Republic Nightbolt Mk-I
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51234324331_fd0523d243_b.jpg)
After the disastrous career of the Boulton Paul as a day fighter it served with moderate success as a night fighter with the RAF in 1941 and 1942. The lack of forward fire power remained a problem, however. Also, the weight of the turret slowed the aircraft down and performance was too low.
The principle of the turret fighter however was still attractive, and the RAF searched for a more powerful replacement of the Defiant as a night fighter.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51234324366_ae7a5b9179_b.jpg)
The aim was to find a turret fighter with a more powerful engine and armed with forward firing fixed guns in addition to the turret.
A solution was found in the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt which came to the UK at the end of 1942. A P-47C was sent to Boulton Paul for conversion.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51235389065_9d533aaf5a_b.jpg)
This company fitted a Defiant turret to the aircraft. The big fuselage of the Thunderbolt provided enough space for the turret and the operator. First flight of the modified aircraft was early in 1943 and tests were so successful that a production run of 200 aircraft was ordered. The aircraft was called Nightbolt and entered service in May 1943.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51234324426_5fbbce84b1_b.jpg)
The Nightbolt remained in service until the end of the war, a total of 327 being built.
Model: Academy P-47 in 1/72 with Airfix Defiant (the old one) turret
TomZ
TOP BANANA! :thumbsup:
This is so outrageously quirky that it's entirely possible. :thumbsup:
Very neat. Can see it as an intruder.
That just looks so natural!
:wub: :wub :wub:
Very cool! :mellow:
Needs a radar bubble out on one wing, though. ;)
Quote from: TomZ on June 08, 2021, 12:32:51 PM
The big fuselage of the Thunderbolt provided enough space for the turret and the operator.
And a crew chief and fill maintenance crew as well........... ;)
What a BRILL idea Tom, I LOVE it! :wub: :thumbsup:
I wonder how many Airfix Defiant kits have ended up sans turrets by now? The turrets keep turning up on here in remarkable numbers, but none are actually aboard a Defiant. ;D
Well, maybe a few of them. It occurred to me that my entry in that class was really a Defiant.
That's looking very good, also in that simple livery. :thumbsup:
Oh ! , that's horrible , I like it .
Interesting. :thumbsup:
You're a genius, Tom!
Nice one Tom. :thumbsup:
That must have involved some 'interesting' re-routing of all the turbocharger/intercooler ducting, mind you... ;)
Quote from: Weaver on June 09, 2021, 01:55:45 AM
That must have involved some 'interesting' re-routing of all the turbocharger/intercooler ducting, mind you... ;)
I looked in my model and the space was empty ;D ;D
TomZ
Quote from: TomZ on June 09, 2021, 02:16:56 AM
Quote from: Weaver on June 09, 2021, 01:55:45 AM
That must have involved some 'interesting' re-routing of all the turbocharger/intercooler ducting, mind you... ;)
I looked in my model and the space was empty ;D ;D
TomZ
:thumbsup:
Quote from: TomZ on June 09, 2021, 02:16:56 AM
I looked in my model and the space was empty ;D ;D
Which is why there's enough space for the crew chief etc. ;D ;)
Very good :thumbsup:
Quote from: andrewj on June 09, 2021, 12:18:09 AM
Oh ! , that's horrible , I like it .
Second that.
:thumbsup:
That works :thumbsup: :thumbsup: really well :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Anyone fancy building one with an American Turret?
Quote from: TomZ on June 09, 2021, 02:16:56 AM
Quote from: Weaver on June 09, 2021, 01:55:45 AM
That must have involved some 'interesting' re-routing of all the turbocharger/intercooler ducting, mind you... ;)
I looked in my model and the space was empty ;D ;D
TomZ
That probably explains why your model doesn't fly so well too... ;)
Quote from: zenrat on June 10, 2021, 04:26:08 AM
Anyone fancy building one with an American Turret?
Maybe a ball turret underneath ? :angel:
Can I ask a daft question ? Having no mechanical knowledge what so ever could you take all the supercharger gubbins out of the back of a Thunderbolt still allowing it to work/fly ? Or would you need to re-engine it ?
You'd not be far off having an aircraft with performance similar to that of a Defiant (even sans turret) or, worse, a Battle. :o
Quote from: Old Wombat on June 10, 2021, 06:50:15 AM
You'd not be far off having an aircraft with performance similar to that of a Defiant (even sans turret) or, worse, a Battle. :o
Cheers mate.
So all that "stuff" isn't essential, but offers a vast improvement. I've often wondered.
Are all the turbo bits in the P-47 really needed for sheer horsepower, or are they there more for maintaining high-altitude performance?
For example, Hellcat and Corsair also had the R-2800 engine but only used the built-in supercharger, it yielded about the same amount of horsepower as the turbocharged version but without all of the bulky and heavy bits. Of course, they had a lower critical altitude than the T-Bolt, which reached maximum performance 9000 metres/30000 feet and outperformed just about every piston-engined plane even above that (Hellcat and Corsair reached peak performance at about 6km/20000ft). The German bombers flew at lower altitudes than the Americans anyway (except for the occasional Ju 86P), so wouldn't the supercharged engine have been enough?
I would say Tom has got it right by using the 'razor-back' for his project. There would be just enough room I think for the turret. Mind you, you wouldn't have to provide heating for the gunner ;D
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvillage.photos%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8f3973c9-3f0e-4b54-80e2-017121c0bf9f%2Fc8af6c87-a153-4e97-95f9-0a087f979699.jpg&hash=91cb54134bcff0f33bffdfc8381272dbcfb8141f)
I always thought it odd that the T'Bolt's turbo was MILES away from the engine, but then they were on the P-38 too, whereas the B-17 and B-24 had them very 'close coupled'.
I can't compare it with anything designed in the UK as we never used turbos over here, not as far as I know anyway.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on June 10, 2021, 12:15:02 PM
I always thought it odd that the T'Bolt's turbo was MILES away from the engine, but then they were on the P-38 too, whereas the B-17 and B-24 had them very 'close coupled'.
I can't compare it with anything designed in the UK as we never used turbos over here, not as far as I know anyway.
Not used operationally, but the Wellington Mk.V had turbos in addition to the single stage supercharger.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on June 10, 2021, 12:15:02 PM
I always thought it odd that the T'Bolt's turbo was MILES away from the engine, but then they were on the P-38 too, whereas the B-17 and B-24 had them very 'close coupled'.
I can't compare it with anything designed in the UK as we never used turbos over here, not as far as I know anyway.
If you did that on a car you'd get horrible turbo lag, but that isn't so much of an issue for aircraft.
I've seen cars (conventional front engine - rear drive) with a turbo at the back under the boot. Can't remember where or why. Because of lag it'd have to be an application where the engine was running at sustained rpm. Salt lakes racer maybe?
The use of a mechanically driven supercharger and an exhaust driven supercharger (turbocharger) on the same engine is not something i'm aware of in the car world. Although i'm sure it must have been tried.
It has been done on truck engines. Detroit Diesel built two strokes with both.
Quote from: zenrat on June 11, 2021, 04:48:59 AM
The use of a mechanically driven supercharger and an exhaust driven supercharger (turbocharger) on the same engine is not something i'm aware of in the car world. Although i'm sure it must have been tried.
It has been done on truck engines. Detroit Diesel built two strokes with both.
There was a version of the Golf/Scirocco that had both, I think was called a G40 or a G60. Got rave write ups in the mags but didn't last in production very long.
Good looking beast, Tom - well done! :thumbsup:
Given that the P-47 excelled at ground attack in 1944-5, I've often wondered why they didn't build a version with the simpler Hellcat/Corsair R-2800 engine using only the built-in supercharger, the weight saving giving scope for armour protection; could have been useful in the Korean War as well.