Were P-47D-28 underwing bomb racks/pylons permanently mounted or they could be dismantled if they were not needed?

[303_Bies]

As in the title. In most photos Bubble canopy P-47D's have this racks mounted with bombs or without but in some other there are no racks under the wings.

 

According to: http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p47_4.html

Quote

Underwing pylons were introduced on the D-15-RE and D-15-RA production blocks. These enabled a drop tank or a bomb to be carried underneath each wing in addition to the stores carried on the belly shackles. Fuel changes had to be made to incorporate plumbing for the underwing tanks. Bomb selection increased to two 1000-pound or 3 500-pound bombs, with maximum bombload being 2500 pounds. Alternatively, a 108-gallon drop tank could be carried underneath each wing, adding 150 miles to the P-47's range. Earlier P-47C and D models could be modified in the field to accommodate underwing racks, but the amount of work required many man-hours of effort by maintenance personnel. The underwing pylons had a detrimental affect on performance, and their air resistance cut 45 mph off the maximum speed. However, a redesigned, more streamlined pylon cut the loss to about 15 mph.

 

cheers

Edited June 18, 2018 by bies

[Finkeren]

45mph off top speed for a pair of underwing racks, that sounds extreme.

[RedKestrel]

9 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

45mph off top speed for a pair of underwing racks, that sounds extreme.

Yeah that seems like a lot, maybe that amount is talking about the racks AND the fuel tanks together.

I know this is pretty meaningless, but when flying the P-47D in Il-2 1946, the underwing pylons were always there, even without the fuel tanks. 

[Finkeren]

17 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

I know this is pretty meaningless, but when flying the P-47D in Il-2 1946, the underwing pylons were always there, even without the fuel tanks. 

 

If I were to take a wild guess it would be, that the pylons will be there by default, but that there will be a special modification to remove them (which in turn will limit the types of ordinance that can be carried)

 

By far the most pictures of P-47Ds I’ve seen have had them fitted, regardless whether they were in use or not.

[RedKestrel]

1 minute ago, Finkeren said:

 

If I were to take a wild guess it would be, that the pylons will be there by default, but that there will be a special modification to remove them (which in turn will limit the types of ordinance that can be carried)

 

By far the most pictures of P-47Ds I’ve seen have had them fitted, regardless whether they were in use or not.

Yeah, going through the flight manuals, you often see them fitted on otherwise 'clean' airframes. Even 15 mph seems an awful lot of performance to give up by default. 

Given their mission profiles, I guess they probably used pylons 99% of the time (for fuel or ordnance) anyway, so maybe it was just silly to ever remove them...

[Finkeren]

Remember, that the 15mph is just off top speed. It doesn’t mean that 15mph will get shaved off your speed in any given situation. Changes in parasitic drag affects top speed the most. In most combat situations the speed loss will propably barely be noticeable, only in a dive or a high-speed pursuit will it make a big difference.

[Poochnboo]

9 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Given their mission profiles, I guess they probably used pylons 99% of the time (for fuel or ordnance) anyway, so maybe it was just silly to ever remove them...

Yes. I'm sure most people don't realize just how short ranged the Thunderbolts were until the N model. Three hours, or so, flying time. If the racks weren't being used for bombs, they had drop tanks hanging from them. It was pretty rare for them to head out with nothing under the wings.

Edited June 18, 2018 by Poochnboo

[Finkeren]

1 minute ago, Poochnboo said:

Yes. I'm not sure most people don't realize just how short ranged theThunderbolts were until the N model. Three hours, or so, flying time. If the racks weren't being used for bombs, they had drop tanks hanging from them. It was pretty rare for them to head out with nothing under the wings.

Compared to most of the fighters we have in the sim now, the P-47 has pretty good range and endurance, and it will be more than enough for the BoBP map.

 

3 hours, try the 45mins endurance on the La-5FN.

[Farky]

1 hour ago, bies said:

As in the title. In most photos Bubble canopy P-47D's have this racks mounted with bombs or without but in some other there are no racks under the wings.

 

Removing underwing pylons wasn't standard procedure on "Bubble canopy" P-47s. However, at least 56th FG did removed them on some Thunderbolts (including P-47D-28), it was rather field modification. For example famous "Gabby" Gabreski was flying without underwing pylons -

[Poochnboo]

Fink, I'm no expert on Russian aviation, I'll have to admit. It was just never my thing. But I find it hard to believe that any fighter could have a running time of 45 minutes. By the time you've started the engine, done your run up, and formed up with your squadron, you've killed half that time. Take off, fly for ten minutes and come back? Doesn't sound right.

15 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

Compared to most of the fighters we have in the sim now, the P-47 has pretty good range and endurance, and it will be more than enough for the BoBP map.

 

3 hours, try the 45mins endurance on the La-5FN.

 

3 minutes ago, Farky said:

Removing underwing pylons wasn't standard procedure on "Bubble canopy" P-47s. However, at least 56th FG did removed them on some Thunderbolts (including P-47D-28), it was rather field modification. For example famous "Gabby" Gabreski was flying without underwing pylons -

Boy, that is just one impressive, massive looking fighter, isn't it? I'm really looking forward to it.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

33 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Fink, I'm no expert on Russian aviation, I'll have to admit. It was just never my thing. But I find it hard to believe that any fighter could have a running time of 45 minutes. By the time you've started the engine, done your run up, and formed up with your squadron, you've killed half that time. Take off, fly for ten minutes and come back? Doesn't sound right.

 

It's 45 mins in the rated continuous power, it has 464 liters (123 US gallons) of internal fuel and no external drop tanks. However you can go in economic mode dropping RPMs and manifold pressure, or flying at high altitude with the first supercharger gear, this extends the autonomy quite a bit . At least the in game specs say 2 hours endurance at 3000 meters and 350 km/h IAS.

Edited June 18, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, Farky said:

 

Removing underwing pylons wasn't standard procedure on "Bubble canopy" P-47s. However, at least 56th FG did removed them on some Thunderbolts (including P-47D-28), it was rather field modification. For example famous "Gabby" Gabreski was flying without underwing pylons -

 

It should definitely be a modification imo. The pylons were removable but they had no reason to remove them due to the way they were operating in the field.

[senseispcc]

The P47D-30 was the first model with permanent underwing pylons on previous models they coulds be removed but were seldom because the P47 was mostly at the end of the war a figther-bomber and a ground support aircraft.

And more and more P51's where given the role of escort or interceptors. For the USA that is.

Edited June 18, 2018 by senseispcc

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Both P-47s and P-51s had removable pylons that had quite a big effect on speed (over 10mph in both), but they were kept on since they were mounting either external tanks or bombs for 90% of missions.

 

Whether they should be ingame as stock, I don't think so. You don't see 190A-5/U17 with ETC 501 bomb rack permanently attached do you in stock configuration.

Edited June 18, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Art-J]

4 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

Fink, I'm no expert on Russian aviation, I'll have to admit. It was just never my thing. But I find it hard to believe that any fighter could have a running time of 45 minutes. By the time you've started the engine, done your run up, and formed up with your squadron, you've killed half that time. Take off, fly for ten minutes and come back? Doesn't sound right.

 

Boy, that is just one impressive, massive looking fighter, isn't it? I'm really looking forward to it.

 

As a bit of a trivia, adding to what SE wrote above, I'll note we don't even have to go look at Russian planes only. The high-back Spit IXs had only 85 gallons capacity of internal tanks (95 later in low-back ones). With fuel consumption at max continuous settings (7 @ 2650) being 80 gals/h (figure from real PN, I don't know what it is in the game) that yields practically 1 hour'ish of flying tops. Use max climb settings (12 @ 2850) and the plane guzzled 105 gal/h, emptying both tanks even sooner, after theoretical 48 minutes.

[Poochnboo]

 

 

1 hour ago, Art-J said:

 

As a bit of a trivia, adding to what SE wrote above, I'll note we don't even have to go look at Russian planes only. The high-back Spit IXs had only 85 gallons capacity of internal tanks (95 later in low-back ones). With fuel consumption at max continuous settings (7 @ 2650) being 80 gals/h (figure from real PN, I don't know what it is in the game) that yields practically 1 hour'ish of flying tops. Use max climb settings (12 @ 2850) and the plane guzzled 105 gal/h, emptying both tanks even sooner, after theoretical 48 minutes.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I thought of the Spit later on after writing that. I thought to myself, "Actually, that's about the same as the Spitfire."

Thing is, though, I understand the Spit's short range more than the Russian fighters. England is a fairly small island nation. Mitchell designed the airplane as a point defense fighter for his country, and for that it was perfect. It's not the fault of the design that it was considered so short ranged later in the war. It was being asked to do a job it was not designed for.

But with the size of Russia, it surprises me that they would design fighters that had such short legs. 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Short range is not a problem when your airfield is 60km from the frontline

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, Poochnboo said:

But with the size of Russia, it surprises me that they would design fighters that had such short legs. 

 

Much of the Russia was wilderness and considering geography plus distances a long ranged aerial attack was unlikely. However Soviets had some fighters with a bit better endurance - the Mig3 and the P-40 could fly longer than most.

 

[69th_chuter]

On 6/18/2018 at 8:51 AM, Farky said:

...

Removing underwing pylons wasn't standard procedure on "Bubble canopy" P-47s. However, at least 56th FG did removed them on some Thunderbolts (including P-47D-28), it was rather field modification. For example famous "Gabby" Gabreski was flying without underwing pylons -

...

 

 

Towards the end it looks like a lot of them had their pylons pulled.  Maybe it was because they began working the missions with the M's?

[ShamrockOneFive]

On 6/18/2018 at 6:01 PM, Poochnboo said:

 

 

Yes, as a matter of fact, I thought of the Spit later on after writing that. I thought to myself, "Actually, that's about the same as the Spitfire."

Thing is, though, I understand the Spit's short range more than the Russian fighters. England is a fairly small island nation. Mitchell designed the airplane as a point defense fighter for his country, and for that it was perfect. It's not the fault of the design that it was considered so short ranged later in the war. It was being asked to do a job it was not designed for.

But with the size of Russia, it surprises me that they would design fighters that had such short legs. 

 

With at least some of the Russian fighters the concept was actually fairly similar in a round-about way. The doctrine for the Russians was that the Air Force was a direct support system for the army. Fighters and attack aircraft were to be based as close to the front as possible so as to provide cover and protection to the army as often as possible. Obviously the longer ranged bombers were based slightly further afield.

 

So aircraft like the La-5FN were basically point defenders too.

 

There was the flipside of that where they did want longer range (the MiG-3 gained some fuel tanks at one point in development). The La-5 earlier models tended to have five fuel tanks but pilots hated these and they preferred the three tank versions. There was also the Yak-9D which increased range for the Yak series and then the Yak-9DD which further boosted the range (and reduced weight including the Berezin UBS leaving the fighter with just the 20mm ShVAK).

 

These were all very different than the P-47 and P-38 and later the P-51 which were all meant to have a decent amount of endurance.

Edited June 20, 2018 by ShamrockOneFive