On the topic of Thunderbolts

[MiloMorai]

What are those 'perfect conditions'?

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

What are those 'perfect conditions'?

Just drop it dude. No point in getting into an argument or discussion over nothing.

Is it possible Yes, but it's very unlikley. Lets leave it at that and get back on topic with Thunderbolts.

[LeLv76_Erkki]

.50 AP has about an inch of homogenous steel armor penetration at 100 m (very short range for aircraft strafing) and it quite rapidly drops from there. Against a plate perpendicular to the flight path. If the bullet bounces off road (ie. impact angle is shallow enough) it wont penetrate half an inch of bottom armor after that.

 

I've always thought that by far the most likely explanation of these stories are external fuel tanks catching fire, and secondly misidentificating halftracks as tanks. Many times vehicles were camoflaged in various ways including having branches of trees and other material on top of them to break up the shape.

 

Those round mirrors outside the cockpit were apparently pretty common in P-47s and we expect one as modification - but how about mirrors within the cockpit, installed on the frame, above windshield?

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

Those round mirrors outside the cockpit were apparently pretty common in P-47s and we expect one as modification - but how about mirrors within the cockpit, installed on the frame, above windshield?

 

I've never seen anything about P-47s having mirrors on the inside, only outside. With the visibility of the P-47 cockpit I don't think we'll ever need the mirrors, it will have the best visibility in the game once it releases.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

11 hours ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

.50 AP has about an inch of homogenous steel armor penetration at 100 m (very short range for aircraft strafing) and it quite rapidly drops from there. Against a plate perpendicular to the flight path. If the bullet bounces off road (ie. impact angle is shallow enough) it wont penetrate half an inch of bottom armor after that.

 

I've always thought that by far the most likely explanation of these stories are external fuel tanks catching fire, and secondly misidentificating halftracks as tanks. Many times vehicles were camoflaged in various ways including having branches of trees and other material on top of them to break up the shape.

 

Those round mirrors outside the cockpit were apparently pretty common in P-47s and we expect one as modification - but how about mirrors within the cockpit, installed on the frame, above windshield?

 

The answer is clear. German armour drivers kept their tella mines strapped to the bottom of their tanks in an effort to stop enemy snipers shooting them. A p51 pilot found this out one day and hence came into being why 50 cals can explode tanks. 

 

It is simple really. Why didn't you know this?

Edited October 25, 2018 by AeroAce

[BlitzPig_EL]

Back to the subject of air cooled radials and oil...

 

On any air cooled engine, the lubricating oil actually does a fair percentage of the cooling of the engine.  As the oil is in contact with all the gubbins inside the crankcase it has a pretty large amount of heat transferred to it, this heat is then dissipated to the atmosphere via the engine oil cooler, and then this cooler oil is recirculated throughout the engine where it picks up more temperature again, and the cycle continues.

 

I've read that on air cooled motorcycles, and cars like the VW Type 1, the engine oil actually accounts for about 75% of the cooling of the engine.

[Talon_]

13 hours ago, Legioneod said:

I've never seen anything about P-47s having mirrors on the inside, only outside

 

[MiloMorai]

3 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Back to the subject of air cooled radials and oil...

 

On any air cooled engine, the lubricating oil actually does a fair percentage of the cooling of the engine.  As the oil is in contact with all the gubbins inside the crankcase it has a pretty large amount of heat transferred to it, this heat is then dissipated to the atmosphere via the engine oil cooler, and then this cooler oil is recirculated throughout the engine where it picks up more temperature again, and the cycle continues.

 

I've read that on air cooled motorcycles, and cars like the VW Type 1, the engine oil actually accounts for about 75% of the cooling of the engine.

 

Thank you EL.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

On ‎10‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 1:34 PM, Gambit21 said:

 

I think maybe people who don’t know that the forward controllers/observers were A. soldiers, and also B 9th Air Force - pilots imbedded with the tanks, observing results, directing attacks, and surveying the carnage afterwards should perhaps withhold comment.

 

 

I am familiar with FACs.  I use the term "soldier" to refer to anybody in the military in this context, and I use the term "professional" deliberately to refer to guys who have been in for more than a couple years, "soldiering" being their chosen profession and so have built up a large reservoir of technical training and experience pertinent to their specific duties over that time.

 

There are reasons why many more demanding MOS are lateral moves.

 

Anyhoo, I'll drop it and stop agitating everyone now.  Everyone does what they can with what they have at the time. 

 

I hope that radial will take more damage than the ones on the A-20.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[Cpt_Siddy]

5 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Back to the subject of air cooled radials and oil...

 

On any air cooled engine, the lubricating oil actually does a fair percentage of the cooling of the engine.  As the oil is in contact with all the gubbins inside the crankcase it has a pretty large amount of heat transferred to it, this heat is then dissipated to the atmosphere via the engine oil cooler, and then this cooler oil is recirculated throughout the engine where it picks up more temperature again, and the cycle continues.

 

I've read that on air cooled motorcycles, and cars like the VW Type 1, the engine oil actually accounts for about 75% of the cooling of the engine.

 

 

The cylinder head is the most heated part of the engine and no oil circulates there in any volume to cool it, only lubricate. Only thing that oil cools is the piston. The oil does same amount of cooling in inline engine as in radials, because the water ways are in similar locations as the cooling fins.

 

Oil does exactly the same thing in both inline and radials, lubricates and possibly cools piston.  This function remains unchanged in water cooled engines. The important thing is to keep the cylinder walls and head as cool as possible as this allows you higher compression pressures in operation before knock occurs. And oil certainly do nothing for this area as far as cooling goes. 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[Legioneod]

55 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

The cylinder head is the most heated part of the engine and no oil circulates there in any volume to cool it, only lubricate. Only thing that oil cools is the piston. The oil does same amount of cooling in inline engine as in radials, because the water ways are in similar locations as the cooling fins.

 

Oil does exactly the same thing in both inline and radials, lubricates and possibly cools piston.  This function remains unchanged in water cooled engines. The important thing is to keep the cylinder walls and head as cool as possible as this allows you higher compression pressures in operation before knock occurs. And oil certainly do nothing for this area as far as cooling goes. 

Oil serves a double purpose in all engines, it's primary purpose is to lubricate the engine but it's secondary purpose is to draw heat away from it.

Anywhere oil touches in the engine it will draw some heat away.

[DressedWings]

So I assume that the .50 AP round can penetrate the top of our Panzer III in game then with its 10-15mm of roof protection? Likely within 1km and a steep angle? I know it was not largely used by late '44, but I'm sure we will still see it around for MP and such. I can't imagine getting raked by the guns would be a comfortable experience. 

 

I have fond memories of ground pounding in previous IL-2 games, so I'm getting very excited for our BoBodenplatte P-47

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by DressedWings

[Legioneod]

I'm sure plenty have seen this but here it is.

 

 

[BornToBattle]

9 hours ago, Legioneod said:

I'm sure plenty have seen this but here it is.

 

 

I hadn't seen this and thanks for sharing! 50% of the experience is listening to those massive radials! Nothing sounds like that. Same thing with an inline four motorcycle engine versus a v-twin, but I digress. Thanks again! Awesome.

[DD_Arthur]

11 hours ago, Legioneod said:

I'm sure plenty have seen this but here it is.

 

I hadn't.  Fantastic!  Thanks for posting

[catchthefoxes]

11 hours ago, Legioneod said:

I'm sure plenty have seen this but here it is.

 

man i really hope we get a dorsal fin

[Garven]

Wonder if we will be able to link the turbo and throttle together.  All in all I think I'm going to need a new throttle quadrant with multiple levers to get full enjoyment of the P-47.  Are the $55 dollar Saitek quadrants any good?  I think I could use that for individual control of turbo and throttle and my thrustmaster throttle for linked control.

[Legioneod]

18 minutes ago, catchthefoxes said:

 

man i really hope we get a dorsal fin

Same, though I wont mind if we don't see it.

 

12 minutes ago, Garven_Dreis said:

Wonder if we will be able to link the turbo and throttle together.  All in all I think I'm going to need a new throttle quadrant with multiple levers to get full enjoyment of the P-47.  Are the $55 dollar Saitek quadrants any good?  I think I could use that for individual control of turbo and throttle and my thrustmaster throttle for linked control.

This is the one I have, it works well for me.

http://www.saitek.com/uk/prod-bak/quad.html

 

We most likely will be able to link the controls together since you could irl, they even modeled the linkage on the throttle quadrant (just a metal lever that locks the throttle together, also has one for the rpm.)

 

I'll probably never use the linkage though, it's less efficient.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Legioneod

[sevenless]

12 hours ago, Legioneod said:

I'm sure plenty have seen this but here it is.

 

 

 

Excellent Jug-Porn!

[Talon_]

[Garven]

Maximum manifold pressure at 28000ft

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, Garven_Dreis said:

Maximum manifold pressure at 28000ft

Interesting, the D-28 achieved it's top speed around 29k. If we ever get into some high alt fights this thing will be an absolute monster. I can't wait.

[Gambit21]

Hard to beat a Jug up that high.

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Hard to beat a Jug up that high.

Yep. I saw some old war footage of a P-47 flying at mid-high altitude, it looked so graceful and easy to maneuver. I can't wait to get my hands on it, hope it's not much longer.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Legioneod

[Talon_]

[Thad]

Question. Just how much flight time do any us spend flying above 7,000m? I think most desire to mix things up nearer the deck.

 

My point? Craft high altitude performance actually have a very, very minor impact on gameplay. It's good to know but will not very significant. ?

[Talon_]

1 minute ago, Thad said:

Question. Just how much flight time do any us spend flying above 7,000m? I think most desire to mix things up nearer the deck.

 

My point? Craft high altitude performance actually have a very, very minor impact on gameplay. It's good to know but will not very significant. ?

 

How many planes do we have that actually work or have a purpose up there?

 

When one side basically can't climb above 5km, the other side won't spend much time above 7km. In BP, both sides are free to choose their altitude from the full range.

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, Thad said:

Question. Just how much flight time do any us spend flying above 7,000m? I think most desire to mix things up nearer the deck.

 

My point? Craft high altitude performance actually have a very, very minor impact on gameplay. It's good to know but will not very significant. ?

I see plenty of German players fly high. Imo some players (myself included) are gonna want to fly high just to get into some high altitude fights, they're very fun and it's a whole lot different from fighting down low.

 

The highest fight I've ever gotten in so far was around 20k ft while flying a mig 3, I was the only russian up there, yet there were about 5-6 germans that I was fighting by myself.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Legioneod

[CountZero]

Just now, Thad said:

Question. Just how much flight time do any us spend flying above 7,000m? I think most desire to mix things up nearer the deck.

 

My point? Craft high altitude performance actually have a very, very minor impact on gameplay. It's good to know but will not very significant. ?

 

on wol i play offten in lagg3 abow 6km, in winter even 8km, you fined planty of enemys up high, they think they are safe there so you can suprise them if they are not cerfule. But your right me or them do nothing for our team to win mission, so even in bobp missions i expect fights will mostly stay low, and guys flying high will still have no impact on anything important in missions, they will just waist airplanes like me and tm8 do on red side flying at 6-8km ?

[Ehret]

49 minutes ago, Thad said:

My point? Craft high altitude performance actually have a very, very minor impact on gameplay. It's good to know but will not very significant. ?

 

Altitude gives options and in a plane like the P-47 it's no problem to get lower as needed, quickly. In fact, flying 4-5km/h high in the Kittyhawk is useful for the same reason. One can trade it for speed moments before the engagement or to go away.

 

High altitude will be very important part of anti 262 tactics in the BOBP. Not only for dives but to gain some safety as early jet engines aren't very good that high.

[Bremspropeller]

My imagination just ran away with me:

 

A coop with two flights of Jugs (no enemy fighters, but a crapton of flak) and lots of ground targets to shoot up.

*heavy breathing*

[Gambit21]

Here's a 7 1/2 hour WEP test 2600bhp, 2700 RPM.

Working condition after the test.

 

Good ol Jug.

[Poochnboo]

 

 

14 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Good ol Jug

7 1/2 hours at War Emergency Power!? Damn. Good Ole R-2800. That engine was in the Hellcat and the Corsair, too. If you had to fly for hours over water, that's the engine you wanted to be sitting behind. 

[Gambit21]

[PainGod85]

Meanwhile ingame the engine will start throwing con rods at you after 6-7 minutes of WEP on the outside.

[Bremspropeller]

To summarize what I wrote over in the DD 209 thread:

 

Jugs used HVARS occasionally. The number of rockets was limited to four.

Zero length launchers (as used by the -47N) could later (post war) be used by -47Ds as well. Those could mount 8 to 10 HVAR rockets.

 

406th FG (513th FS) introduced he rockets in an attack on Nevers railyard on 17th July 1944.

 

Seems like the 406th FG/ 513th FS was a test outfit for HVARs and was the only unit to use them at the time.

Other pictures suggest that HVARs were used by other units (at least by 368th FG) later in the war, too.

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[Legioneod]

2 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

Meanwhile ingame the engine will start throwing con rods at you after 6-7 minutes of WEP on the outside.

We'll see how it's implemented in-game but at the very least we should be able to go WEP for 5 min at a time with a break in between.

[LuftManu]

17 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

How many planes do we have that actually work or have a purpose up there?

 

When one side basically can't climb above 5km, the other side won't spend much time above 7km. In BP, both sides are free to choose their altitude from the full range.

True, and in tactical servers like TAW and KOTA I've seen flights above 25.000ft very often. The server and mission plays an important role. I want to meet K4 at hight alt rather than being low and waiting for them to dive on me.

[DSR_A-24]

On 10/27/2018 at 8:30 AM, Legioneod said:

We'll see how it's implemented in-game but at the very least we should be able to go WEP for 5 min at a time with a break in between.

That's the problem, I don't think there is a specified break time between WEP usage. So how is this going to work? You get 15 minutes worth of water but can only use 5 minutes before your engine blows? I don't even see a reference for this in the P-47N manual. 

[Legioneod]

11 minutes ago, DSR_T-888 said:

That's the problem, I don't think there is a specified break time between WEP usage. So how is this going to work? You get 15 minutes worth of water but can only use 5 minutes before your engine blows? I don't even see a reference for this in the P-47N manual. 

I know, but I'd much rather have to take a break in between use rather than only get 5min total.

Realistically we should be able to run it until it runs out of water but I doubt that is how it will be in-game, after we run out of water 52" would be our maximum allowed power (or is it 56" can't remember) since running any higher would be too dangerous without water.

Of course, if we get 150 fuel we won't need water at 65" we'll be able to run without it.