P-47 Thunderbolt Pt. 4 Climb Rate 

Did you pull down part 4B, with all the drag and stall charts? I was just getting my head around it. Talking about bubble canopy weight, etc? I want it back!!!

I’ve watched pieces and parts of the series many times. Sometimes I like to listen to Greg to fall asleep. I have Asperger’s and it really has helped

I have learned more about the P47 because of your video's than I ever expected that I would know.

Great stuff. As an ex fighter pilot love this program. As a point of interest regarding climb rate of power available over power required. An old friend who flew P51's then Vampires pointed out that climb rate was similar for the P51 and Vampire. Difference was P51 climbed at 160 kts and the Vampire at 250 kts. Huge energy advantage to the Vampire. That is why piston engined fighters were discarded straight after WW11.

This is the type of channel I have been looking for for close to a decade now. No other aviation RU-vidr goes into such detail, explains things clearly, does immaculate research, and keeps the video interesting at the same time. I watched all your aviation videos in just a couple days and I’m excited for more! Thanks for the fantastic videos!

God damn you’re the greatest, most direct and efficient RU-vidr I’ve seen. You’re a diamond in the rough

Thanks Greg, for intelligent gimmick-free explanations. My Dad flew a Thunderbolt.

My father was a P-47 pilot during WWII in the European Theater. He flew in combat during all the U.S. primary combat period through the end of the war. He was a member of the 365th Fighter Bomber Group, 9th Tactical Air Force. His group's primary mission evolved into Close Air Ground Support, and his group was huge in the development of these aerial combat techniques. Your videos bear out all he told me of the aircraft. He was a big advocate of the P-47 D razorback variation, which he felt protected the pilot better. His stories primarily involved close ground air support missions, which he said the P-47 knew no equal because of their speed, ability to suddenly maneuver and ability to take punishment. I'd like to see one or more videos on this close to the ground capability of the P-47.

The P47 series has been really good.

Another great video. Thanks for all your excellent and informative work on this subject. In order to clarify some dates as to when certain P-47 mods/changes were available in the ETO I’ve found some quotes from renown 8th AF historian Roger Freeman. The following are all from the book “The Mighty Eighth War Manual”: P. 191 “ ‘Bubble’ canopy P-47s began to arrive in the UK during May 1944 and a few examples were on hand in the 4 Thunderbolt groups by D-Day.” I would add that pictorial evidence suggests they were the exception rather than the rule until at least August/September 1944. P. 190 “Improving the rate of climb was not something that could be quickly undertaken but two successful modifications were eventually introduced, wide blade propellers and engine water injection. These were developed in the US and kits were produced for the UK where it was planned to make the necessary installations as rapidly as possible. The ‘paddle’ blade propeller programme carried out at Wattisham from December 1943 was hindered by a shortage of blades and certain accessories. P-47s of the 56th Group, the first to be processed, were not fitted out (completely finished in American English) until April 1944, at which time the 356th Group had only just started to have paddle blades fitted. On production, paddle blade propellers were fitted from P-47D-16-RE 42-76029 and P-47D-21-RA 43-25634.” “The water injection system, ... was first available to VIII FC as a kit... Although modification started in the Autumn of 1943, it was late spring of 1944 before all P-47s in the UK had been fitted. The installation was incorporated in production beginning with the P-47D-10-RE and P-47D-11-RA.” Not a criticism of this awesome video, just some additional info. Keep up the great work!

I live for your videos Greg

Great video! You covered some important things that people don't know about like the high effect of extra horsepower on excess power which is what is used for acceleration and climb. It's why engine upgrades improve performance much more than their simple power % increase would indicate. Prop efficiency is indeed a very complicated subject. Propeller design is also itself a compromise between low speed and high speed efficiency. If you're looking to put numbers on the higher prop efficiency of the paddle prop at climb speed, I'd suggest taking a look at the Hamilton prop efficiency tables near the end of "Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance" by Jan Roskam (available online). A few calculations need to be done to find it but it's not difficult. I don't think the difference would be much more than 5%, which is certainly still a worthy upgrade.

I got three minutes into this and decided it was too good to watch when when tired ! Gonna crash, get up and work tomorrow - and then enjoy this after work . . . a goody to be savored !

“and the Spitfire’s all out of bubble gum” That got me, not gonna lie.

Keep up with the videos Greg they are very interesting!

Love the videos. Much of the technical stuff is over my head ATM, but it gives me new research projects to stay busy and aggravate my wife with lol.Spent a little time at Landstuhl in 08 after being medevaced, don't remember too much of the experience other than wandering down the hill to ktown and paying entirely too much for an overcooked cheeseburger.

I am mesmerized by your videos. I have no idea why I keep watching. It must be your soothing voice and the peaceful graphics, and the obvious large amount of study that went into the making of the video

Another very informative video, it is very interesting to see what goes into aircraft performance and how changes and modifications could greatly and even radically change their performance characteristics. The Jug as we have learned is a beast. No slouch down low but a monster up past 20,000 ft. It reminds me of how in the past iterations of the game War Thunder, Thunderbolts were given an airspawn, allowing them to begin climbing at speed to high altitudes. And it was not uncommon to see swarms of them flying above their adversaries like me in 190A by the time we see each other. Attacking and disengaging at will. While not exactly top end simulation wise, its performance at height and with great speed was laid bare and the Jug was something hated by all who faced it. And the performance difference between the FW-190A and Dora-9 is very clear. It says everything about why it was spoken so enthusiastically of, it makes me wonder how the Anton would have fared if the uprated BMW-801S and F engines appeared earlier or even with better multi-stage supercharging as well. I look forward to what you have to say about the engine choices and limitations the Germans faced when updating the 190 when we get to it. I can always count on you to teach me in such a clear and concise manner.

Nice to see the old Bismark Turm in your video. Can't begin to tell you how that brings back the memories of Cold War years in Germany/Europe. Wish I had a dime for every hike I took back then... Enjoy your work. Thanks.

This is my 3rd or 4th time watching this series and I have to thank you Greg for turning me on to the P47! I have watched all your videos so far as of Oct 2022 and you are definitely my favorite channel. I'm 57 and have been interested in anything WW2 for most of my life but mostly the aircraft. I always thought I knew alot and would have considered myself a fairly good WW2 historian especially with the equipment like aircraft and ships, subs, jeeps and deuces. I think I have learned more in the past 5 years because of the ease of the internet and RU-vid. I have certainly learned a really big chunk of the aircraft stuff from you, I mean the real technical stuff. I think those of us who love your channel know how boring this stuff is to most other people so I wish there was a way or a place where I could meet some of your viewers or like minded people who love this stuff as much as I do. I have no one to talk to who is remotely interested. If anyone who reads this knows a place or can relate to what I'm saying please hit me up, and thanks again Greg for all your hard work, it definitely has an impact in my life and has kinda reignited my passion for this again in a much more serious way.

I wished hard enough and it came true! A new video from Greg

Thanks a lot for all the excellent explanations and inside views into all these WW2 planes and flying characteristics in general i would otherwise never looked into! Have a good one, greetings from switzerland.

Greg, I really like your videos. No nonsense, well researched, no bugus claims and a smooth narrative style without ums and errs. And just so informative. The quirky little videos of historical interest from off the beaten path are cool too. Neat.

love this series ... My dad was a thunderbolt pilot... 9th airforce 368th Fighter group, 395th Fighter Squadron..... the " Panzer Dusters".....

thank you , most enjoyable and informative to this old retired Viper driver(F-16)

I've watched videos from the men who flew them,when the paddle prop became available it could climb as good as any thing flying,to a point.

It's kinda funny, that while the Pretty-Looking Mustang gets all the fanfare for it's prowess as a Front-Line Fighter, (and they ARE great), the Thunderbolt gets ignored worse than a conservative student at Cal St. Berkeley. You see all this stuff of the Mustang's superiority and then one day, you look at the list of Aces in the ETO. Wow! most of the top 10 flew Thunderbolts. The only dis advantage the Jugs really had, is Range. The Mustangs, which weren't there when the Thunderbolt pilots had to face down the full compliment of the Nazi's best & Finest, could stay aloft nearly twice as long as a Jug, which meant roughly twice the possibility for Engagement. Add to that the fact that when the Mustangs arrived, they had paddle-Bladed Props to start with, the jugs spent a lot of time with those skinny Props, the kill ratio was quite remarkable. If the Jugs would've originally come with Paddle Blade Props & the N's range, I expect the Thunderbolt would, by a long way, be, regardless of it's Brutish looks, the undisputed King of Allied Fighters in the ETO. The Sound of a Merlin in a Mustang or Spitfire is great, but once you hear the powerful cracking exhaust from a Thunderbolt that has its Turbo working, is about as Macho - sounding Fighter as there is. It is my all-time favorite WW2 Gunslinger!

Thank you for highly informative and entertaining content sir. You have a great voice for narrating charts and graphs, wish you had been there to do the voice-overs for all the ground school videos I had to endure over the last 30 years in aviation. But watching your videos, avgeeking is still a guilty pleasure for me. So thanks again for all the effort.

@Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles - "...all out of bubblegum..." - Mister Piper applauds your deep cut.

Liked and shared. Was already subscribed. I learned more by inference from this single, revealing, lecture than I obtained in any way from any lectures I audited in school.

Great video series on the P-47, I enjoyed it. The bonus footage of Bismarck Tower at Landstuhl Germany was great to see. I've been there a number of times from 1981 to 83 when I was stationed at Miesau Army depot just south of you. I'd taken my NCO basic course there, as well as used the Hospital atop that mountain.

I really enjoy your videos Greg. Thanks!

Awsome as always! Never stop making these!

Very interesting topic but I would have appreciated going deeper in detail into all the different propeller types used by the P47 which were at least 4 and was a bit more complex than just paddle blade and non paddle blade, how they looked, advantages and disadvantages and how they affected the performance in each case. Anyway I appreciate all the time and effort you put in these videos, it's amazing.

Sorted , your now my official go to man for Knowledge on WW2 aircraft. Thank you.

another in a great line of videos. you cover a complex topic and make it easy to understand for the laymen and informative for the those who know some.

Greg you are awesome. Love all these videos.

These videos are extremely informational!

Gregg, since I found your fascinating videos it has become increasingly difficult to get work done, Thanks a lot!!!!!

Bonjour mon ami GREG félicitations de FRANCE 👍🇫🇷 Hello my friend Greg thanks for sharings 👍I enjoy watching your video this is a pleasure for the eyes 😎P 47 thunderbolt 💪 Congrats buddy good days of France 👍🇫🇷

"The spitfire, it's all out of bubblegum" :D

My father was a mechanic for Pratt & Whitney during ww2 and he said that almost all crew chiefs were running at 70" in 43. Pratt & Whitney knew this but would not acknowledge it for warranty reasons.

As I recall, the P-51 pilots would burn the aft fuselage fuel tank during initial climbout on every mission, for center of gravity reasons. Perhaps you could calculate the internal fuel for the P-51 without that 45 gallons or so and be a little more true to likely conditions.

Incredible detail and research my friend!!! Keep up the fantastic work!!!

Spitfire was a small aircraft, built as an interceptor where high rate of climb was part of the package. The compromises gave it a poor range so it’s no surprise the drop tank issue gave serious problems.

Despite its virtues and improvements over time, and its usefulness in the ground attack role - a role the Mustang was tragically ill-suited for but pressed into on too many occasions nonetheless - I'll never get over its coke bottle fuselage for which it got its nickname, The Jug. Each of us who become aviators is branded at an early age with an ideal image of a fighter aircraft. It's emotional, not rational much like a guy who sees a woman across a crowded room and swears he'll marry her one day. And that image, for me, will always be the Messerschmitt 109. Love your videos though.

Another awesome video! So often, raw performance statistics are used in a vacuum to describe different aircraft's performance and many fallacies and myths come as a result. I love how you break down the nuances and real world variables (such as fuel octane, available modifications and maintenance) and still give a cohesive, real world analysis of their performance. One thing I would add about the P-51: there was a common practice to burn off most of the gas (leaving roughly 15 gallons) in the aft tank before switching to the drop tanks. This was due to the negative CG flight characteristics with all that weight aft weight. This would change the "point of tank drop" performance quite a bit. That being said, the 51 was never a climber and it was possibly one of it's biggest weaknesses (along with acceleration). It would be interesting to compare them each with a fuel load equal to the lightest fuel load (probably the Spit or 109?). It would be interesting to see a comparison at say 80 gallons each. Of course, I am not suggesting you do that because I know how much work you put in to these videos. Not to mention information not directly available. I truly appreciate you interesting content and efforts!

i really appreciate your translation of all this info for us. huge help to understand it all.

Your videos are absolutely amazing it’s a true shame that you don’t have more subscribers.

10:10 Lucky had a cut tail! (edit: cut rudder) Impressive. 18:23 !? white stripe darnit!

Again another great video from you Greg! Been watching it two times and probably will watch it at least two or three times just to absorb all data provided in this video. Thx for upload ! :D

I love your channel. Thanks for teaching me. I'll share it with my friends and boyfriend too

terrific attention to detail thankyou.

Haah, what, they locked the tower ? I am from that town below and have been up there many many times, it's a truly amazing view from up there. Btw, Philipp Fauth, the guy on the stone, mapped the moon in great detail. NASA used it to choose Apollo 11's landing zone. It took satellites and computers to get better maps of the moon than his. Right there, he made part of those maps for Apollo 11 decades later. Life can be funny. You make great videos !

I love this type of technical details. Keep up the good work sir!

The P-47's performance just kept getting better, but it was always rugged, able too absorb significant battle damage and get it's pilot back home safely, and It always had massive amounts of firepower as well as decent range. It's my personal favorite for all of that but I especially love the way it looks.

Another great vid Greg, especially the Bismarck Turm you showed at the end. Makes me want to go back to Germany. Cannot wait for your next video.

As always a well produced video of which i enjoyed immensely Thank you

Great video as I've come to enjoy...the explanation of the paddle blade prop was excellent as I always wondered how a prop could add so much horsepower(1000)...which it didn't but what it did add was quite significant for sure.

Hey Greg, great video as usual. I was wondering if you have a simple explanation, or if it would take a video, to explain the differences in construction of wings and the materials they are made out of. This stems from a conversation with a mechanic who does airplanes, and his fascination with WW2 American warbirds. We got into an interesting discussion where he claims that everybody who built airplanes with metal builds, like the mustang, did it wrong, and actually should have built them out of wood, as in his eyes it is lighter while being as aerodynamically sturdy, and points to DeHavilland corporation and their use of wooden builds in their planes. I was curious if there was a NACA report on this, or if somehow, the entire world got WW2 prop planes wrong. Keep up the great work!

Another excellent analysis, Thank you Greg.

I would kill for that black (olive?) P-47 in the intro. LAPD knocks on window. I open the canopy. Sir, are you o.k.? asks the young officer who somehow shaved ten minutes ago. "I live here, officer, Republic P-47, I call her Katt, ain't she a beauty?" - cop says "My grandad drove a Jug, y'all take care...". I might not have a license AND I could possess one Juggernaut, oh yesss...I'd live in it. With mods. Engine feeds NiLithium batteries. I would live in a P-47. Just the smell...

Things I want to see: Airframe differences b/w P-51 and Bf 109 Match-Up b/w P-51D(-10, -20) vs Fw 190 D-9 Turn comparison b/w P-51 vs Bf 109 Individual video on each plane like reviews (Ex: How good was Fw 190 D-9 on WW2?) Face reveal Lol, thanks always for your specific topics. Your aviation vids are really helpful to understand the most complex and tech-heavy combat that is air combat. Keep on, I’ll always love em.

While the climb rate chart is a direct comparison, the sea level climb rate for the P-51 and P-47 has no real operational bearing in when escorting bombers. The Spitfire may have had need in the Battle of Britain to rise quickly from takeoff to meet the incoming foe, but the P-51 and P-47 in 1943 and 1944 were already at altitude escorting bombers when encountering the enemy, and had also used maybe some of the fuel. It would have been very important for German planes to climb quickly when scrambling for bomber intercept. This changes when the Allies start having airfields on the continent, but of course the Luftwaffe was not the force it was in 1942. Also entering 1944, P-47 and P-51 were at this point spending more time at lower altitudes in ground attack where climb rate would matter if encountering BF-109s an such.

Hey Greg, nice analysis on the P-47 climb specially at high altitude showing the advantage of the turbo. I don't want to be that nitpicky guy, but looks like there were some details wrong about the 109s, the G-14's engine developed 1800 PS at sea level with MW 50, for what I could find the 1700 PS value is without MW 50 (I suppose they would have used the high octane C3 fuel in that case). Also the climbrate value for the 109s seems a bit low. The G-6 value at sea level you listed would be with 1.3 ata (1310 PS) instead of the higher power it had available with 1.42 ata (1475 PS) cleared in mid-late 1943. And the G-14's looks a bit too low as well, with full fuel and without wing guns at 1800 PS it would be close to 4500 feet per minute at sea level, very similar to the Spitfire LF Mk IX at +18 boost.

Incredibly informative, thanks!!!!

I can't stop watching your videos HELP ME! your the best

Thank you for another great video.

I love this stuff, thank you for keeping my nerdself filled with random aircraft knowledge, this made me feel better on a day I am not feeling so great :)

I still love this videos. Small suggestion- maybe include both full and half-full tanks for these power/weight and related ratios. Any way, thanks. P.S. By the end of these series I'm pretty sure the viewer will know almost as much as the average pilot did back then!

Thank you for your excellent work.

impressive. highly recommended.

One pilots testimony (P47 pilot) in Britain pulled away from a Spitfire (he described it) from after ground takeoff to 27,000', increasing the distance between him and the following Spitfire pilot at an even greater rate (opening up gap distance apart even more rapidly) particularly from 7,000' all the way up to 27,000'. They decided to see what the climb behavior of the two aircraft were in a flight test. The Spitfire couldn't stay with the Thunderbolt. It may be attributable to that air cooled radial piston type power plant, and that whopper paddle grabber screw.

Greg if you did not know... there is a brand new in box, not kidding, P-47N at a farm. From Wkipedia referencing the B-36 "Instead of being completely disposed of, Soplata bought it and transported the pieces by truck to his farm, where it sits today. The bomb bay currently contains a complete P-47N still packed in its original shipping crate.[67]" I can't tell for sure, but it looks like it was still there in 2010

Very interesting as usual - more the better. Two queries - not criticisms. First, I read test pilot Boone Geyton's memoirs of his year as lead guinea pig for the Corsair in 1940-41. What was striking is how "seat of the pants" the whole effort was. The data gathered on the new bird, as I understand it, was written down in pencil on a checklist in Geyton's lap - sometimes interrupted when things got dicey. I'm sure that Vought had a very good idea of how the Corsair was performing - but it doesn't sound like the data was good enough to provide the kind of precision we'd take for granted in our age. I got much the same impression from the "Report of Joint Fighter Conference NAS Patuxent River; MD 16-23 1944" (Schiffer publications - 1998 - in print) a week long gathering of 200 or so representatives from all US companies producing fighters, engineers & pilots from Army and Navy, an RAF contingent and five NACA honchos from Langley Field. All active US fighters were evaluated (also the Bell jet, Tigercat and Bearcat), the RAF brought a Mosquito and Seafire and they looked at Zero M5 for fun. 350 pages of transcript and data. They argue about everything - everything. (I guess that's the point of trade-off.) There are figures and graphs galore, but they they're not done in great detail. Much of the aircraft evaluation appears to be very subjective. (They agreed with one point made in your video. The rating of "Best Fighter" was split between "25,000 Feet" - P51D, and "30,000 Feet" - P47M.) I talked with Francis Dean, an ex-Boeing engineer and WWII fighter guru who edited this report for publication, and he noted that the theoretical knowledge of aeronautical engineering always ran a little ahead of results in that time with many things a little fuzzy. Dean claimed that made the field incredibly interesting in that era - perhaps more so when massive design teams get together for a decade or more to create a high tech plane today. Anyway, I wonder if the performance figures from that era might have contained some "slack." Secondly, I was told by pilots that every plane was a little different and they got more different the more hours logged - and unlike a bottle of Lafite, fighter performance did not improve with age. I wonder how that would have played out. By 1944 German industry was producing big numbers of planes (until about September) but were they as well made as those from a year or two earlier? The allies weren't losing as many planes - but any fighter was "hot" and put through stress comparable to a F1 car. Wonder if there weren't planes flying that were kicking out good but not peak performance. Maybe unanswerable. Again, great stuff. Look forward to a piece on the Spit or P51.

Haha. I checked in here last night wondering/hoping I had missed a notification. Nope. But today...voila!

Thanks Greg for another fantastic vid on the 47. You covered everything in depth that converted the 47 from an also ran to the dominate aircraft Republic produced. Finally after a bit of searching found and purchased "Thunderbolt" the story of Maj. Robert S. Johnson. First edition I might add, not the paperback with the "Bubbletop" of Gabreski's on the cover. What were they thinking? I am looking forward to the rest of the truth about the plane as Gen. Kenney {Commander 8 A.F. Fighter Group} stated "Broke the back of the Luftwaffe". Thanks again!

Nice. I like this kind of tech talk.

"The Spitfire is all out of bubblegum." I didn't expect to hear a They Live reference here, nice.

Thanks for the great video, Greg. I play a lot of War Thunder on PS4 because I am poor, and it is free. The list of things wrong with War Thunder (Realistic Air Battles, in particular) is very long, but I'd love to see you review it. Thanks again!

January 1944 according to Johnson's account had terrible weather and few if any missions so both the January prop arrival and the February power boost came at the same time.

The P-51's win dogfights, the P-47 wins wars. If looks could kill, then it's the Mustang, but for destructive attack, I'll take the 8 50 cal's on the P-47 and a few rockets and bombs.

Greg, I love your videos!! Keep going!!

I love P-47 crew chiefs!!

You should have included the earlier Lagg'3 versions, just for lol's P.S. I love the Lagg-3's Edit2: Could you please specify about which Spitfire mk.9 you are talking, is it an LF, F, HF? Same for which engine on the BF-109 G-6. Is it running with or without mw50? Great video nonetheless.

24:38 you should make a video about climb rate comparing the Japanese planes that intercepted high altitude B-29s over Japan. How the heck did they even manage to shoot down B-29s with their planes having radial engine and no turbochargers !!!!

hi greg ...awesome as usual appreciated

Around 22:35, you mentioned prop efficiency favors the inline...why's that? The streamlined area immediately behind the prop? Or less 'aircraft' behind the paddles, so less obstruction avter he propeller? Maybe I answered my own question. Also, it seems like paddle-blade props are all-around better, as compared to the skinnier originals, but could someone elaborate on that?

Thank you

Great series thanks.

I hope this series goes on to touch more on the skewed air-to-air kills vs aircraft loss numbers that surround the P-47. Everyone knows the P-47 was the true workhorse of the war... but almost everyone scoffs at its performance (mostly due to the misinterpreting the air-to-air kill vs aircraft lost ratio). This is nonsense. The Jug was there to win the air war in '42 & '43 (when the Luftwaffe was at its most dangerous) and performed very well. Then, after the Luftwaffe ceased to be a major threat in early '44, the jug moved on to the ground attack role (again, where the fighting was the most dangerous). Just when the war was starting to get easier for bombers and P-51 escorts...the P-47 jumped from the frying pan to the fire by switching from the hardest part of the air war to the deadliest part of the ground attack war. Heavy losses were incurred from ground fire... and the numbers have been up for misinterpretation ever since.

Very good job! Thank you for upload! God Bless!!!

Unless I'm mistaken Robert S. Johnson was a flying Tiger and also wrote "God is My Co-pilot" as well as Thunderbolt.

OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi Greg-would it at all be possible to include russian fighters in your comparison? I am thinking specifically of the la5/7 and yak 3. Also, can you possibly do a video of how/where gamws like DCS/il2 get their comparative flight models wrong? I am thinking specifically about how the p51 and to a lesser extent the spitfire seem underwhelming in DCS and how the russian planes seem to have blistering performance in il2. Thanksan really enjoy your videos!

Your videos are OUTSTANDING!!!

That looks like Big Johns P-47.In which he had the pilots armor plate cut down to the size of a P -51s armor. And had the two outside 50 caliber machine gun‘s removed. That reduce the weight of the aircraft just a little over 500 pounds and gave it a better climb in speed and turn rate. Also After the war was over, Aldoff Gallant confirmed that big John is the one who shot his thumb off!

I just remembered who your voice reminds me of. As a kid, I used to play Jane's Simulations WWII Fighters. It had an interactive museum with many aircraft including the P-47, and the small explanations were similarly voiced like yours. Blast from the past! I wonder if you've played that Sim? I used to fool around in it, but I played it multiple times over, including all the campaigns haha

Thanks for another great video

I prefer the razorback - a D-22 or D-23 with the paddle prop. Olive drab, invasion stripes and a black and white checkerboard cowling, please.