Talk:Republic P-47 Thunderbolt
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Top speed 426 mph at 30,000ft?
editThe "Specifications" section says the P-47D-40 has a top speed of 426 mph at 30000ft, but did not provide the condition of the P-47's flight (the manifold pressure, rpm, and whether or not water injection is used). There are many configurations in which the P-47 may fly, but I don't think the 426mph @ 30000ft is particularly representative of the general condition. It appears that the P-47 reached 442mph at a much lower altitude of 23200ft[1] with the use of 70" boost and water injection, which was the standard condition starting from June 1944[2]. I believe the 426mph at 30000ft would likely be from a P-47 using 56" boost with water injection, but it is purely speculation.Sqrt(-1)magsqrt(-1)nary (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Stick with what's already there - it's cited to a perfectly good reliable source, and where possible it's not a good idea to mix references for specs because they won't be the same - they are different versions or have different configurations and you end up with some specs from one version and others from another, which are not compatible.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Variants table?
editI am curious why a very large variants table exists in this article but not in Republic P-47 Thunderbolt variants? Surely it should be moved there (or deleted) with a summary paragraph left behind on variants? A similar but opposite problem is the 'Surviving aircraft' section, there is rightly a link to List of surviving Republic P-47 Thunderbolts but no summary at all. How many are still flying, how many in museums, only needs a couple of sentences. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to see the M and N variants of the P-47 mentioned. These had much higher top speeds and extended the range significantly which was a major criticism of earlier P-47 variants. Give some credit to Republic for those improvements. Differences between RE and RA versions could be explained in one sentence. Puff41 (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Puff41 The P-47M and N are covered in the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt variants article. - ZLEA T\C 22:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Good to see the link to the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt variants article in the variants section. I missed that. I still think it's misleading in the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt article to embed a P-47B line drawing next to a P-47D-40 specification. 47.146.29.231 (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Puff41 The P-47M and N are covered in the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt variants article. - ZLEA T\C 22:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Article issues
edit- This article is listed as a C-class. The B-class criteria (#1) states,
The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.
The "In German service" has three inline "citation needed" tags dated July 2016. The "External links" section has become somewhat bloated and needs to be trimmed. - It would not take much to improve this article to attain B-class status. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think it struggles, even at C Class. There are too many problems with it and it's starting to drift back to where it was ten years ago. An encyclopaedia-standard article needs much better proof reading than this. There are two occasions when the old claims about the toughness of air cooled engines come up, virtually word for word. There is also the comment that Don Blakeslee was talking about the P-47C (before it got the new propeller!). The way it's written sounds like an excuse. Ten years ago, this article was a hagiography of the P-47, using cherry-picked and out-of-sequence claims and quotes and people like me had to get involved to clean it up. The 'Talk' page was a battlefield. Once that happened and the fanbois went away, it was much improved. But recent re-reading shows that there have been some poorly considered edits and the standard has declined as a result. Flanker235 (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Nickname
editThere seems to be no source for the claim that it was named ¨Jug¨ during wartime. I have also seen debate about the meaning of that nickname (equaly without sources) that it meant juggernaut instead of milk jug. 2003:E4:1F22:4200:2D5D:CF0A:1D50:C87B (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is sourced to "Air Force Association 1998, p. 110." in the body of the article.
- Air Force Fifty. Nashville, Tennessee: Turner Publishing (Air Force Association), 1998 (limited edition). ISBN 1-56311-409-7
- (Hohum @) 15:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
"in popular culture"
editMost of the stuff in this section is totally not suitable for inclusion. An audiobook featuring P-47 pilots? That's a book about the P-47, for people who are interested in the P-47 and P-47 pilots. Idumea47b (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)