On the topic of Thunderbolts

[Legioneod]

21 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

You do sometimes see VVS fly high, for several reasons. They too like to level bomb at 4 km or higher to avoid flak, they might sweep at 4-6k to get above the 109s that look down ready to bounce to deck, or they might wait for bombers over targets at 5-7k. There will be LW fighters patrolling medium and high altitudes in the West too. P-47 will excel in patrolling high and then bouncing all the way to 10 kft or even lower and zooming back. Similar to 190 but it wont lose control surfaces as easily.

I've actually never heard of P-47s losing control surfaces during a dive (I'm sure they did though), I have know they lock up and even warp the frame but I've never read of them losing controls.

 

I can't wait to fly the Jug, it's gonna be fun bouncing someone and watch them trying to dive away, they can get away with it now due to the lower dive speeds of Russian aircraft but they wont be able to do the same thing against a Jug. I'm sure most pilots will know better than to dive away though.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

You never really need the turbo below 12,000ft,

True. But if it comes to managing efficiency, the turbo is great. You can use it at lower rpm in cruise flight to squeeze out more mileage. You go lower on rpm and higher on torque. And you can use it as carb heater.

 

 

59 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I've actually never heard of P-47s losing control surfaces during a dive (I'm sure they did though), I have know they lock up and even warp the frame but I've never read of them losing controls.

 

I can't wait to fly the Jug, it's gonna be fun bouncing someone and watch them trying to dive away, they can get away with it now due to the lower dive speeds of Russian aircraft but they wont be able to do the same thing against a Jug. I'm sure most pilots will know better than to dive away though. 

Life will get considerably harder for the Lufties. With the P-47 in the game can hardly dive for safety at high altitude, where the P-47 will make that problematic, and they most certainly can't do that at low to mid altitudes when we have the Tempest. And the Tempest never ever shed one control surface in dives. In fact, it was made to dive up to and near critical Mach. Both will accellerate considerably faster than the 109 and the 190 and both have similar critical Mach (Tempest may be a tad higher) then both 109 and 190.

 

For the Lufties, it will be all about keeping your airspeed up in a fight down low. But the 190D9 is rather good at that as well as maneuvering at high speeds.

Edited September 12, 2018 by ZachariasX

[Cpt_Siddy]

40 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

 

Life will get considerably harder for the Lufties. With the P-47 in the game can hardly dive for safety at high altitude, where the P-47 will make that problematic, and they most certainly can't do that at low to mid altitudes when we have the Tempest. And the Tempest never ever shed one control surface in dives. In fact, it was made to dive up to and near critical Mach. Both will accellerate considerably faster than the 109 and the 190 and both have similar critical Mach (Tempest may be a tad higher) then both 109 and 190.

 

For the Lufties, it will be all about keeping your airspeed up in a fight down low. But the 190D9 is rather good at that as well as maneuvering at high speeds.

 

Well, considering the D models of 190 are actual new air frame, even if based on old design, tells you that Lufties never really got any proper late war gear. The 109 was obsolete air frame by the end of 1943, as the whole concept was based on lighter and faster... that kind of went out of the window by the end, and never had the space to incorporate required new toys. 

 

and the 262 came waaaay to late and in to few numbers to even make a dent. 

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

True. But if it comes to managing efficiency, the turbo is great. You can use it at lower rpm in cruise flight to squeeze out more mileage. You go lower on rpm and higher on torque. And you can use it as carb heater.

 

 

Life will get considerably harder for the Lufties. With the P-47 in the game can hardly dive for safety at high altitude, where the P-47 will make that problematic, and they most certainly can't do that at low to mid altitudes when we have the Tempest. And the Tempest never ever shed one control surface in dives. In fact, it was made to dive up to and near critical Mach. Both will accellerate considerably faster than the 109 and the 190 and both have similar critical Mach (Tempest may be a tad higher) then both 109 and 190.

 

For the Lufties, it will be all about keeping your airspeed up in a fight down low. But the 190D9 is rather good at that as well as maneuvering at high speeds.

One thing I will say is that the P-47s initial acceleration in the dive wasn't as good as the 190 or 109 but the Jug could dive faster and would eventually overtake any 190 or 109 in a dive.

 

I don't think we will ever see the P-47 or Tempest shedding control surfaces in game, we'll never need those speeds at which they start to break up.

[303_Bies]

2 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

Well, considering the D models of 190 are actual new air frame, even if based on old design, tells you that Lufties never really got any proper late war gear. The 109 was obsolete air frame by the end of 1943, as the whole concept was based on lighter and faster... that kind of went out of the window by the end, and never had the space to incorporate required new toys. 

 

Spitfire's first flight was in 1936, Mustang in 1940, Thunderbolt in 1941 (but based on P-43 from 1940 like Dora based on Anton), Tempest V in 1942 (but based on Typhoon from 1940 like Dora based on Anton), P-38 in 1939.

So Dora was still as modern as most modern western fighters. In many cases it was even more modern, like cockpit design, control surfaces, engine control automation etc. because Germany was working more extensively on military designs during 1938-1939 than western allies.

The process from design, throught first flight to serial production was just that long.

 

You could say P-38, P-47, P-51, Tempest or Spitfire were all obsolete because their airframes was designed many years ago. But there was nothing more modern. Only Me-262 maybe.

Edited September 12, 2018 by bies

[MiloMorai]

Design Analysis of the P-47 Thunderbolt

 

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47.htm

[Cpt_Siddy]

42 minutes ago, bies said:

 

Spitfire's first flight was in 1936, Mustang in 1940, Thunderbolt in 1941 (but based on P-43 from 1940 like Dora based on Anton), Tempest V in 1942 (but based on Typhoon from 1940 like Dora based on Anton), P-38 in 1939.

So Dora was still as modern as most modern western fighters. In many cases it was even more modern, like cockpit design, control surfaces, engine control automation etc. because Germany was working more extensively on military designs during 1938-1939 than western allies.

The process from design, throught first flight to serial production was just that long.

 

You could say P-38, P-47, P-51, Tempest or Spitfire were all obsolete because their airframes was designed many years ago. But there was nothing more modern. Only Me-262 maybe.

 

 

You are missing the point, most american air frames were big, they had room and flexibility.

 

190 went trough a major change, thus i mentioned it as a "modern", but the 109 was a creation built around idea of compact package that lend itself poorly to possible upgrades. 

This, paired with the fact that most allies production centers were NOT being bombed and the mahooosive production capacity... Well, you could say that the 109, as a combat system was obsolete. 

 

If you look how the power and size grew in subsequent years, you can appreciate it... most modern fighters like Su-27 and its derivatives and western counterparts are about AS BIG as B-17 and can carry equivalent bomb load. 

 

109 was tiny compared to most allied gear, and while it was an advantage at start, it also was the limiting factor of how much you can alter the design without messing the production line. 

 

And even the spitfire that you mentioned got a "Dora" treatment for many of its parts (IE: re design, expansion in diameters and so on...)  while 109 basically remained same in the dimensions from start to finish. Is this a testament for a good design? Maybe, but it also meant that making any kind of radical changes meant that you need to alter some of the production line in a ways that Germany was clearly unable to or reluctant.  

 

In short, i am not saying, and never did say that 109 was obsolete because it was OLD, it was obsolete because it could not accommodate some of the tech that became available due to its restrictive size. A T54/55 is essentially a design that saw some action in WW2 and it can still be seen in operation today by some countries. It is because it was first proper MBT that allowed for modular iteration and upgrade on a platform that justified those upgrade. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[303_Bies]

I didn't say 109 was not obsolete. It was. But 190 was still modern.

And when it comes to 109 it could be "osbolete" on paper but due to power to weight ration it was competitive to the end of the war. And in 1v1 duel it was one of the best.

[Cpt_Siddy]

13 minutes ago, bies said:

I didn't say 109 was not obsolete. It was. But 190 was still modern.

 And when it comes to 109 it could be "osbolete" on paper but due to power to weight ration it was competitive to the end of the war. And in 1v1 duel it was one of the best.

 

1v1 duel is such a vague concept that i wont even go there. 

 

Hypothetically, if an engineer is designing his plane around 1 v 1 in a wartime dictatorship led by me, i would just have him shot, hanged then shot again have a stern discussion with him at the HR office, just to make my point clear about wastage of war materials. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[303_Bies]

Yes of course, fighters was not being designed for honorable 1v1 artificial duel.

I just wrote the fact Bf109 is -due to some design choices - very good in this type of contest. And from time to time you could find yourself in such situation.

[Ehret]

In no small part the LW's woes were part of shortsighted planning... They didn't expect protracted hostilities thus focused on smaller frames fit for tactical combat.

That Nazi Germany couldn't hit enemies strategically begs question why they antagonized the US in the first place? It's no wonder the LW had failed when faced with impossible tasks.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Ehret

[EAF19_Marsh]

Germany desperately wanted to replace the 109 because it was considered no longer competative and lacking a future - the Me 209 was the poor attempt at this. Obviously the same was true to a degree of the Spitfire, but the latter could continue to fulfill the tasks it was assigned after 1943 whereas the 109 came up short, especially in terms of combating more heavily-armed bombers and having good loiter time.

 

Arguably one thing it did retain was capability in a traditional dogfight.

[Cpt_Siddy]

6 minutes ago, bies said:

Yes of course, fighters was not being designed for honorable 1v1 artificial duel.

I just wrote the fact Bf109 is -due to some design choices - very good in this type of contest. And from time to time you could find yourself in such situation.

 

Was good.... by the 44-45, its became too heavy, losing its hp/kg advantage, having worse dive and under-gunned to boot. 

It might have remained competitive, but best it was at nothing.... 

[LeLv76_Erkki]

109's top speed and especially rate of climb remain competitive through the war. Most fighters that are faster or match it in speed it tend to lose in climb and dueling properties. It was also a cheap plane(partly due to being so tiny) and importantly for Luftwaffe, survived with 87 octane B4 fuel.

 

I dont think LW needed an "all new" late war prop fighter because Fw 190 had proven to be very versatile and upgradeable high performance plane. With similar upgrades to engine and fuel technologies it could probably match or nearly match the very late war Allied fighters such as P-51H and F8F in many areas.

[303_Bies]

4 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

Was good.... by the 44-45, its became too heavy, losing its hp/kg advantage, having worse dive and under-gunned to boot. 

It might have remained competitive, but best it was at nothing.... 

 

It is theorising.

Play DCS as P-51 vs. Bf109 and Bf109 vs. P-51. I'll say no more.

[MiloMorai]

Wouldn't come close to a Spiteful.

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Legioneod said:

One thing I will say is that the P-47s initial acceleration in the dive wasn't as good as the 190 or 109 but the Jug could dive faster and would eventually overtake any 190 or 109 in a dive.

Is it? how come? Critical Mach puts a rather solid limit for any dive speed. And the Thunderbolt has a Mach number (I have conflicting numbers here. You have any solid info on those?) comparable to the Mustang and the 190/109, being near 0.75.

 

Also max. allowable diving speeds of the Mustang is 505 mph IAS. (Maxima for P-51: @ 40k ft. 260 IAS, 495 TAS, @5k ft. 560 mph TAS.) Thunderbolt has 500 mph IAS as Vne.

 

Fw-190A has following max. dive speeds: @10k ft. 466 mph IAS (P-51: 480 mph), @16k ft. 428 mph (P-51: 440 mph @ 15k ft.), @26k ft. 360 mph (P-51 360 mph @25k ft.)

 

The Jug has a slightly lower critical Mach than the P-51 (again, correct me if I'm wrong here), so there should be little to choose between the 190 and the P-47 while the P-51 being a tiny bit faster. The Jug is about 50% heavier than the 190, so I would expect it accellereate faster initially. Plus it has much more power at altitude. Why is it the other way around?

 

 

[Cpt_Siddy]

12 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

 

I dont think LW needed an "all new" late war prop fighter because Fw 190 had proven to be very versatile and upgradeable high performance plane. With similar upgrades to engine and fuel technologies it could probably match or nearly match the very late war Allied fighters such as P-51H and F8F in many areas.

 

 

Those "small" upgrades were not available to it because of its limited size. It was designed around its power plant, and thus changing or modifying it would have called for a new plane. 

Germany played itself in to a corner where it could not stop the 109 production long enough to introduce any considerable retooling for these upgrades. Thus my point stands, 109 was obsolete by the time of BoBP. 

 

Also, please stop with "muh dueling", allied engineers were more than capable to produce a knife fighter yet they chose to make planes that were capable to perform a role, not boost Harmanss ego. When you got a fighter with comparable characteristics of 109 yet almost three time the range, yes, that screams of 109 obsolescence. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, bies said:

 

It is theorising.

Play DCS as P-51 vs. Bf109 and Bf109 vs. P-51. I'll say no more.

 

>DCS

>WW2 Combat

 

pick one and only one

Edited September 12, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[ZachariasX]

2 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Wouldn't come close to a Spiteful.

That's the one everybody hated back then, right?

[LeLv76_Erkki]

2 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

Those "small" upgrades were not available to it because of its limited size. It was designed around its power plant, and thus changing or modifying it would have called for a new plane. 

Germany played itself in to a corner where it could not stop the 109 production long enough to introduce any considerable retooling for these upgrades. Thus my point stands, 109 was obsolete by the time of BoBP.

 

But it did get a new engine, the Jumo 213A. Germans had to design engines around 87-96 octane fuel and lacking raw materials(reasons they switched to DB605), production capabilities and aero engineers(limited research and development). Yaks and Lalas were even lighter and tinier but with proper upgrades right at the end and post war became real plywood rocket sleds. A Yak has almost won at Reno, where 4000 hp laminar flow wing Mustangs, Rare Bear and Sea Furys dominate...

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

12 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Jug is about 50% heavier than the 190, so I would expect it accellereate faster initially. Plus it has much more power at altitude. Why is it the other way around?

 

 

I dont have the numbers on top of my head right now, but in Holtzauge's simulation power to weight ratio determined initial dive acceleration, iirc until the planes reach their respective level flight top speeds in the dive, then weight starts to become more important, and the heavier plane catches up and overtakes the lighter one eventually. Maybe because of the turbo the 47 ends up with a good power to weight ratio at altitude compared to other planes, we would have to check the numbers. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[klebor]

13 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Wouldn't come close to a Spiteful.

 

I'm afraid Ta152C with 150 octane fuel would be more or less like Spiteful.

And i think more Ta152's were built than Sitefuls.

[Ehret]

21 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

Was good.... by the 44-45, its became too heavy, losing its hp/kg advantage, having worse dive and under-gunned to boot. 

It might have remained competitive, but best it was at nothing.... 

 

Wasn't the the 109' poor ground handling the big killer of green pilots?

In a sortie you may/may not see combat but you have taxi, take-off, land and taxi again, every time.

 

13 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

The Jug is about 50% heavier than the 190, so I would expect it accellereate faster initially. Plus it has much more power at altitude. Why is it the other way around?

 

No - the weight of object alone doesn't affect acceleration in a gravity well.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Ehret

[Talon_]

All this talk of 1v1s just continues to justify the tactic I have been using in the Spitfire with great success and plan to continue using with the Mustang and of course the topic of this thread, the Jug ?

 

 

[Diggun]

1 minute ago, Talon_ said:

the tactic

Capital T's surely? For that really is The Tactic.

 

And a really beautiful sight!

[MiloMorai]

18 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

A Yak has almost won at Reno, where 4000 hp laminar flow wing Mustangs, Rare Bear and Sea Furys dominate...

 

Came last and didn't complete all 8 laps. Also  was using an Allison V-1710 engine.

 

http://reports.airrace.org/2017/2017.Unlimited.Gold.Results.Report.html

 

[Talon_]

5 minutes ago, Diggun said:

Capital T's surely? For that really is The Tactic.

 

And a really beautiful sight!

 

I'm not a very good pilot so I try to make up for it with leadership ?

 

 

[LeLv76_Erkki]

19 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

Came last and didn't complete all 8 laps. Also  was using an Allison V-1710 engine.

 

http://reports.airrace.org/2017/2017.Unlimited.Gold.Results.Report.html

 

 

Czech Mate was 2nd in 2016!

 

edit: my bad, the aircraft also came second in 2014 gold final, averaging almost 459 mph. Both times it lost only to Hinton's Voodoo. First by 4,5 seconds then by 10 seconds.

Edited September 12, 2018 by LeLv76_Erkki

[ZachariasX]

4 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

Came last and didn't complete all 8 laps. Also  was using an Allison V-1710 engine.

 

http://reports.airrace.org/2017/2017.Unlimited.Gold.Results.Report.html

 

Only ~160 mph slower. They are insane at Reno...

[GP*]

8 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

 

 

Thanks for posting this, as another member stated, there’s definitely a supercharger in the last pic. Very cool. 

[Diggun]

 

 

14 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

I'm not a very good pilot so I try to make up for it with leadership ?

 

 

 Phwoar.....

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

53 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

>DCS

>WW2 Combat

 

pick one and only one

Qualities of the game itself do not change or affect the way P-51 or 109 K-4 perform, which was his point.

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Is it? how come? Critical Mach puts a rather solid limit for any dive speed. And the Thunderbolt has a Mach number (I have conflicting numbers here. You have any solid info on those?) comparable to the Mustang and the 190/109, being near 0.75.

 

Also max. allowable diving speeds of the Mustang is 505 mph IAS. (Maxima for P-51: @ 40k ft. 260 IAS, 495 TAS, @5k ft. 560 mph TAS.) Thunderbolt has 500 mph IAS as Vne.

 

Fw-190A has following max. dive speeds: @10k ft. 466 mph IAS (P-51: 480 mph), @16k ft. 428 mph (P-51: 440 mph @ 15k ft.), @26k ft. 360 mph (P-51 360 mph @25k ft.)

 

The Jug has a slightly lower critical Mach than the P-51 (again, correct me if I'm wrong here), so there should be little to choose between the 190 and the P-47 while the P-51 being a tiny bit faster. The Jug is about 50% heavier than the 190, so I would expect it accellereate faster initially. Plus it has much more power at altitude. Why is it the other way around?

 

 

 

Critical mach number has little effect on dive performance overall imo.

People are always comparing mach numbers but they don't really matter, what matters is the ability to maintain control in the dive and the acceleration in the dive and the structural stability of the airfcraft, this is why aircraft like the P-51 and P-47 dive so well but aircraft like to 109 or spitfire don't in comparison. Even though the Spit and 109 had higher mach numbers than the P-47 (iirc) neither one of them could dive as well as the P-47.

 

From what I've read the P-47 had a better dive than the P-51 even though the P-51 had a higher safe airspeed at 505 vs 500 mph (doesn't make sense to me but thats what the reports say) . Once the P-47 received dive flaps it's safe speed increased to about 560mph at sea level vs 500.

 

Safe Dive speeds of P-47D-28

0-10k - 500 mph

10-15k - 450 mph

15-20k - 400 mph

20-25k - 350 mph

25-30k - 300 mph

30-35k - 250 mph

 

British comparisons between dives capability between Tempest, P-47, P-51, and Spitfire.

1st Tempest

2nd P-47

3rd P-51

4th Spitfire

 

The thing that's doesn't make sense to me is that if the P-51 has higher permissible speeds how does the P-47 outdive it?

 

 

EDIT: In regards to acceleration the P-47 may very well have accelerated faster than the 109 or 190 (in fact the manual states that the P-47 lost altitude in a dive extremely fast) but from the combat trials between the 2 aircraft the 190 accelerated faster in the beginning of the dive but the P-47 overtook it quickly. 

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Legioneod

[HandyNasty]

19 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

The thing that's doesn't make sense to me is that if the P-51 has higher permissible speeds how does the P-47 outdive it?

 

Please define the concept of "outdiving  :  "X outdives Y if  X does A better than Y"

 

Your phrase refers to permissible speed as parameter A, as such I interpret that you consider that as being the most important criterion when talking about dive performance. 

I am of the opinion that the WW2 pilots spoke about dive performance more in the sense of performance in shallow dives and then zoomclimb abilities of an aircraft (where P-47 is said to shine)

[Legioneod]

45 minutes ago, =FSB=HandyNasty said:

 

Please define the concept of "outdiving  :  "X outdives Y if  X does A better than Y"

 

Your phrase refers to permissible speed as parameter A, as such I interpret that you consider that as being the most important criterion when talking about dive performance. 

I am of the opinion that the WW2 pilots spoke about dive performance more in the sense of performance in shallow dives and then zoomclimb abilities of an aircraft (where P-47 is said to shine)

 

To outdive something imo is the ability to catch and overtake another aircraft in a dive.

 

There are so many variables when it comes to dive performance but from what I've read the P-47 was the better diver overall. I'm not saying that max permissible speed is the major factor when it comes to dive performance, but logically if an aircraft has a higher permissible dive speed, there is reason to believe that it will dive better than an aircraft with a lower permissible speed.

 

There are many things to consider when determining what aircraft is truly better in the dive:

 

Max permissible speed

acceleration in the dive

structural durability 

Control in the dive

dive angle

power settings

etc.

 

EDIT: In writing this I've realized that I've basically answered my own questions about why the P-47 was considered better in a dive than the P-51.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Legioneod

[EAF19_Marsh]

Does the Spit not have a very high Mach number? Not that it was a strong diver, but it could eventually reach high speeds  - I think post-War a PRU model reached something insane  like Mach .9, though it might not have much control authority at that speed.

[ZachariasX]

23 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Does the Spit not have a very high Mach number?

The highest of them all. Getting very theoretical though past Mach 0.8.

[Talon_]

26 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Does the Spit not have a very high Mach number? Not that it was a strong diver, but it could eventually reach high speeds  - I think post-War a PRU model reached something insane  like Mach .9, though it might not have much control authority at that speed.

 

I hit mach 0.79 with it a few days ago but it exhibits such strong nose-up tendencies at that speed I don't think I could have held it down even with maximum nose-down trim and stick.

 

I was doing about 510MPH IAS according to TACView if I recall.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Talon_

[ZachariasX]

26 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

I hit mach 0.79 with it a few days ago but it exhibits such strong nose-up tendencies at that speed I don't think I could have held it down even with maximum nose-down trim and stick.

 

I was doing about 510MPH IAS according to TACView if I recall.

Mach tuck is something we can expect for Bodenplatte. Things will change drastically then at these speeds.

[DSR_A-24]

4 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

"Once the P-47 received dive flaps it's safe speed increased to about 560mph at sea level vs 500."

 

 

 

Where did you read this?