USN-USMC / Grumman F4F-4* among WWII Allied pursuit planes, requires serious energy management on account of limited effective T/W from the Pratt & Whitney GR-2800 radial eighteen with the turbo-supercharger abaft the cockpit.
Brilliant dog fight.
I think it’ll come out about equal. A10 might have the advantage in firepower by just a teeny tiny bit.
Caliber is pretty much irrelevant to a2a firepower. A M61 is quite more effective than the GAU-8, even if it somehow had a2a radar. The entire point of the A10's gun was to punch through tank armor and it sacrifices a lot in every other aspect in order to do that well.
@@nickrubalcaba1585 True enough I was speaking more facetiously than anything of the sheer bullet size of 30 mm GAU. I do believe the A10 had a HEAT round. I wonder what that would do to a warbird. Confetti? The A10 was definitely never designed as a2a for anything at all though.
What a coincidence, just this morning I was watching a TV show about American ace Gabby Gabrewski, who flew a p-47
cool
How about the I-16 vs A-10C? 😄. Now, you’d think the I-16 would have no chance at all…but I wonder. Will the .30-cal bullets have any effect whatsoever?
If the F4U would have the option of four 20mm guns (F4U-4), that might work better. But it will probably have the same success as the P-47 with six 50’s.
Mosquito vs A-10?
Apache vs A-10? Coming up!! 😄
Cool!
Kinda interesting. Who would win the Jug or the Hog.
it's nice to see the big girl dance, unlike the lead filled sled they have in Il2...
Mosquito VS Pucara
F-4 Phantom VS A-4 Skyhawk
F-15 STOL/MTD VS F-16I Sufa
MB-339 Aerimacchi VS Viggen
T-45 Goshawk VS F-14 Tomcat
MIG-28 VS MIG-29
P-47 VS Super Tucano
AV-8 Harrier VS MIG-23 Flogger
F-86 Sabre VS SU-25 FrogFoot
MIG-19 VS MIG-21
Please fly the Planes on the left😁👍
"Eventually that A-10's gonna give out"
A-10's in real life: *returning to base missing entire wings, engines, man sized holes through it*
lol
The gun funnel in the a-10 works the same way as in the F-16. The distance between sides of the funnel is I think 30ft. So look at the plane you are fighting and if the wingspan is 30ft, put the plane in the funnel and move the funnel so that the wingtips touch both sides of the funnel and shoot.
Actually it is adjustable.
@@tymoteuszkazubski2755 Yeah, forgot the exact method, there are presets and and you can manually adjust for the wingspan and length of the target.
A supercharged piston engine loses very little power with altitude until it's no longer able to provide sea-level air and only then does the thrust start to fall. Even a seemingly puny Cessna T206 can maintain all of its horsepower up to 17,000 ft. Propellers do have to run at a higher AoA to maintain the same RPM as air gets thinner which does lead to some loss of power/efficiency.
This is a really fun video !!!
Could y'all do anyting containing the Red Tails thank you
Cool idea
That A-10 model just doesn't look right the way it turns....or rather doesn't want to turn. Having watched lots of A-10 strafing runs they normally peel up and around very quickly...what's wrong with the model?
It just depends on who is flying as you have to learn how to fly it. Yes you can make it turn much faster by just pulling the stick more but when you yank the stick like that you lose a lot of kinetic energy. It's better to make slow gradual turns to conserve power so you can climb out of the dive with enough speed.
Your perception is lying to you. When you see a Hog do a run you are perceiving it in a biased way. The reality is you're looking at an aircraft that you couldn't fit in an average house length or width wise, is traveling at a speed you've probably never seen in real life, and you're stationary. I'm not even going to get into what a camera does to perception, if you saw it on video. Whatever distance you think it's traveling, feet you think it's climbing, diameter you think it's turn radius is, triple it. The model isn't perfect by any means, but it's probably pretty close.
@@JohnnyKaw11B I've seen them in person and you are right....they're a BIG aircraft. Looked at the wing loading comparing Hog to P-47 and it looks to have about triple the loading...which if that's true it would explain a lot about how the A-10 was having trouble turning with it. I didn't notice a G readout which would tell the tale...is there on on the display that I didn't recognize? Still... a very fun video and I always love the 'what would happen if' type comparisons they do.
I kept wondering if a vertical off-set 2 circle might've worked for the A-10
agree
In the Jug did you boys set the wingspan for the target? Seems to me the convergence is too short.
neg
I love how SuperCap refers to 'the 50 cal' as the 'half inch'...
Hog vs Jug.
Fun!
I have a simple 2 person one. I’d like to see a flat out drag race between a F14 and a F15. Do the various versions. Take off side by side and climb to like 30,000 feet. I know the F15 will outrun the F14 but I’m guessing the F14 will eventually catch it. I want to see how long that takes.
It would also depend on engines and how the test is ran. The older F16 with the J79 engine on the standby run beats the newer low bypass engines because of spool up time. Standby is the plane waiting for the call to scramble. when called start the engine and fly to 30,000 ft. You don't waste fuel setting there.
Only if it's badly modeled... the F-15 has a lower wing loading and higher top speed.
@@appa609 yea I guess it’s a DCS thing that the F14 is faster.
The A-10 needs bigger elevators that eat more into the exhaust stream and then maybe it'll rate fight.
Battle of the Bolts! :D
Can the Jug have API ammo in the game? Grandpappy used to bitch about different pilots having different load outs on the same aircraft in the same flight.
I think so
I have watched quite a few of the guns only warbird vs Jet fights and the warbird usually ends up on top in those fights.
You need a better A-10 pilot, this should have been over a while ago!
"Really this is all pointless, but it's fun." Come for the imaginary plane fights, stay for the philosophy.
Can you try lightning vs lightning II?
rgr
I would have liked to have seen some P47's go after the Russian column that was staled north of Kyiv last year. I would say the p47 would be a most cost effective ground attack plane even today than the A10...
Great fights
I really want to get into DCS, but I happen to enjoy having money....
lol yes fair point
Hey Cap, how about a wargame with say the best that Russia can throw at Sweden in order to make a landing at Gotland to cut the Baltics off the rest of NATO? I mean this is quite a current topic - whatever is happening in Ukraine might be a prelude to a bigger conflict with NATO and Baltic States are most likely to be the start.
Will consider, thx
Why not try flaps in the A10?
A brrrrt a day keeps the insurgents away.
12:10 no engine coolant in a gas turbine, closest thing to it that exchanges heat is a fuel cooled oil cooler.
I guess a Hawker Typhoon ould do even better that the P-47 against an A-10. Typhies probably are the most underated chariots of WW II.
always stunned by how good WW2 planes actually were,
"Thats a landing" LOL yeah pretty much like all of my DCS landings.
I don't know who'll win. A fighter plane. Or a titanium tub with a gun and some wings.
It's a gun with a titanium tub, and wings.
@@JohnnyKaw11B this^:)
agree