Jump to content


Founders [standard]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

137 Excellent

About Tomsk

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    North Yorkshire, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

862 profile views
  1. I'm happy to do that, could you tell me how to enable the G-Limiter I haven't seen that option. I think this is the key: there basically is no data about the areas of high-speed elevator effectiveness or energy bleed. Everything anyone posts is at best a guess: you could be right and everything could in fact match the real world situation perfectly .. or I could be right and it could be there is a bug in the FM. I am perfectly happy to accept the posibility that I could be wrong, and that to some extent I am guessing ... but then so is everyone else. That is all I really mean
  2. I have not stated the P-47D must be wrong. I've been very clear, that it is hard to know for sure. I have made the case that I think that it is wrong, and have given my reasons why, but I do not claim infallibility. Without hard data, of which this is very little in this area .. it seems impossible to be certain. As I asked before, could you suggest a test that I could do to verify high-speed elevator effectiveness or high-speed energy bleed that could be verified against known test data? It seems to me there is no data, and we are all scrabbling around in the dark trying to make our best esti
  3. I have no complaints about the roll speed, seems reasonable enough: a bit weak at low speeds, pretty good at high-speeds but not in the league of the P-51 or FW-190. It's really the elevator effectiveness that seems off for the high-speed regime, is there any quantitive data available on that? On top of the that the much bigger issue in my opinion is the energy bleed, is there data for that?
  4. I'm not sure why I bother It always goes the same .. you point out that you think there is possibly some flaw in one of the FMs based on your experience. You provide data to support that hypothesis. Some people agree straight out, but also lot of people jump on and post either lots of irrelevant things .. or somewhat tenuous explanations for why it must be correct as is. Rather than saying "hmm yeah that's interesting, could be, really we need more data" people get quite defensive: that what is there must definitely be correct, because obviously bugs never happen in software. Then eventually
  5. I'd like to do a test focused on high-performance maneuverability: specifically energy bleed in high-speed maneuvers and maximum G that could be produced at various airspeeds. What test would you recommend that I could verify against existing real life test data? I ask because to my knowledge, there is no real-life data about these aspects of flight for the P-47.
  6. The P-38 (261 kg/m^2) has a higher wing loading than the P-47 (207 kg/m^2) ... Perhaps, but that's still a very large difference to explain. The P-38 is not renowned for it's awesome acceleration. In any case I stand by my claims, now with solid data to back them up: The P-47 does not handle well at high-speeds: unlike the P-51, P-38 or even the Spitfire it cannot pull enough G to reach the blackout limit at 400mph. The P-47 bleeds energy faster than any other comparable plane in high-speed maneuvers: even planes that are heavier, with higher wing loading, pul
  7. So I've added the P-38. The P-38 is significantly heavier and larger than the P-47, yet it can pull more Gs (it reaches the blackout limit no problem) but it loses signiciantly less airspeed than the P-47. If a heavier plane loses more speed, why does the P-38, pulling much more G (same speed, less time to complete the circle, more G force), have less airspeed loss? So if I recall correctly, the Spitfire had fabric covered elevators until the Mk 21. This source agrees: Mk IX elevators were fabric covered. Fabric covered elevators were prone to balooning and were much less effective
  8. So here are some data points I just collected in the sim to compare high speed handling. The test was quite simple: Start at 9000 ft. Go full power, dive down (about 30 degrees) until we reach 400 mph. This generally happens around 5000ft. Then roll 90 degrees to the right (timer starts when roll is finished). Pull as hard as possible in a level turn (no altitude change), without stalling the plane or blacking out. Complete a 360 circle, this is estimated using an easily visible landmark. Timer stops when 360 circle is complete, measure finishing speed and t
  9. So my argument is the P-47 is bad at boom and zoom in IL2:GB, I don't argue it is slightly worse than the P-51: I argue that it is a lot worse. If it was slightly worse I wouldn't complain, I'd expect the P-51 to be a little bit better as well, the P-51 is an amazing plane (my favourite actually). Indeed I've also tried using the Spitfire Mk V and Mk IX to BnZ, and they are also much better at it than the P-47 which is really odd. Right and this is exactly my assessment. It's not slightly worse than other IL2:GB planes, it is just flat bad and it's very weird. As SAS_Stor
  10. Thanks, that's interesting, I haven't really tried the P-47 up that high yet, will have to give it a go some time.
  11. People are really good at getting distracted ... I have never made any claims about the dive or zoom capabilities of the P-47. My claim is that the high-speed maneuvering is off, specifically energy retention in high speed maneuvering and overall high-speed handling. No one has posted documents supporting that it is correct in IL2:GB as is, because there are none. High-speed maneuvering capability and energy retention are difficult to measure and are somewhat of a subjective quality: there really is no data. I cannot prove this is wrong for the P-47
  12. Thanks that's very interesting. I guess it's hard to know what really happened in the past but to my reading of this Johnson is talking about a rolling scissors rather than a simple aileron roll: This sounds like a rolling scissors defence: high-speed rolling scissors involves ailerons, elevators and rudders and is more about overall high-speed maneuverability than straight degrees per second of roll. It's a tactic I've used defensively a lot in the FW-190, P-51 and P-47 which all excel at high-speed rolling scissors. I guess we cannot know who "won" the encounter for cer
  13. No disagreement on the climb rate: the plane couldn't climb well at all. However, every source I've read suggests the high speed performance of the aircraft was considered absolutely top-notch at all altitudes. I can't find the exact quote but there was an account made by Robert Johnson (a P-47 ace) of a mock dogfight with a Spitfire Mk IX, RAMJB describes it nicely here. The 4th fighter group had been training on Spitfires but were then forced to move to the P-47: they didn't like it, it couldn't climb, it wasn't a great turner at slow speeds like the Spitfire and so on. Eventuall
  14. So there are two main forces we are interested in that are acting on the plane: gravity and air resistance. As explained the acceleration caused by gravity does not depend on the mass (the mass "cancels out" of the equation), a heavy mass accelerates due to gravity the same as a light one (at roughly 9.8 m/s^2). The force of air resistance, however, only depends on shape not on mass: so the force of air resistance is the same for both the light and the heavy object of the same shape, but for the heavy object it causes less acceleration because F = ma (and hence a = F/m, same force, higher mass
  15. I have actually already explained this. I'm just explaining the physics of why heavier objects, in general, dive and zoom better than light ones. I'm not claiming the P-47 has the same drag as a 109, it clearly doesn't.
  • Create New...