HR_Zunzun

Maneuverability is not defined by the ability to perform a loop but more the ability to change a plane of motion effectively (or at least better than opposition). It can be at low or high speed (eg. zero vs 190 to put two extreme examples). Ideally at both high and low speed and in all planes of motion but perfect fighter doesn't exist. In any case, looping is not what I consider a high altitude useful combat maneuver. I think that more useful is good speed at altitude, good dive, good climb or good zoom (to get above your enemy) and good elevator authority when diving. I completely agree with Legioneod in regard that the P-47 currently seems to lack high speed authority and, on the contrary, enjoy a low speed controlability very dubious (very fun but very dubious).

As I also recalled, my comment was directed to comparing apples to apples and not oranges. That new example proves your point better.

And one of the reasons why they do not correlate it is because the -N in your comparison has a bigger and different wing that tend to favor it in the climb. That is making the direct comparison faulty unless you know by how much does it improves the climb rate and you factor it in your calculations.

So that ( helping the N model) would make the difference bigger for the M model if both had the same wing (The -N would climb worse with the normal wing and the roc difference would be bigger in favor of the M model). I do not know by how much but it would. And that, if I am not mistaken, goes against your point. So I still stand that is apples to oranges for a direct comparison. Otoh, I do agree that other flight tests (same plane with different TO weight) would be better.

The P-47-N has a different wing. Essentialy bigger (42ft vs 40ft span and 322sq ft vs 300 sq ft surface) and with a different profile. Apples and oranges if you want to compare figures. Not implying that in the game it is right or wrong but only that -M vs -N is not a valid comparison.

Excellent. I´ve already added it to my podcast list. 👍

Erhet explanation explains this quite well. In planes like the p47, in contrast with a plane like the La5 vanilla, timers limit the tactical use of the combat and the emergency system much more. The game timers are, in the end, just an interpretation of what the manual limits meant. This interpretation hampers the tactical use of planes like the p47 (talking about engine settings) much more than others. The p47 had 15 min worth of water injection (so 15 min worth of emergency use). If in the game takes you 25 minutes to regenerate it then from a practical point of view it may as well have only 5 minutes worth of water injection because as Erhet said it may be tactically more sound to rtb and get a fresh one. There must be another "interpretation" of the manual limits that can simulate every planes limits in a better way.

That is worse than I thought. Really doesn´t make sense at all.

I I agree that compressibility in the simulation seems incomplete. That is why it is better using some specific test to compare if available. Even direct comparison in flight trials can be misleading. Problem is not always this kind of information is readily available to us (or at all).

No offence was taken, sorry if I sounded like I did. It was more a clarification. Regarding the bf109 I can´t speak. What I have encountered it is more pilots impressions than any specific test. Does it have any comparable test as the p47D? Regarding the trim. I am not so sure if it is the cause. For recovering from compressibility speed yes, I understand what you are saying but not for the speed range we are talking about. At least it is what I interpret from those tests.

In my case, I wrote about the P47D because it is what I have read the most about it. I cannot tell how the other planes are modelled. Neither I was comparing the p47D against other planes. The comparison I did was against a specific test regarding stick forces in the jug. This test showed that the p47D could attain G forces enough to black the pilot out without the need of trim. That happening in high speeds (300-400mph even a bit higher depending on altitude). Obviously, once you get into compressibility you lose this. In the game, same as you, I can only black out if I trim the plane with the tail very heavy (above +40). That doesn´t sound right. I can´t tell about other planes but with the P-47D there is some evidence that seems to support this. It is a pity that we ca n´t record G-forces. AFAIK, the other thing we don´t know in the sim is the maximum stick forces applied by the virtual pilot. With those figures, we could directly compare the plane with the study.

Ok, so the differences are accurate then. Good to know. Btw, thank you for asking 😉

I agree that the amount of increase of performance difference favours the P-47D as it has a bigger fuel fraction. My question was that at the figures given I assumed that the k4 was at 100% while it more typically would meet the P-47 at something around 50-60% of fuel. So the climbing performance of the k4 would be higher than in the chart provided.

The question is how much fuel is the 109 holding? Obviously, fuel fraction of the 109 is lower but a 109k4 with 50% fuel should climb faster too. So the difference wouldn´t be as in the chart, would it?

Well, at the very least it is fairly accurate at sea level then.