RedKestrel

I don't mean to sound snarky, but the planes all have gorgeously rendered instrument panels and levers that show these things in the proper units. I have tech tips on and I still use the instrument panel 90% of the time.

The model is considered complete, insofar as they consider it ready to release. The models are periodically improved or have bugs fixed Are you saying your P-47 is experiencing a snap roll and stall at 1/4 travel of your rudder pedals? Is this at low speeds and is your ball centred at the time? I can see how at very low airspeeds if you give it too much rudder, it might snap roll, but a quarter travel should be just a little excessive for entering a turn. It shouldn't cause a snap roll at normal speeds. In my flying the P-47 drops a wing on a stall but only after significant buffeting (once again, appears to be as per manual). The rudder is a lot more sensitive than you would think on the P-47 for such a big aircraft - all the controls are described as 'light'. I don't think I've ever snap-rolled it unintentionally.

In regards to the climb, we can do some math with the numbers they gave in the report vs. the specs in game. In the report, the first climb was made from 2000 feet to 7000 feet - a climb of 5000 ft, or 1524 m. At WEP at sea level, according to the specs, our P-47 climbs at 18.1 m/s. If we make some pretty big assumptions (climb rate is the same from 2000 - 7000 feet as at sea level, they climbed at best climb speed of 150 mph, etc), we can say that the P-47 should make that climb in eighty-four (84) seconds (1524 m / 18.1 m/s). Nowhere near the five minute limit to WEP. So it doesnt seem like it would be necessary to exceed the limits in the manual or the game to achieve what they did in the test. The way to test this would be, I guess, to climb at 150 mph with cowl flaps closed and WEP engaged at max RPM. I'm pretty sure I've overheated the P-47 on WEP during low-speed maneuvers, so a low speed climb at WEP on a warm map might do it. The other thing is they just say "Slightly overheated". So maybe it was not at the overheat limit per se but running hotter than you would like to in a non-combat situation. This is the real problem with the report here, there are precious few actual numbers for us to compare to in-game.

Agreed on all points. The test is a little bit illuminating in terms of general characteristics of the aircraft and how to fight in them, but you'd be hard pressed to use it as a source to modify any aspect of the flight modeling of the two aircraft. There is no hard evidence here, no numbers to crunch - its a qualitative head-on test between aircraft, neither of which (as far as I can tell) represent the aircraft variants we have in the sim. Even so, many of the general performance notes follow the specs we see in the sim. Once again we come back to the reason for this report. It wasn't to evaluate the aircraft's performance but to test whether the P-47 could engage a FW-190, especially below 10000 feet, with any expectation of victory. In 1944 I have to think that this kind of testing is a prelude to committing P-47s to more low-level missions in the ETO in support of the upcoming invasion, quite a different scenario than their previous usage as high-altitude escort fighters. The conclusion drawn is that its basically an even fight - a conclusion I have to question. The test itself is not super rigorous in that it is conducted over 4 flights between only two different pilots, neither of whom have much time in their respective aircraft. I suspect the 190 in the test is underperforming against the 47 and in a real engagement would have a distinct advantage at lower altitudes. All that being said, I have had some luck engaging FW-190s online at below 10000 feet in the Jug, as long as I stay fast. Which is exactly what the report is telling us to do

The document shows nothing of the sort, that is an extremely simplistic summary. The report amounts to the following: 1) Acceleration at multiple altitudes: the FW-190 accelerates better initially but the P-47 has a higher top speed at max engine settings. This tracks broadly with what we see in-game, depending on altitude. The P-47 generally gets faster than the 190 the higher it goes, but its initial acceleration is sluggish (which makes sense). 2) Climb: The FW-190 outclimbed the P-47 during the initial pull up 'zoom climb' but the Jug outpaced it later on - the P-47, however, was using water injection to do this and overheated, whereas the 190 did not overheat. This tracks with climb rates seen in-game in the tech specs - at sea level, the P-47 climbs at 18.1 m/s at WEP, whereas the 190A-8 climbs at 13.8 m/s. So in a P-47 you can outclimb the A-8. The A-5 and A-3 are lighter and climb better but are still outclimbed by the P-47 in WEP, which is how this test was conducted. So this appears correctly modeled in-game. As you put it, the P-47 is 'superior'. 3) The P-47 outdives the FW190 eventually, but the FW has faster initial acceleration in the dive. This holds true in my experience in the game when diving after a FW, it gets away initially but I catch up later in the dive as long as there is enough altitude and I stay coordinated. The P-47 requires a lot of rudder work and I think many people complaining about the dive aren't realizing how much rudder you need to keep it straight and accelerating. 4) Turning - this shows the P-47 out-turning the FW-190 at 10000 feet when above 250 mph, whereas the FW-190 out-turns the P-47 at lower speeds than 250 mph. I haven't gotten into a prolonged turn-fight with a FW-190 in a P-47 as of yet, so I can't comment on this in-game. However, the remarks only show the P-47 as 'superior' in a high speed turn-fight above 10000 feet. In low speeds it recommends oblique turns (i.e. using better climb and energy to the pilots advantage, and using gravity-assisted turns) That advice indicates that low speed flat turning favours the FW-190, and its 'sudden acceleration' and ability to quickly change direction make it deadly at low speeds. The report concludes itself by quite literally saying "The P-47 is at least as good as the FW-190 at low altitudes." It does not say "clearly superior" . The report indicates the aircraft have different advantages at different speeds and flight regimes. The P-47 should avoid turn-fighting with the 190s at low altitudes and at low speeds. The FW-190s initial acceleration advantage is particularly deadly in a prolonged fight where the aircraft may end up at low speed and low altitude (i.e. a huge percentage of fights online in Il-2). At higher altitudes the P-47 shines which...is pretty obvious, its a high altitude fighter whereas the FW-190A certainly is not. There is a huge amount of information missing to make this report useful to compare to the game. Of note is that neither pilot was very experienced in the aircraft they tested, and the FW-190 pilot had no combat experience (from his flight hours, he appears to have been a test pilot). We have no idea what variant of FW-190 this is. The engine on the 190 is noted as running extremely rough at all times, to the point that the pilot cannot feel buffeting during a stall, which seems to indicate to me a problem with the aircraft's engine. The excessive vibration noted in the report indicates to me a setup problem, but I don't have sources to show if this is definitely the case. .

I don't see anything in that write-up that you can't do in the P-47 in the sim. People asking for fixes need to find actual, solid data to back up the fixes, not the impressions of individual pilots. Subjective experiences are extremely difficult to translate into a flight model -its poetry vs. math. As we've seen here with the dive data we delved into extensively, pilot descriptions have to be taken within the context of the pilot mindset at the time and the situations they experienced. Actual tests show the dive advantage was more marginal quantitatively than the qualitative sources (i.e. pilot accounts) would suggest. Having flown the P-47 in sim a bit, it handles pretty much like I would expect. It handles well at medium-high speeds and has a surprisingly good instantaneous turn, but a sustained turn bleeds your energy very quickly (as stated in the above arcticle, sharp movements bleed airspeed very quickly) and when it gets slow its a dog and hard to regain speed (once again, also just like its mentioned in the article above). It appears to require a lot of rudder-work but that is consistent with pilot accounts that I've read that indicate the rudder is as essential as the ailerons. It taxis, takes off and lands like a dream but needs a long runway, which is straight from the manuals and pilot accounts. Its roll rate is excellent, as expected. It dives well - its more held back by people's inflated expectations than reality in this regard. The main issues with the P-47 modeling right now appear to be 'global' issues with how certain things are modeled: most planes lose control surfaces or parts of the aircraft when they exceed dive limits, even when that would not be the case in reality (in reality, many planes would likely just become unrecoverable and dive into the ground, without losing bits). Compressibility is modeled but may be simpler than it would be in real life. The flaps of all aircraft appear to be too effective at producing lift in turns or climbs, but its more noticeable on aircraft with poor low-speed turn performance like the P-47. The way engines are modeled right now enforce strict time limits where the manuals stipulate them, so the modeling favors aircraft with more forgiving engine operation manuals. People who are both on the Russian and English language forums report that there are many things in the works regarding modeling changes. I haven't been able to read the posts myself but there are indications that detonation may be modeled (which may entail an overhaul of how the engines work), pilot fatigue may come into play, among many other things. TL;DR - saying the P-47 'needs some love' is all well and good, but it doesn't get us anywhere. Solid data, reports, and most critically the understanding of how that data was arrived at and the context of the testing, is what will change things. Otherwise we're just constantly re-litigating every factoid and pilot account thrown out there and giving the devs nothing solid to work with.

I’m skeptic all to say the least. How would we objectively evaluate it? Have you got a track file at least?

I believe there is an issue with the earlier modeled planes over performing at extremely high altitudes, especially the la5s. Hopefully it gets corrected. In the meantime documentation and evidence submitted to the devs is all we can do.

Some day, I have faith that you will heal from this horrible trauma.

In general a flat screen isn't 1:1 unless its really friggin huge. The level of zoom you can get on a normal sized monitor goes a bit beyond what 1:1 would look like in real life, and if you have a big screen. Like if I zoom in on my gunsight, if I measured the actual size on my screen with a ruler at max zoom it would probably be about what it should be in a real life plane cockpit. Theoretically, VR provides you with a 1:1 already, but as you noted the resolution is still not so great so IDing is a pain. All this being said, I don't really care what level of zoom VR players get and I can't imagine more zoom would really translate to an advantage online. Frankly I'd like them to be better at ID'ing targets and if the zoom helps, thats great. it should reduce friendly fire. The spotting distance is still the exact same (10km) so the only advantage is recognizing my sorry butt hauling around in a Yak and not mistaking me for a 109!

I'm told I make up for it with spunk and determination, and a winning personality.

As a follow-up to the idea of how you could make a Me-262 airfield a strategic objective, here's my idea on a scenario. Not sure it would work or how complex the mechanics would be but could be interesting: The scenario is a late summer/early autumn situation in 1944. Allied bomber streams are taking heavy casualties from the new Me-262s and the top brass want them put out of action. The allies have a radar installation set up that notifies friendly combat aircraft when a 262 has taken off from the airfield. The axis start the map with two or three airbases. One of the airbases would be for the 262s only, the others for conventional aircraft. The 262 airbase would be very heavily covered with flak, making attacking risky. The axis would start with a small amount of Me-262s, and more would be added as time went on. The allies start with the same number of airbases, one exclusively for bombers that is also a target for the Luftwaffe. Targets for the Allies are the 262 base as a primary target, and several other infrastructure targets as secondaries: A factory facility, a rail yard with trains, and fuel storage/processing facility. Destroying one secondary target reduces the respawn rate of the Me-262 or the total number available by half. Destruction of two secondary targets or the 262 airbase closes the airbase and prevents the use of the Me-262s. Winning condition for the allies is destruction of the airbase and one secondary target OR all three secondary targets. Targets for the axis are the radar station, bomber base and a forward emergency landing zone for crippled aircraft. Destroying the radar installation removes the early warning available. You could make this a relatively small, lightly defended target but far to the rear, necessitating a long sortie by 262 schnellbombers to take it out and speed for home. Axis must destroy the bomber base and one secondary target to win the map. Obviously you guys are more experienced with balancing missions and making sure things work, but I think scenario like this would be interesting and challenging for both sides, encouraging the careful use of the 262s, but at the same time making them a threat the allies can't safely ignore.

Ima be real with u chief, I'm already pretty fatigued these days.

A track or tacview would be helpful to see what its actually doing. Once again, subjective feelings can't produce results. No one can tell what feels aggressive or fast from one person to another. Did the A20 exceed its top speed as indicated in the specs? Did it exceed its maximum performance turn? Did it exceed its max G? (I've damaged the plane trying high-G maneuvers before). If you are able to substantiate things with evidence, numbers, and sources backing them up, things can change. If you can't, the devs got nothing to go on, other than the sources they already used to model the craft. If you provide numbers and evidence of something being wrong, then perhaps something can be done. My impression of flying the A20 at full bombload is that its pretty agile for a bomber, but you can definitely 'feel' the weight. The agility and speed increase after dropping a full bombload is very noticeable. The flight model doesn't feel off to me compared to the numbers I've seen and the pilot's accounts I've read so I'm fairly happy with it. The same can be said of the way the Pe-2 feels. The A-20 is significantly faster and more nimble than the Pe-2, for instance, but that makes sense, as it has lower wing loading and much more powerful engines - it was historically considered 'over-powered'. A20B, fully loaded with 24000 lbs gross weight, has a wing loading of about 52.8 lbs/square foot, with engines supplying roughly 3200 HP. After dropping its 4400 lbs or so of bombs, the A20 weighs 19600 lbs, for a wing loading of 42.2 lbs/square foot. P-47D fully loaded at 17500 lbs (max takeoff) has a wing loading of 58.33 lbs/square foot. A normal load at 12700 lbs puts it at about 42.4 lbs/square foot. So we can see that a full-fuel A20 without bombs has the same wing loading as the P-47 at normal load, and at max loadout the A20 actually has a lower wing loading. Its not unreasonable to suggest that it have a pretty decent turn performance with that wing loading and that engine power. The P-47 is not an aircraft for a turning fight. The main deficiency in ANY sim is that you cannot adequately translate stick forces, and the physiological impact of flight maneuvers to a 1G Comfy Chair Pilot. This is why people in-game can sustain insane rolling maneuvers, negative G forces, and other things that would make a normal person disoriented at best or throwing up all over the inside of their flight helmet. no pilot in their right mind is going to try and dogfight in the A20 in real life because he has a crew of half a dozen people getting smacked around the fuselage in the back. But that doesnt mean you can't physically DO those maneuvers with the aircraft. So sim-pilots can do things that would be mostly impossible or too insane to try in real life. Same with the 'stick jerking' evasion you see in multiplayer - no real life pilot would be able to sustain those kinds of repetitive violent maneuvers and remain combat capable, but that doesn't mean the aircraft wouldn't. Its the meat-portions of the airplane that's the weak link. This, too, applies to the AI, which has even less meaty concerns than us.

I think a map around the 262s and their airbase as a strategic resource would be a great scenario!