Jump to content

JtD

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    3262
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JtD

  1. Yes and no, I think it may have an influence in the 5 percent range. This can be considered significant, but not really for this comparison. We'd have to go into wing construction and airflow details to find realistic lift distribution and therefore drag production.
  2. The operational ceiling for the P-47 is given with figures between 35k and 38k feet. Such as here. The P-51 is usually given with more than 40k feet. Such as here. Same way the P-47 can have higher ones, the P-51 can, if you take different turbo, engine or aircraft versions. The weight of the P-47 is relevant because it produces a lot of induced drag. It becomes more important as indicated speeds go down with altitude. Having a larger wingspan helps, and basically weight²/span² is a great indicator. If you go with the mean weights given above, for 1 g flight you get P-47 215000 kg²/m² P-51 118000 kg²/m² basically meaning that the P-47 produces twice as much induced drag as the P-51 when flying at the same speed. So all the extra power the R-2800 produces just goes into combating the aircrafts own weight and drag. Additionally, the P-47 has a higher stall speed while it is not enjoying a higher top speed, so the envelope in which it can manoeuvre is smaller than that of the P-51. The large weight is a disadvantage especially at altitude.
  3. The P-47 was a heavy plane and 2000hp of the early versions left it desperately underpowered. If you go up to 9 or 10km with the version we have in game, you'll be down to this little power or even less and abysmal climb rates - also meaning abysmal sustained maneuvering. Just like any other aircraft, the P-47 performed best in climbing and turning down low, the only difference would be that it did not lose as much when going up. In game we have a version that starts losing performance at 7km - so you don't need to go higher than that for a maximum relative performance advantage and you do not need to expect to fly circles around anything at 10km. The P-47 too friggin heavy. Why do people always forget how heavy it was? It had a service ceiling lower than that of a P-51, any Spitfire IX or even a P-38. Comparable to a Spitfire V or Hurricane II, which certainly didn't feature high altitude engines, but weighed half as much. SuperEntendard describes perfectly how to fight at high altitude in a P-47 and apparently, he gets the historical results.
  4. Others could be the P-51H. Just to mention a realistic potential top performer, which happens to be on topic.
  5. True, yet in my world there's a difference between garbage and not working.
  6. US aircraft used 20mm Hispanos in numbers since 1941. P-38, P-39, P-51, P-61, A-20, B-24, B-29, F6F, F4U, SB2C all were armed in at least some subversions with US manufactured 20mm Hispanos. Those guns were not not working.
  7. It wasn't once they changed the grease to a kind that didn't freeze at high altitude. Unless of course the whole system was in poor shape or poorly maintained. But even if things were imperfect, it only was "almost solid" and "practically impossible", not solid or impossible to operate. It should be mentioned that "light" operation of the Bf109's trim at high speed would be undesired, because it could easily lead to accidents, given that it was extremely effective. So the desired condition would require a meaningful but exertible force.
  8. It was a bit like this in Il-2:1946, but under the right circumstances it was absolutely possible to dogfight/turnfight against late war German opposition and come out on top. It really depended on altitude and fuel load, and I've shot down a fair share of 109's and 190's that mixed it in a battle on my terms. I don't expect it to be much different here. The Merlin produces more than 1650hp at 3000m and 1500hp at 6000m, which is very decent, even when compared to German MW50 powered late war engines. So a P-51, once down to a comparable fuel load, isn't really lacking in power-weight ratio, wing loading, span loading and whatnotelse factors relevant to close in fighting. And the bubble top offers you an excellent all around view. Plus, the excellent speed, in particular in (shallow) dives typically left you with a decent chance of successful disengagement, should you find out you misjudged the situation. So while I mostly went with hit and run tactics, successful dogfights really weren't uncommon.
  9. Like I said - engines failed. Under all conditions. If engines had never failed after exceeding a limit, everyone would always have been flying engines above the limits, as this would have been the only way to safely operate them. I have no idea what you expect...
  10. Possibly. The equivalently crude approach to skinning aircraft would be painting them in either grey or green.
  11. WW2 aero-engines broke down all the time. It always was with mechanical failures due to either mechanical or thermal stress. It never had anything to do with time. Not ever.
  12. This depends on subtype and circumstances. Much of the excellent climb rate comes from the small fuel tank it carried, which is particularly noticeable in late war comparisons. Also, in 1943 and 1944, before MW50 came into use, the 109's relative climb performance reduced from excellent to mediocre. In the spring of 1944, nearly all modern fighter opposition could climb as well or better than a state of the art 109G-6, in particular if with a fuel load of similar endurance - where it had been world's best two years before.
  13. Why, when it comes to late war, are barely/never-used-operationally aircraft like the Ta152, He162 and Ar234 always in the first line of selection? We still don't have a BMW801 powered Ju88's or 188 or anything, there's no Me210/410 and no Dornier at all in game. Admittedly, not really SE fighters and therefore harder to model, but still - major gaps even in the late war German plane set. Built and flown in the hundreds and thousands, not dozens, if at all. On the Soviet side, I'd rather have a Yak-3 then a P-63, but some sort of late war lend lease is absolutely justified. And a late P-39 is probably not attractive enough.
  14. I'd still prefer the Med next. We already have so many mid war German and Soviet planes, about time for Western Allied, Italian and maybe a French aircraft. Yeah, yeah, I know. 🏏💀🐴
  15. Actually they were pretty clear in that damage inflicted by aircraft was very easy to identify. And the conclusion of the assessors wasn't that air attacks had almost no effect, they said they did a lot less damage on tanks than what Allied pilots claims would make you believe. Facts are 14 out of 223 Panthers 1 out of 40 Tigers 9 out of 121 Panzer IV's investigated were destroyed by air weapons. This is the sum of three separate field studies, two conducted in Normandy, one in the Ardennes.
  16. If German tanks were always stationary in a wide open field in a guaranteed no threat environment, it might be possible to achieve hit ratios in the field that are equal to those achieved in training (i.e. ideal conditions). A submarine btw., even a partially submerged one, is considerably larger and more vulnerable than a tank. That's really apples and oranges. I also disagree with your point of aircraft damaged tanks were salvaged. No, they weren't. Some of the battlefields investigated never were in German hands and there was zero opportunity to recover and repair damaged tanks. Some tanks were abandoned for lack of fuel and if logistics did not permit refueling, why would it permit recovery? But thanks for the 3/64 figure. Is there a damage analysis for these hits?
  17. No. AP would go through and knock a tank out, HE would not, and also not harm the crew. As it is, rockets were fairly ineffective when it came to knocking out tanks (or crew). But, as already had been said, they were very effective in restricting movement. Also aircraft could strike far behind the front lines (another thing that adds to the already mentioned psychological effect - the threat was always there). Could go for support vehicles and infantry, easily knocking these out. Destroy a bridge. And so on. There were quite a few options and effects. So they were effective in tactically disabling entire armoured units, but not in knocking armour out.
  18. Find a 30 year old book on Prokhorovka, I'm pretty sure you'll find a it paints a different picture. A foggy one at least. The article not so different from what was published in the last 10 years, as more and more sources became available and were evaluated. In fact, it heavily quotes previous works. However, it uses new, previously unknown sources, which are detailed enough, to locate and identify individual losses on that day (given time). To me that's a quite remarkable progress.
  19. Over the (post war) years this battle was mystified and blown out of proportion. Recent analysis based on records already indicated, that the battle was in fact, while still grim, way smaller and quite one sided. Most recently, German post battle recon pictures of the battle site were discovered and evaluated, which very much confirm what available records already indicated. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/16161262.2019.1606545?needAccess=true I found it to be a very interesting read, in particular the contrast to what I learned about this battle 20 years ago is astonishing. It also shows why, no matter what equipment you have, you still need at least basic tactics to make it work.
  20. Yeah, I know. Seems counter-intuitive that you end up faster if you pull more g's in a short high speed turn. But at 600 (indicated, I assume), if you don't black out, you're producing way more parasitic then induced drag, and that over a longer period of time, and are therefore flying way below best performance.
  21. Typically pulling more g's gets you through a high speed turn with less speed loss. Since the Yak can pull more g's at higher speeds, it should come through the turn quicker and end up faster. That's just physics.
  22. You have a temp gauges right below the thermostat crank, center of the lower panel. Left dial is water, right is oil. 100% (standard) setting sets the thermostat to 100°C water temp, 0% should set it to 70°C or less, didn't test it. With standard setting, you can see that the radiator opens up as soon as water temp hits 100°C, and closes again when temp has dropped a bit. Critical pressure for the system is 1.7atü, so it should permit 120° at altitude and 130° at sea level without steam buildup. Oddly enough the water temp warning appears at lower temps, but I haven't seen anything problematic resulting from flying with it on for ages. I see no benefit in reducing the thermostat setting from the standard 100%. So don't mess with it, as with most German planes, the engineers have done the technical stuff for the pilot, so you can focus on flying and fighting.
  23. The 520 is a US figure which the British used. It's not that every US manual says exactly the same.
  24. They didn't list it in that table, as with several others. Manuals give limiting speeds as low as 250mph indicated at 35+k feet. Basically it's 500 up to 10k and then -50 for every 5000 feet. An early report says 520 indicated up to 10k, and NACA says they tested a configuration at 600mph true air speed in flight (that would roughly be 500 indicated at 10k). They don't lose ailerons, though, they just get a nose down attitude, which makes dives hard to recover until you reach lower altitudes (and apply power). Mach drag raise starts at figures of about 0.7 already, so you can't really expect to exceed 0.8 by much. Which again is roughly 600 true at sea level, less as you go up. I've read about 0.78 in flight tests at the most, though reaching maximum Mach was not the point of these tests.
  25. JtD

    Duck

    They why not dream big and say you want a GAU-8A cannon and GE-TF34 engines? It the same level of absurdity but delivers way better results.
×
×
  • Create New...