>extra thicc wheyfu muscle-mommy amazon with extra power from her copious high-octane brappsWhat exactly did Alexander Kartveli mean by this?
>>64201210MOMMY!!!
I like big(tall) women.But i find it ugly when they resemble man.
>>64201867So, Debicki?
>>64201867> I like big(tall) women.Same.Man, what I wouldn’t give to go back in time to high school so I could not be an autistic sperg around the qt redhead volleyball player I shared a bunch of classes with.
>>64201963>missed out on a tall ginger girl with volleyball shortsJust reading it gave me psychic damage.
>>64201917Not that i wouldnt but shes kind of flat.An average volleyball player on the other hand got a nice ass>>64201978
>>64201978Whew.
>>64202072>shes kind of flatshe has an alright B pair>>64201210raw power and massive fuel tanks for range
>>64203033It was outranged by the Mustang and Zero.
>>64201210gotta go fast, carry 8x .50's and possibly bombs.
Thicc like this
>>64203050>MustangOnly with drop tanks, and as you can see from the diagram above, the Mustang is quite a hefty size itself>ZeroSacrificed armour and firepower to do so
>>64203050Zero could be downed by an aggressive glance.The P-47 was VERY hard to kill
Looking at the success of the Thunderbolt, the efforts to make other fighter aircraft smaller, lighter, and with reduced surface area seem pointless.
>>64201210US engine technology at the time was vastly inferior, requiring a much larger airframe.
Because the US was mostly fielding obsolete airframes based on biplanes but upgraded with cantilever wings and better engines.The US Army won thanks to the industrial base and chemical industry. Engine designers were making good engines but not the best or innovative.Aircraft designers were using the worse airfoils before the P-51, the worst cowlings designed for 1930s bombers instead of fighters twice as fast. The US had some modern designs that couldn't polish until the very end of the war, like the P-38 or the stupid and underperforming for its cost P-47 or F4U.The P-51 (the bonged version) was accidentally good, the result of modernizing the manufacture of the P-40 with post 1930s technology the rest was using. And the P-40 was an accidental discovery too, the result of adapting the P-36 to a inline engine but it only began to shine after getting 130/150 octane avgas and being overbooster by the british (up to 2000 hp).
>>64203077Same for the P-47>Sacrificed armour and firepower to do soIt didn't, the Zero was the typical fighter when it was designed. Aircraft like the Ki-84 and N1K had range, armor and firepower.
>>64203068holy shit thats disgusting
>>64203110>>64203111Man, this is some extra spicy cope
>>64203110No, the vastly larger airframe was built to house the giant turbosuperautismocharger.
>>64203141Low-T
>>64203161That isn't an argument.
>>64203168Someone is mad their late-war untrained axis pilots couldn't fly worth a damn
>>64203168There isn’t really much to argue when you claim something that’s as wrong as “the US had bad aircraft engines”
>>64203125>Same for the P-47This pic depicts combat radius not ferry range, which might not be accurate as it rests on various combat assumptions; also the P51 combat radius shown is definitely with droptanks although it's not noted hereFurthermore the P47D model with wing tanks had more or less the same range as the vanilla P51D>the Zero was the typical fighter when it was designedWithin the year it was introduced (1940) both British and German fighters were sporting armoured cockpits and self-sealing fuel tanks. Its body was also generally built lighter than its contemporaries to increase range, at the expense of fragility.>Ki-84 and N1KIrrelevant
>>64203164Not the turbosupercharger but the intercooler. Unlike RR, the US didn't think about liquid coolant to design a compact. The P-38 and bombers had a better design but even more complex.
>>64203180>>64203161NTA but British and German aircraft engines were top of the class at the timeThe US arguably pulled ahead shortly after ww2 with British tech transfer and wartime R&D, and the pivot to jet engines
>>64203110Everybody's engine tech at that time was lackluster. Airframe tech had outstripped engine tech in the '30s, thanks to all those hyperstreamlined racing seaplanes. The engines in those were way too bespoke and new to be easily replicated quickly, but the airframes were a much easier challenge. That's why you get so many Yak or Messerschmitt sized fighters.>take the best engine we've got and cram it on the smallest, best airframe
>>64203180I'm >>64203111, retard.
>>64203182It's the combat range for escort missions, it's a valid comparison and that's why that pic exists.>Within the year it was introduced (1940) both British and German fighters were sporting armoured cockpits and self-sealing fuel tanksBongs were using unarmoured P-40s and the Spitfires of 1940 only had one of its fuel tanks with SS. >IrrelevantNot an argument.
One of the cool things about the P-47 is that so many of them were made, tons of countries had them as part of their grab-bag from military selloffs. Turkey had the biggest airforce in the region post-war and they had several of just about every single type of aircraft that flew over Europe in WW2. God I love jugs.>>64203125Not entirely true, Mitsubishi took enormous compromises to reduce weight because the RFP they and Nakajima were responding to made demands that were borderline impossible to all meet in a single fighter. Nakajima dropped out pretty early because they simply didn't think the requirements could be met. The lack of both armor plate and self-sealing fuel tanks was part of the aggressive weight savings, two things that were very normal to have at the time.
>>64203164When I find a way to mount that turbo on my civic it's gonna be sick.
>>64203167Fuck off, obesity is not attractive.
>>64203235>The lack of both armor plate and self-sealing fuel tanksThat was typical when it was designed, they couldn't add those in production without developing ADI for the Sakae, unlike the Army that had far more leeway with their "Zero" due to less concerns related to engine reliability (a huge killer of pilots in the Pacific), the Hayabusa, that had SS and armour despite being lighter than the Zero and with the same engine. The "interceptor Zero" of the IJA, the Ki-44, had things like SSFT.Without better fuel the Sakae was limited to 1000-1100 hp max, <800 hp for continous power, with better fuel the Sakae could achieve 1500-1600 hp and for that case SSFT is trivial. You can blame the Navy for not using the larger 'bomber' engines that were similar in size to European radials, even the Zero designer lameted the decision to use the Zuisei and Sakae instead of the Kinsei. The problem of the IJN wasn't the designs but the lack of resources or willingness to update their fighters after 42.
>>64203278of using the Zuisei*
>>64203227>It's the combat range for escort missions, it'swrong, as I've described>Bongs were using unarmoured P-40sIrrelevant>the Spitfires of 1940 only had one of its fuel tanks with SSWhile the Zero had zero, until 1944 iinm>Not an argumentTake a look at the diagram in OP and tell me how may N1Ks are on it
>>64203278Probably more of an inability to update their fighters after '42. Between material demands on existing assembly lines, the sudden tabling of turns in mid-'42, and the Sakae being a bit of a dead-end, and better Jap designs on the drawing board, really they couldn't do much more with Hayabusas and Zeros.
>>64203278>the Hayabusa, that had SS>in service date: December 1942
>>64203294It was a refusal to accept that their GOTTAGOFAST air doctrine had failedInstitutional inertia is a universal human failing
>>64203287>wrong, as I've describedThe P-47 was an excellent example of a Task that failed successfully. All the fuel efficiency improvement due to the turbo is lost with the extra dead weight and drag of a bad designed cowling. Pic of the Pilot's Manual.>While the Zero had zero, until 1944 iinmWhat part of the IJN refusing to update it you don't understand, lmao. The IJA "Zero" got the fuel tanks a few months after PH.>Take a look at the diagram in OP and tell me how may N1Ks are on itImpressive, with such extensive diagram...
>>64203319It was less "GOTTAGOFAST" and more about maxxing agility with range. America combined GOTTAGOFAST with GOTTAPUNCHCRIPPLINGLY and GOTTASURVIVEBEINGHIT.
>>64203294The IJA with less resources could update their fighters. The IJN could field better Land based fighters, but the Zero depended of the AC and the lack of interest of the those retards (see the A7M, horrible).
>>64203340To be fair, land fighters always have more forgiving parameters. See: straight wings on navy jets into the '50s.
With the outbreak of war, imports from Europe and the US became impossible, and Japan had to start by domestically producing oil-resistant synthetic rubbers such as Buna and Neoprene. While the natural rubber layer is crucial for SS tanks, Japan also needed to research foam processing.
>>64203344>navy jets into the '50s.And radial turbojets.Japan tried to fight far above its capability.Daily reminder that Pearl Harbor was an idea of the IJN to do something more than watching the IJA.
>>64203353Well, they took the massive rubber plantations in Malaya in '41, so what excuse did they have then? The US sub campaign wasn't effective until very late '43, so Nippon had time to use all that rubber.
>>64203340What? The IJA upgraded their fighters? Clearly it’s because they lack HONORABU SAMURAI SPIRIT and this is why they will fail. We will show our HONORABUNESS and keep the same airplanes forever. Because the IJA is wrong and we’re right. Oh hey were did my MAGIC BUSHIDO CARRIERS go?t. Imperial Japanese Navy. Probably.
>>64203364This post has been fact checked as true by the Realest Niggah.
>>64203191>German aircraft engines were top of the class at the timeyeah
