Jump to content
Legioneod

P-47D !!!

Recommended Posts

The Tempest is what the RAF called a tactical fighter. They tended to operate it at low and medium altitudes flying missions on the hunt for enemy fighter-bombers typically and flying armed recon roles looking for targets of opportunity.

 

It's a hot fighter on the deck and a decent one at altitude. Not a slouch at altitude but eventually the Bf109, P-47 and P-51 are going to do a little better. For a sim like this, the Tempest is an ideal platform for low and mid level fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging by the previous maps sizes in that neat little map that was posted some time ago in this forum ---> ( https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/7der44/together_with_usome1pl_weve_created_a_comparison/ )

It looks like the central operational area is at least close enough to be included on the border of the map. But he did not say that part of France was included in the map so maybe the map will be a bit more north to include some water from the channel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason said bubble canopy for both P51 and P47.

Ah, razorback versions of both look much cooler, much more aggressive. I think so anyway.

Although there's something monstrous about the P-47 in that picture with no engine cowling... looks brutal. And awesome.

 

The Tempest is what the RAF called a tactical fighter. They tended to operate it at low and medium altitudes flying missions on the hunt for enemy fighter-bombers typically and flying armed recon roles looking for targets of opportunity.

 

It's a hot fighter on the deck and a decent one at altitude. Not a slouch at altitude but eventually the Bf109, P-47 and P-51 are going to do a little better. For a sim like this, the Tempest is an ideal platform for low and mid level fighting.

I'm looking forward to using the Tempest as a fighter-bomber for blisteringly fast low-level interdiction.

 

Although, he's a thought... AI-controlled V-1 flying bombs?

Would fit the theatre and time period, and intercepting them was a role of the Spit, Mustang and especially the Tempest which had the speed to catch them. Recce Mustangs were also used to hunt the launch sites.

 

The devs are working on jet propulsion for the Me 262 already, and ultimately the flight characteristics are 'travel fast in a straight line and then fall out of the sky' so (I don't think) this should be hard to model. No need to make it player-flyable obviously, and no need for interior modelling and the exterior doesn't need to be hugely detailed.

 

This would add an extra target to hit on the ground, as well as something to go after in the air. Trying to work out a course to intercept them or patrolling an area they are likely to pass through would be an extra challenge, especially if all the information you had was the location of the launch site, the direction of travel and the time from launch.

Could provide another objective. As well as flesh out the world a little bit with extra things happening in the background.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The V1’s engine is a ram jet, while the Me 262 has turbo jets, so modeling the engines for the 262 will give very little useful information for use on a V1.

 

That being said: modeling a V1 shouldn’t be that hard, but I wonder if it would be worth it. Once the novelty wears off, hunting V1s is not really very exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, razorback versions of both look much cooler, much more aggressive. I think so anyway.

Alas, but this is what only minority thinks. The developer's solution is a good example of such thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although, he's a thought... AI-controlled V-1 flying bombs?

 

 

Although it is a nice idea, it only really makes sense for a "Channel map". There was not so much V-1 intercepting when the Germans bombed Antwerpen with it later on in war. But modelling it shouldn't be that hard, unless you would be opting for this:

 

Reichenberg_Pilot_2.jpg

 

Hunting launch sites was mostly done before D-Day. You would mostly use Spitfires and Hurricanes with bombs. After that period, launch sites were captured and the new ones were increasingly mobile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alas, but this is what only minority thinks. The developer's solution is a good example of such thing.

The only places I feel a real connection with flying the P47 razorbacks is in the MTO and PTO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only places I feel a real connection with flying the P47 razorbacks is in the MTO and PTO

For shame!

They really laid on the hurt in Europe.

Read "Hell Hawks" that will get you in the mood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For shame!

They really laid on the hurt in Europe.

Read "Hell Hawks" that will get you in the mood.

Thanks, just ordered 

 

 

Also if modeling the V1/2 rockets are somewhat easy maybe they could be some sort of "dynamic" objective. OTOH werent they usually intercepted over the channel instead of in Belgium? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The V1’s engine is a ram jet, while the Me 262 has turbo jets, so modeling the engines for the 262 will give very little useful information for use on a V1.

 

That being said: modeling a V1 shouldn’t be that hard, but I wonder if it would be worth it. Once the novelty wears off, hunting V1s is not really very exciting.

Re: engines, of course. Depends how they model engines really. But with the 262 at least having jet engines of some form won't be unprecedented.

 

As to hunting them, it's dead boring if they just move in straight lines, I was thinking more in terms of 'they launch from this location on this heading, they move at a fixed speed and direction, so work out where they will be at a given time and where your path will cross theirs'.

At that point, go to town on them as they won't fight back. But the challenge is finding them.

If I remember correctly, the Gloster Meteor was the only thing that could catch them in a straight line, everything else needed careful positioning to dive from the rear, as any other approach only gets you one pass at a high closing speed.

 

Although it is a nice idea, it only really makes sense for a "Channel map". There was not so much V-1 intercepting when the Germans bombed Antwerpen with it later on in war. But modelling it shouldn't be that hard, unless you would be opting for this:

 

Reichenberg_Pilot_2.jpg

 

Hunting launch sites was mostly done before D-Day. You would mostly use Spitfires and Hurricanes with bombs. After that period, launch sites were captured and the new ones were increasingly mobile.

Maybe doesn't fit the timeline so well then.

It's more just as we're thinking about AI B-25s which we're told will take as long to make as flyables but just less people, it could be a quick and easy addition and won't have any requirement to produce a player-flyable one down the line. And might be good for expanding the background, especially as the Tempest, Spit and Mustang were used to intercept them and we're getting all three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have no interest in US fighters I dont know almost nothing about them , except that they were good at ground pounding and mustang as a good escort and all around fighter. What I can expect from them?when i read this and other threads I will be outturned, outdived, outclimbed etc at all altitudes? Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The V1’s engine is a ram jet, while the Me 262 has turbo jets, so modeling the engines for the 262 will give very little useful information for use on a V1.

 

That being said: modeling a V1 shouldn’t be that hard, but I wonder if it would be worth it. Once the novelty wears off, hunting V1s is not really very exciting.

 

Pulse jet actually.

 

http://keralapscmechanical.blogspot.com.au/2017/08/difference-pulsejet-ramjet-scramjet-turbojet-rocket-engines.html

 

 

Edited by bzc3lk
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alas, but this is what only minority thinks. The developer's solution is a good example of such thing.

 

 

Just for historical accuracy, the P51 B/C was around 20mph faster than the D model.  The bubble canopy added a fair amount of drag, and initially instability, until the tail fillet was added to later blocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminder that a P-47D engine tested out at 7 1/2 hours of continuous WER of 70" and was still in running order at the test's conclusion.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/17june44-progress-report.pdf

 

Also that it was released for 70" of MAP with ADI and 65" of MAP without.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/24june44-progress-report.pdf

 

#yesplease

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't seem like there are limits imposed on any power settings according to the first article, just that the temperatures needed monitoring when climbing. Is it likely that it won't have any artificial limits ingame either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have no interest in US fighters I dont know almost nothing about them , except that they were good at ground pounding and mustang as a good escort and all around fighter. What I can expect from them?when i read this and other threads I will be outturned, outdived, outclimbed etc at all altitudes? Right?

US aircraft arent bad like some people like to believe, they arent the best at everything but some things they do very well at.

 

The P-47 is a good high altitude fighter, as long as you stay high and fast nothing should touch you. Do not get into a turn fight when flying the Jug, you will lose most of the time. I've read accounts of P-47 pilots having no problem staying on the tail of a 190 but it's better to play it safe and stick to BnZ tactics.

 

The Jug can outdive almost everything, so if someone tries to dive away all you have to do is go after them and they are in trouble.

 

The P-47 also has a good roll rate and can outroll most enemy aircraft at high speed.

 

The best way to fly the Jug is to stay high, stay fast, and use BnZ tactics. The Jug is very durable and can survive a tremendous amount of damage so it will keep you safe in most situations.

Doesn't seem like there are limits imposed on any power settings according to the first article, just that the temperatures needed monitoring when climbing. Is it likely that it won't have any artificial limits ingame either?

the way they model engines in game they force unrealistic limitations on the engine.

 

This is my main concern with the P-47 in-game because irl it could be pushed and pushed but in-game if you go over a hard set time limit you will destroy your engine, which is completely unrealistic.

 

I hope they model dynamic engine damage someday. I wouldnt mind something similar to DCS, as long as I watch the temps on my P-51 I can push it as hard as I like.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US aircraft arent bad like some people like to believe, they arent the best at everything but some things they do very well at.

 

The P-47 is a good high altitude fighter, as long as you stay high and fast nothing should touch you. Do not get into a turn fight when flying the Jug, you will lose most of the time. I've read accounts of P-47 pilots having no problem staying on the tail of a 190 but it's better to play it safe and stick to BnZ tactics.

 

The Jug can outdive almost everything, so if someone tries to dive away all you have to do is go after them and they are in trouble.

 

The P-47 also has a good roll rate and can outroll most enemy aircraft at high speed.

 

The best way to fly the Jug is to stay high, stay fast, and use BnZ tactics. The Jug is very durable and can survive a tremendous amount of damage so it will keep you safe in most situations.

the way they model engines in game they force unrealistic limitations on the engine.

 

This is my main concern with the P-47 in-game because irl it could be pushed and pushed but in-game if you go over a hard set time limit you will destroy your engine, which is completely unrealistic.

 

I hope they model dynamic engine damage someday. I wouldnt mind something similar to DCS, as long as I watch the temps on my P-51 I can push it as hard as I like.

Thanks for the reply,

 

I dont think that US planes are bad, but as I wrote above I was never really interested in US and planes mainly for their (for me) strange look.

Judging only by the look of the P47 and Tempest or P38 I would say they must be a cannon fodder for the late war Bf109 in the hands of skillful pilot. (in horizontal fight).

How good was P51 in turning fight against Bf109 and Fw190D? Of course German or US veteran will say " it was easy to stay behind the enemy tail"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply,

 

I dont think that US planes are bad, but as I wrote above I was never really interested in US and planes mainly for their (for me) strange look.

Judging only by the look of the P47 and Tempest or P38 I would say they must be a cannon fodder for the late war Bf109 in the hands of skillful pilot. (in horizontal fight).

How good was P51 in turning fight against Bf109 and Fw190D? Of course German or US veteran will say " it was easy to stay behind the enemy tail"

The P-51 can hang with a 109 in most cases and can outrun a 190 most of the time.

 

The Jug would be in some trouble if it stayed in a horizontal fight with a 109 but all it would have to do is dive away and extend and it would be safe. The Jug can also outroll the 109 so it can use that to its advantage.

 

Also, the Jug was arguably the best high alt fighter that the US had, so as long as you stay high you should be ok in most fights imo.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the razorback as well but I enjoy the visibility of the bubble canopy even more.

 

Also, if the cockpit looks anything like this I'll be happy.

176409ImageProxy5.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at this pack as a fund maker for future packs, that said,  knowing Jasons ambitions he will not lowball quality aspects of this pack. I think you can be sure that something very similar will be in this game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at this pack as a fund maker for future packs, that said,  knowing Jasons ambitions he will not lowball quality aspects of this pack. I think you can be sure that something very similar will be in this game

Im sure. The only thing that worries me about Il2 is the damage model. The engine dmg model infuriates me beyond belief, I hope they improve it in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure. The only thing that worries me about Il2 is the damage model. The engine dmg model infuriates me beyond belief, I hope they improve it in the future.

 

P-47´s engine was known to withstand very harsh conditions. With current engine dmg model, its engine will get damaged second after crossing recommended WEP time  :biggrin:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This part is better in old COD engine, but then again the ambitions was so high that it produced same amount of bugs. This sim is expencive to produce as is, this might be a step too far in current situation. 

I am not a coder, so I am pretty sure I am wrong when I suspect that time is the most important parameter in engine DM. I must be

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P-47´s engine was known to withstand very harsh conditions. With current engine dmg model, its engine will get damaged second after crossing recommended WEP time  :biggrin:

Yep, thats what I'm worried about. One of the reasons I like DCS engine model better, because I can run it at WEP for as long as I need as long as I can keep the temps down and as long as I treat the engine right.

 

A more dynamic model would be great to where the engine gets worn out the longer you push it. So if I push the engine too hard for too long it will degrade the engine and have a greater chance of failure. This way the hard limit is removed and we will have a more realistic and dynamic engine model.

 

It doesnt have to be too complex either, it could just be something like:

chance of failure increases by x% every minute you run over the recommended time limit.

 

So if say, the chance of failure was 5% for every minute you ran over the limit you would have a

5% chance of failure at 1 min over

10% chance of failure at 2 min

50% chance of failure at 5 min over, etc. 

 

The % can be increased or decreased however the devs like, anything from 1% - 5% would be ideal for gameplay imo.

 

This way players can push their engines a little harder in a fight without having to be scared of it blowing just because you went a seconed over the time limit.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Improved engine dmg model would be nice, but Jason said (if I remember correctly) no in near future to overall dmg model .

I hoped that someone will ask him in his teamspeak session.

 

Edit: I´d like to have random failure dmg model also in career mode as an option

Edited by Voidhunger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the Devs if they read this, will you model some of the Jugs interesting tendencies? Like the flap compensator (I think thats what it is called) not working? It would cause the flaps to come down unevenly which could cause problems if the pilot wasnt aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply,

 

I dont think that US planes are bad, but as I wrote above I was never really interested in US and planes mainly for their (for me) strange look.

Judging only by the look of the P47 and Tempest or P38 I would say they must be a cannon fodder for the late war Bf109 in the hands of skillful pilot. (in horizontal fight).

How good was P51 in turning fight against Bf109 and Fw190D? Of course German or US veteran will say " it was easy to stay behind the enemy tail"

P-51 can in many cases outturn a 109, but shouldn't really try. A fast P-47 with a good pilot can actually reverse positions with a Spit - but really that's not what the pilot is supposed to be doing either. Those things are not something these planes are supposed to do - they are supposed to go really high and really fast. A P-47 flown at it's optimal altitude will outrun both K-4 and D-9 and, should a situation become dangerous, can simply outdive them.

 

Tempest is just ridiculous at deck, it outruns 190 and 109 by something like 75 kph at 1km. At level flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as you can probably tell I'm quite found of the P-47 also :) Though I'm looking forward to the P-38 and Tempest just as much.

 

 

On 11/20/2017 at 3:19 PM, I./ZG1_Martijnvdm said:

Although my knowledge of American aircraft is a bit limited i'm quite fond of the P-47 and the P-38. Do we get a razorback or a Bubble canopy? The razorback was made until the D-20?.. I would guess the razorback's where faced out by the end of 44..?

 

And this thread needs more pictures. 

 

 

 

 

 

The Razorback was up to the D-23, with the D-25 being the first Bubbltetop. There was still plenty of razorback's around in '45 being used along side the Bubbletop's. I suspect we might get the D-30 as it was the most numerous version, had the ability to mount HVAR's ( retrofitted, not factory ) and give plenty of options for skins. Though it would be nice to get the D-40 as it had the K-14 gunsight which would make things easier and they will have to add it for the P-51D anyway.

Edited by Tbolt47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tempest is just ridiculous at deck, it outruns 190 and 109 by something like 75 kph at 1km. At level flight.

 

Pfff , I hope that there will be a lot of 2 cm Flakvierling 38 at the airfield to defend my beautiful Schwalbe before it gets speed :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as you can probably tell I'm quite found of the P-47 also :) Though I'm looking forward to the P-38 and Tempest just as much.

 

 

 

The Razorback was up to the D-23, with the D-25 being the first Razorback. They was still plenty of razorback's around in '45 being used along side the Bubbletop's. I suspect we might get the D-30 as it was the most numerous version, had the ability to mount HVAR's ( retrofitted, not factory ) and give plenty of options for skins. Though it would be nice to get the D-40 as it had the K-14 gunsight which would make things easier and they will have to add it for the P-51D anyway.

I actually like the fixed sight in the P-47, though I agree that the gyro would help alot with deflection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the Devs if they read this, will you model some of the Jugs interesting tendencies? Like the flap compensator (I think thats what it is called) not working? It would cause the flaps to come down unevenly which could cause problems if the pilot wasnt aware.

 

They don't model/have time to model mechanical errors and such like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not say it is impossible, flight characteristics in this sim for a stricken bird is pretty well done and noticeable. I guess if they are aware of this and look into it. Some form of simulated tendencies probably can be done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not say it is impossible, flight characteristics in this sim for a stricken bird is pretty well done and noticeable. I guess if they are aware of this and look into it. Some form of simulated tendencies probably can be done

 

"Possible" and likely are two different things.

There a lot of quirks that various aircraft have, not just the Jug.

So far these things are not modeled, and I understand why...they have ONE guy to program these systems.

 

So going by what we know...which is considerable at this point after so many hours of answered questions and typed posts by Jason...don't expect such things.

Pretty simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D9 will have fun with it at altitude. It’ll be a close match up especially if the fight is around 11-12km. Plus you won’t have 50 P47s bouncing a staffel of inexperienced rookies.

 

To be honest I can’t see many flying the thing as a high altitude fighter, or anything at a huge height. Most servers will have ground attack as a priority and wthout heavy bombers flying at 5km the action will drag downwards and into the hands of the Tempest and 109s. There might be the odd bomber at altitude I suppose but most pilots in a Tempest could take out a He111 or Ju88 in one pass - 4 Hispanos will make a real mess.

 

It’ll be fun and interesting but will mostly be a Jabo, or at least it will for me.

 

von Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...