P-47 Thunderbolt flybys 

It literally did every those things P-51 was lacking in. A great pair

@@anttitheinternetguy3213 what was the P-51 lacking?

@@SoloRenegade ground strike capability

@@anttitheinternetguy3213 A-36, P-51A and P-51D all performed ground strike missions, with either cannons or bombs. P-51 and F4U performed the ground strike mission in Korea as well. Other notable inline water cooled engine ground attack aircraft include the legendary Typhoon, IL-2, Ju-87 Stuka, as well as the likes of the Mosquito, P-38, P-40, Hurricane, etc. Also take note of the F4U which could launch from a carrier deck with 4,000lb of ordnance (small bombs, large bombs, fuel tanks, rockets, 20mm cannons) and used radar and was an excellent dive bomber in addition to being able to defeat the P-47 in a dogfight. Down low on the deck the P-47 was vulnerable and most Allied and axis aircraft could outmaneuver it down there, so it needed toughness to offset that. The P-47's real strength was in high altitude bomber escort up above 20,000ft. Even a P-40 could defeat the P-47 in a dogfight below 15,000ft. But the P-51 and P-38 were also capable high altitude escorts as well, with the P-51 having longest range on internal fuel, highest fuel efficiency, lowest cost to manufacture and operate, easiest to maintain, and easiest to fly.

@@SoloRenegade thanks but i know this all. But The fact is P-47's were generally The ground strikers And P-51's were The ones giving cover to Bombers And such. Ofc they all attacked targets on Air And Also on The ground every now And then

It's sure sad to see that the old republic factory is now just a warehouse.

That’s my hometown! Hoosier Spirit II is a sight to see.

I watched a video a few days ago about this.

I live near hartford ct,home of pratt and whitney engines that powered that plan, building still there,but air field now a football stadium and going to be a high end shopping mall rest. it's not pratt and whitney any more, it's called another name now, forgot new name

Just had one fly over here in Wabash County it sounded amazing! Love it!

The p47 was not a good looking airplane, and that's why I love it. It's not the looks that make a plane good, it's the history behind it. I wish to own one in the future, that for me is a life goal

The Jug.

​@@NuclearDisposalExpert the bubbletop version may look kinda bad but the razorback looks really good and badass imo

@@NuclearDisposalExpert I like how chunky it is. The big radial 😩

I'm of the unpopular opinion that it looks better than the p-51

Your Father was a true hero, you must be very proud of him.

@@WingsTVChannel indeed...wisest man I've known!!

Respects to your dad from Chile, my dad and uncle were also piston-engine aviators. I love both aviation and studying WWII history, reading this is so interesting for me.

@@dieglhix thank you, much appreciated. I still go through the booklet put out be US Army Air Force for the 7th Army Air Corp units and history. Plus, dad sent a bunch of photographs from the island back to mom in the states. My eldest brother video recorded dad and his tent buddy on Iwo (dad in West Virginia and Mr Baldwin in Charleston, South Carolina) where they both recalled their time in the service. They stayed friends up until dad passed first.

Gabreski was America's top ace... In the European theater, that is. At the very least he was tied with Robert Johnson, who some sources say got 28 kills, though others say 27. Gabreski had 28. Also, you're being quite generous with the statement that it could catch a Me-262 in a dive. While this is partially correct, it is not like the P-47 could out-dive the 262, only that it could catch an unsuspecting pilot who was not diving fast enough. And under certain circumstances, for a certain period of time, it could dive with the jet. And also the J model was not the last model. Far from it, actually. The J never reached production. Only one experimental XP-47J was built, and it was one that set a record. A lot of things where redesigned, such as the tight cowling, the addition of a nose cone, the addition of a cooling fan, the intake for the turbosupercharger and oil coolers moved back, the deletion of 2 guns, some other small weight saving measures, a 2,800 hp engine, and so on. This experimental plane reached 505 (or 507 depending on source) mph in level flight in 1944. This made it the first piston plane to break 500 mph in level flight, and kept it the fastest verified piston plane for 45 years. It did not however, have the incredible range you're talking about. After the experimental one-off J, they made the (relatively) hopped-up P-47M. This also had the 2,800 hp engine, though retained the overall features of the "average" bubble-top P-47. This could reach 473 mph level, becoming the fastest piston plane to see combat. The final variant of the P-47 you're thinking of is the P-47N, which was made for the Pacific Theater. Also using the 2,800 hp engine, it had a redesigned wing, which was larger and had squared-off wingtips. It was also a wet wing, with fuel tanks being installed inside. This gave it about a 2,000 mile combat radius, which was ludicrous.

P-47 couldn't match the F4U payload, short takeoff, dive bombing ability, and F4U could beat a P-47 in a dogfight as well. F4U also used radar as a night fighter, and sometimes used 4x 20mm cannon instead of its normal 6x 50cal loadout. P-38 also performed far more roles than a P-47, as did the Mosquito.

@@SoloRenegade Nobody with a brain "dogfights" in a P-47 bro. In fact American pilots were trained to avoid "dogfighting" in all ways possible. This is why their kill ratio is so high in the Pacific, because the Japanese planes simply didn't have the speed to catch up to the American planes, and very very few American pilots were dumb enough to try to outmaneuver their opponent past 1943 when the new training went into effect. (This is a very large factor in why the P-38 was successful in the Pacific but a liability in the European theatre.) Speed is king in air-to-air engagements, this is why every single airforce dropped the biplane in favor of the mono-wing and why every single airforce dropped the prop-plane when the Jet turbine became available, because going the fastest you possibly can while maintaining control is how you both avoid and get into combat. Having a speed advantage over your enemy means you can now choose when to fight and when to flee, it's extremely important, and if the Japanese had discovered this simple fact about air-combat they might've ditched the Zero in favor of something that could at least hold a candle to the F6F or the F-4U. But alas, the Japanese were still very new to war against Europeans and so their military had very unhealthy levels of pride and rivalry in it that would rather rip itself apart than try to build an effective fighting force. The claim that the Corsair could carry a larger payload than the P-47 is inaccurate, not sure where you got that from. (Max payload for the P-47 was ~7500lbs while the F-4U was ~5500 that's a pretty significant difference.) The maximum range of the P-47 was also vastly superior to the F-4U especially when utilizing this payload advantage by means of droptanks. P-47 also had a turbo-charger which helped with performance at altitude as well as helped keep fuel usage down though we're still talking about a giant very thirsty 18 cylinder engine. It's no wonder they went with the P-51 (12 cylinder) to do most of the escort duty when it became available as the immense fuel cost of the R-2800 is not something to ignore. (though technically the P-47 could go further than the P-51 due to its immense payload capability)

@@Birdy890 when did a P-47 ever carry 7,500lb of bombs/rockets in WW2? And you're NOT carrying max bombload While carrying any drop tanks. Adding fuel reduces the bomb load, simple physics. The only advantage the P-47 has is range and high altitude performance. the A-36 was a far superior ground attacker, as was the F4U than the P-47. The only advantage the P-47 had in that regard was toughness. Yes, US pilots DID try to turn fight in the P-47 and many other planes, especially early in the war. Later on pilots were trained to use speed and diving. but most pilot's instinct is to turn, and it has to be trained out of them to resist the urge. Many early fighters like the P-40, F4F, P-38, and P-39 also underperformed because they failed to use diving attacks and tried to turn with the Japanese. Once they learned not to do that, they did much better.

@@SoloRenegade Did I ever say the Plane would be carrying that capacity with droptanks? what? No, I simply stated the fact that you're wrong about the payload. At no point did I specify what the payload would be, simply that the airframe can indeed carry more than the Corsair, which proved your claim is bogus. And as a matter of fact you're wrong about the droptank issue, as a higher payload still translates into more fuel being carried while still maintaining more ordinance. For example, with that ~2000lbs advantage of payload you COULD stick an extra 2k pounds of fuel thus increasing the range; what about this is hard to understand? It's simple mathematics. The Only advantage? Really? that's the only advantage? I just brought up several, it's not my problem that you're too dumb to decipher the information. I didn't even mention speed... No shit the A-36 was better at ground attack, that's what it was DESIGNED to do. Don't really understand what point you're trying to make there. I'm not entirely sure what constitutes "better" in your mind, but the historic record testifies to the track record of the P-47 in the ground attack role. It was indeed the best overall fighter-bomber in the war, serving on all fronts and performing a multitude of tasks, yes indeed it had its shortcomings as did any other plane but looking at the data it's a safe claim to say the P-47 helped the war effort MORE than your beloved F-4U. The Corsair was infact so irrelevant that the US Navy didn't even keep it and opted for the F6F and later F8F, donating most of their Corsairs to the Marines, British and other allied nations. Yes, early doctrine in (American) fighter tactics was to maneuver against the enemy, this was later sorted out circa 1943 when they noticed IT DOESNT WORK. So saying the P-47 can't outturn something is a moot point as it's not going to be trying to do that. Also thanks for reinforcing my point? I don't really understand why you're going around making the ridiculous claims you're making in this comment section; my suspicion is you played a video game and got excited, but this is the real world and we have real data with real performance figures and real statistics, so we tend to use these when evaluating the past. Historical revisionism can be healthy and beneficial, but when you're trying to tell me the Corsair is a better ground attack aircraft, you'd better bring some figures to back that claim rather than false information and borderline insulting speculations.

4xCannon had more punch

@jacktattis yes, such as the ME262 w 4 30 mm cannons. But they couldn’t carry as many rounds as the U.S. .50 caliber ammo correct?

@@mattrobinson4994 Did not need to and I was referring to the 20mm not the 30mm

@@jacktattis Roger

@@jacktattis”4XCannon had more punch” I wonder if you realize how much of a douche you’ve become?

Thanks for the advice, I will do that

One of my favourites to🇬🇧

Indeed, Brazil used it a lot in WW2 in the campaign in Italy Viva a FEB

@@mickboakes7023 I also like Hawker Tempest 🇬🇧

@@gabiplus69 🐍🚬🇧🇷

Shame they're not allowed to fly that low here anymore

You should hear a Centaurus-powered Sea Fury!

@@thethirdman225 I’d love to! That sounds awesome!

@@Critter145 It is! You’ll love it.

@@Critter145 If you search RU-vid there is an air display from New Zealand in 1993 which is probably the best sound recording I have heard of it. That was an Australian registered Sea Fury which I have seen many times. It’s the quietest and sweetest sounding aero engine I’ve ever heard and it definitely makes that “Whoosh” sound, plus the whine of the supercharger.

@@thethirdman225 thank you!

HAHAH GONBLES BROTHER KEEP CRANKIN HOSS USMC FORKLIFT OPERATOR 1967-1968

Hawker Tempest.

My dad did 90. 50th fighter group, 9th air force.

F4U did more, P-38 did more, Mosquito did more.

@@SoloRenegade 😂 your funny

@@ehold6877 ...but accurate. Might also want to look into the work of the Beaufighter as well.

@@SoloRenegade when any of those types conduct 700k+ plus sorties in WW2. Come talk to me....😒

@@ehold6877 That has nothing to do with how good an airplane is. But I don't expect you to understand that.

The P-51 was more important and actually made it possible for the USAAF to fly escorted daylight missions all the way to the furthest targets and back. If one fight was responsible for changing the way the war was fought, it was the Mustang.

@@thethirdman225 no, that's a lie, a myth, call it what you want, but is a BIG no, the Jug got the same disposable tanks, but they where takrn to the front late, due bad desitions of the bomber mafia. The P-47 with the same disposable tanks have more range than then P-51, the idea before the invasion was not destroy the german production machine, but get air superiority.

... invasion*

@@thethirdman225 ... one fighter*

@@fortinero3361 Nonsense. No P-47 could get to Berlin in early 1944. Only the P-51 could. At least part of the responsibility for this belongs to Republic, who took their sweet time about making the replumbing job a line modification. The only P-47s which had been modified in early 1944 had been modified in the field and that meant cutting metal. Even those which had been modified couldn’t even get to Magdeburg. As for the claim that this so-called ‘bomber mafia’ had forbidden anyone to make tanks for it, all I can is that if a maintenance unit in New a Guinea could design a 200 gallon tank and get it manufactured in Australia, which they did, then it didn’t matter what was said in Washington. The P-47 did not have the range capabilities of the P-51. Fact. Greg is not a source on this because he doesn’t read history.

Errr

when? got any evidence to support that claim?

@@SoloRenegade do your homework. It is true.

@@JohnCunningham-sy5ug Stating it doesn't make it so. Since YOU are the one making the claim, proposing the hypothesis, the responsibility is on YOU to prove it. A PhD candidate doesn't write a thesis and force everyone else to prove/disprove it, they are required to Defend their own thesis. That's how science and debate works. And if you fail or refuse to defend your hypothesis, then you lose by default (surrendering the argument). A PhD candidate that refuses to defend their thesis doesn't get their PhD either.

@@JohnCunningham-sy5ug Done my research. It isn’t true. The P-51 was more important.

Most of this plane is made of aluminium, not steel.

@@einundsiebenziger5488 Cast iron! Made from raw ore, dug out of a mountain thrown into a fiery furnace and melted into molten lava. Then poured into a mold shaped like a P-47 Thunderbolt. These aircraft didn’t fly. The propeller beat the air into submission! ( cue the Tim Allen grunt) Yes , I know it’s aluminum.😏