On the topic of Thunderbolts

[Cpt_Siddy]

5 hours ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

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

 

 

How they preformed in real life, maybe... but they quality does impact the recreation of those characteristics.

 

Hence why DCS might not be the optimal platform for that. 

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, DSR_T-888 said:

 

Where did you read this?

The manuals. It's safe dive speed was limited by compressibility, keep in mind this was only for sea level, it decreased accordingly as you went higher, it's safe dive speed did increase though with the addition of dive flaps.

 

The P-47 could dive well past it's safe dive speed. It's safe dive speed was the speed at which it would still maintain control in a dive without hitting compressibility. If you go past your safe dive speed you won't be in any real danger structurally but you will enter into compressibility.

 

Thankfully there are procedures in the manual that tell you how to get out of compressibility. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Legioneod

[GP*]

17 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

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. 

 

Someone buy this man a beer. 

[Garven]

16 hours 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 think that one lost its prop during the dive.

[EAF19_Marsh]

36 minutes ago, Garven_Dreis said:

I think that one lost its prop during the dive.

 

Yes, that was a war-time event. The other I was thinking of was this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Powles

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

16 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

How they preformed in real life, maybe... but they quality does impact the recreation of those characteristics.

 

Hence why DCS might not be the optimal platform for that. 

Hardly, from my perspective of flying about 4 years now in P-51 (every week or two), be it offline or online, those characteristics that are meaningful for plane to plane comparison are spot on and provide sufficent base to draw the line. As such Bf-109 which produces there 1.8 Ata, fighting P-51D (with radar, so a bit heavier) with max MAP of 67" is simply superior. Mustang in 1 vs 1 combat is outclassed since K-4 is faster (top speed and acceleration), has superior rate of climb, manouverability and can run on higher engine settings for longer periods without as much fear of wrecking engine due to MW50. Of course thats why I dont fly alone since P-51s strength is in teamwork and cooperation. Also P-51 may loose fight but is hard to shoot down if pilot behind knows what he is doing.

I've beaten a lot of 109s in dogfights. I've been shot down by many 109s. I know where pros and cons are which allows me to make fairly objective comparison even if platform such as DCS is different. So your dismissive post lacks any substance.

[blitze]

Well, P51 was designed as a long range escort fighter whilst the late war 109's were short ranged interceptors.  Then there is the Jug of which I have no idea it's role other than to provide the world with a huge single engined fighter which could take a beating and still fly home. ?

 

Each will have trade off's in their respective roles and strengths the others don't have.

[Cpt_Siddy]

1 hour ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

. Mustang in 1 vs 1 combat is outclassed since K-4 is faster (top speed and acceleration)

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, you only prove my point of having nothing valuable to add but making posts with unsubstantiated comments.  

[Legioneod]

50 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

He's not exactly wrong. From all the info I've seen the K4 has a very similar speed to the P-51 and is faster at certain altitudes.

 

[Garven]

 A one on one fair fight is for suckers, and its out come is a poor standard of measurement for determining which fighters are the best.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Garven_Dreis

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Garven_Dreis said:

 A one on one fair fight is for suckers, and its out come is a poor standard of measurement for determining which fighters are the best.

 

This guy gets it, right here. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

‘Best’ also being the vaguest of vague terms in this context.

[DSR_A-24]

On 9/12/2018 at 3:46 PM, Legioneod said:

The manuals. It's safe dive speed was limited by compressibility, keep in mind this was only for sea level, it decreased accordingly as you went higher, it's safe dive speed did increase though with the addition of dive flaps.

 

The P-47 could dive well past it's safe dive speed. It's safe dive speed was the speed at which it would still maintain control in a dive without hitting compressibility. If you go past your safe dive speed you won't be in any real danger structurally but you will enter into compressibility.

 

Thankfully there are procedures in the manual that tell you how to get out of compressibility. 

I wasn't aware there was an actually specified permitted dive speed with dive flaps. This makes me more annoyed we didn't get the D-30. Hey, there's always DCS..

[Legioneod]

3 hours ago, DSR_T-888 said:

I wasn't aware there was an actually specified permitted dive speed with dive flaps. This makes me more annoyed we didn't get the D-30. Hey, there's always DCS..

I wouldn't worry too much, the P-47 can still dive well over it's permitted "safe" dive speed without having any structural problems, it will just hit compressibility eventually.

It's not like we'll hit compressibility by going 505 instead of 500, it doesn't work like that; we should not truly hit compressibility (where we cant move anything) until over 520 mph maybe even 550 mph from reports I've read.

 

The fastest I've ever read of a P-47 diving was over 600 mph IAS which is extremely fast, the Jug survived. As long as you follow the procedure and you have enough altitude you should be fine if you hit compressibility.

 

Dive flaps didn't make the P-47 faster in a dive, they just help offset the effects of compressibility.

 

I wouldn't take the "safe" dive limit to strictly, you'll be fine if you go over it.

[ZachariasX]

9 hours ago, DSR_T-888 said:

I wasn't aware there was an actually specified permitted dive speed with dive flaps. This makes me more annoyed we didn't get the D-30. Hey, there's always DCS..

In the sim, you can use the trim for pulling out of the dive. You don‘t get hurt and you can risk the breakup of the aircraft.

 

Near critical Mach, the center of lift travels backwards causing (significant) pitch down momentum. Plus the wing loses lift. Setting flaps offsets mainly this later point, assisting to overcome the pitch down momentum.

 

Safe dive speeds are the speeds that the manufacturer guarantees to be safe. Going faster shortens service intervals. Going significantly faster may be a good reason to bring your AC to the shop directly to have it checked.

[MiloMorai]

In the P-51, trim was not to be used to pull out of a high speed dive.

[ZachariasX]

3 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

In the P-51, trim was not to be used to pull out of a high speed dive.

You never do. But in the sim, not caring for your life, you can do that. During the pull up down low, the mach tuck will fade very quickly. Then you end up all at once with an incredibly fast aircraft trimmed for slow speed. This is good enogh to knock out the pilot and / or do structural damage. None of which impresses the 1GCAP.

[Legioneod]

You should never really need trim to get out of a dive if you set it accordingly before the dive, and if you follow the procedures to get out of compressibility.

 

Before entering a dive trim aircraft tail heavy and don't enter the dive at full power. If you hit compressibility during the dive just hold the stick back and increase power and you'll eventually come out of the dive.

 

The P-47 manual does state that you can use trim during the dive to get out of it, but it is to be used with caution and very sparingly.

 

Once you hit compressibility elevator trim will be absolutely useless until you hit lower altitudes and the effects of compressibility start to lessen.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Legioneod

[MiloMorai]

Bf109s used trim to pull out of high speed dives.

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

Bf109s used trim to pull out of high speed dives.

If the alternative is you punching halfway through to China, then one is certainly inclined to turn that wheel...

[Ehret]

11 hours ago, Legioneod said:

The fastest I've ever read of a P-47 diving was over 600 mph IAS which is extremely fast, the Jug survived. As long as you follow the procedure and you have enough altitude you should be fine if you hit compressibility.

 

So far, in the game it's fine to dive from 6000m flying the P-39/P-40, accelerate to 600mp/h IAS and then recover smoothly. Only problem I have found is the risk of over-revving the engine.

[Legioneod]

7 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

So far, in the game it's fine to dive from 6000m flying the P-39/P-40, accelerate to 600mp/h IAS and then recover smoothly. Only problem I have found is the risk of over-revving the engine.

Once compressibility is modeled I'm sure the dive speeds for every aircraft will be altered (or at least the way it handles in the dive). The P-40 and P-39 will still be good at diving but it wont be as easy  as it is now imo.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Legioneod

[CrazyDuck]

Yep, it's gonna be huge!

 

[Rolling_Thunder]

On 9/13/2018 at 1:34 PM, DSR_T-888 said:

I wasn't aware there was an actually specified permitted dive speed with dive flaps. This makes me more annoyed we didn't get the D-30. Hey, there's always DCS..

Lol. We'll have a razorback, a d-30, a p47M and a p47N in BoX long before DCS gets its act together and releases their P-47

[JonRedcorn]

10 hours ago, CrazyDuck said:

Yep, it's gonna be huge!

 

Is that for real? Holy moly. It's like two planes stacked on top of eachother, that turbo setup is literally the size of a 190.

Edited September 15, 2018 by 15th_JonRedcorn

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

Is that for real? Holy moly. It's like two planes stacked on top of eachother, that turbo setup is literally the size of a 109.

Yep, it's pretty big.

 

[MiloMorai]

10 minutes ago, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

Is that for real? Holy moly. It's like two planes stacked on top of eachother, that turbo setup is literally the size of a 190.

 

You could go to a model shop and buy some plastic models for a nice physical comparison.

[Legioneod]

To anyone who hasn't already read it, Thunderbolt is an excellent book by Robert Johnson of the 56th FG.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Thunderbolt-Extraordinary-Story-Aviation-History/dp/1885354053

 

Also for anyone interested in how to use the P-47, here is an account of mock combat between Johnson and a Spitfire.

 

"I opened the throttle full and the Thunderbolt forged ahead. A moment later exhaust smoke poured from the Spit as the pilot came after me. He couldn't make it; the big Jug had a definite speed advantage. I grinned happily; I'd heard so much about this airplane that I really wanted to show the Thunderbolt to her pilot. The Jug kept pulling away from the Spitfire; suddenly I hauled back on the stick and lifted the nose. The Thunderbolt zoomed upward, soaring into the cloud-flecked sky. I looked out and back; the Spit was straining to match me, and barely able to hold his position.

But my advantage was only the zoom--once in steady climb, he had me. I gaped as smoke poured from the exhausts and the Spitfire shot past me as if I were standing still. Could that plane CLIMB! He tore upward in a climb I couldn't match with the Jug. Now it was his turn; the broad elliptical wings rolled, swung around, and the Spit screamed in, hell-bent on chewing me up.

This was going to be fun. I knew he could turn inside the heavy Thunderbolt; if I attempted to hold a tight turn, the Spitfire would slip right inside me. I knew also, that he could easily outclimb my fighter. I stayed out of those sucker traps. First rule in this kind of fight: don't fight the way your opponent fights best. No sharp turns; don't climb; keep him at your own level.

We were at 5,000 feet, the Spitfire skidding around hard and coming in on my tail. No use turning; he'd whip right inside me as if I were a truck loaded with cement, and snap out in firing position. Well, I had a few tricks too. The P-47 was faster, and I threw the ship into a roll. Right here I had him. The Jug could outroll any plane in the air, bar none. With my speed, roll was my only advantage, and I made full use of the manner in which the Thunderbolt could roll. I kicked the Jug into a wicked left roll, horizon spinning crazily, once, twice, into a third. As he turned to the left to follow, I tramped down on the right rudder, banged the stick over to the right. Around and around we went, left, right, left, right. I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire even completed his first. And this killed his ability to turn inside me. I refused to turn. Every time he tried to follow me in a roll, I flashed away to the opposite side, opening the gap between our planes.

Then I played the trump. The Spitfire was clawing wildly through the air, trying to follow me in a roll, when I dropped the nose. The Thunderbolt howled and ran for earth. Barely had the Spitfire started to follow--and I was a long way ahead of him by now--when I jerked back on the stick and threw the Jug into a zoom climb. In a straight or climbing turn, the British ship had the advantage. But coming out of a dive, there's not a British or German fighter than can come close to a Thunderbolt rushing upward in a zoom. Before the Spit pilot knew what had happened, I was high above him, and the Thunderbolt hammering around. And that was it--in the next few moments the Spitfire flier was amazed to see a less-maneuverable slower-climbing Thunderbolt rushing straight at him, eight guns pointing at his cockpit."

 

[=RvE=Windmills]

Any have charts of P47 speeds as compared to 109/190?

 

It struggled badly in 1946 due to weight/stall characteristics and lack of speed at altitudes that weren't orbital. Wondering what to expect with it in BoS.

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, Windmills said:

Any have charts of P47 speeds as compared to 109/190?

 

It struggled badly in 1946 due to weight/stall characteristics and lack of speed at altitudes that weren't orbital. Wondering what to expect with it in BoS.

The thing about the Thunderbolt is that it really depends on what altitude you are at, anything below 10k and you'll be slower than everything but a Spitfire (very close in speed actually)

I'll post some charts in a bit though.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Legioneod

[Bremspropeller]

I would be a little less enthusiastic about that book. Partially because it has been released relatively quickly after the war (when more thorough sources weren't available) and partially because Johnson takes some liberties and sells fairytales for facts (the good old Egon Mayer meeting).

Read it like you'd read other autobiographies of the same vintage (like The Blond Knight of Germany, The Big Show, etc.) - more like a novel with real characters than a factbook.

 

If you're more interested in the Thunderbolt, get Warren Bodie's book on it (and look out for the author's work on the Lightning).

Even then, that book isn't quite the holy grail - but it's pretty much the best you'll get on the Tbolt.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

I would be a little less enthusiastic about that book. Partially because it has been released relatively quickly after the war (when more thorough sources weren't available) and partially because Johnson takes some liberties and sells fairytales for facts (the good old Egon Mayer meeting).

Read it like you'd read other autobiographies of the same vintage (like The Blond Knight of Germany, etc.) - more like a novel with real characters than a factbook.

 

If you're more interested in the Thunderbolt, get Warren Bodie's book on it (and look out for the author's work on the Lightning).

Even then, that book isn't quite the holy grail - but it's pretty much the best you'll get on the Tbolt.

Johnson never claimed to encounter Egon Mayer, that fairytail was spread by someone else, not Johnson.

Majority of what Johnson has said in his book checks out. It should all be taken with a grain of salt sure, but that doesn't mean it should be disregarded as untrustworthy.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Legioneod

[Bremspropeller]

The problem with those kinds of books is that they're foremost written for entertainment (hence the language) than for purely factual representation.

Thus, it overdoes it at times and either creates unwarranted expectations by readers (e.g. a 9t airplane seemingly leaping around the skies effortlessly) or fictionalizes real events for the purpose of dramatisation. You can still take away useful information, but a reader that is not too deep into the subject will have a hard time picking apart actual facts and "facts" where dramatisation blows things a little out of proportion.

 

That is a common thing for many books of that age (late 1940s to mid 1970s) that were written for a broader audience, rather than a specialized audience of nerds with an interest of WW2 aviation, as most publications of today are.

[Legioneod]

5 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The problem with those kinds of books is that they're foremost written for entertainment (hence the language) than for purely factual representation.

Thus, it overdoes it at times and either creates unwarranted expectations by readers (e.g. a 9t airplane seemingly leaping around the skies effortlessly) or fictionalizes real events for the purpose of dramatisation. You can still take away useful information, but a reader that is not too deep into the subject will have a hard time picking apart actual facts and "facts" where dramatisation blows things a little out of proportion.

 

That is a common thing for many books of that age (late 1940s to mid 1970s) that were written for a broader audience, rather than a specialized audience of nerds with an interest of WW2 aviation, as most publications of today are.

We have to take it at face value, it's a memoir about his experiences during the war, it's not a work of fiction.

 

I've done plenty of research on the subject and I've no reason to believe what he has said is false. The one thing in the book that brings most, if not all of the criticism, is the event with the 190.

[novicebutdeadly]

On 9/14/2018 at 9:47 PM, ZachariasX said:

If the alternative is you punching halfway through to China, then one is certainly inclined to turn that wheel...

I remember reading a couple years ago some allied pilot anecdotes about this, one where the 109 pilot did it the right way, the other where the 109 pilot well......

I believe the first one involved a P51, diving after a 109 until they both hit compressability, and the P51 pilot was surprised to see the 109 recover quicker than he was, and was very happy that the 109 pilot decided to quit instead of taking advantage of the P51's situation,

the other one I don't remember the aircraft type, but again both hit compressability with the ground coming up rather rapidly, and the 109 managed to pull up sharply.... and promptly lost both wings....

[Bremspropeller]

 

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

We have to take it at face value, it's a memoir about his experiences during the war, it's not a work of fiction.

You're not getting my point, but that's fine.

 

You never take memories at face value, because they're seldomly factual but represent an interpretation of experience (at best) and are subject to selective memory bias.

That's why eyewitness-reports are the lowest form of evidence in court.

 

Mix that with restricted access to sources at the time of writing and a writing-style to impress the regular folks and you'll arrive at a work that can give you perspective, but little factual information*. This is a limitation of all (auto-)biographical work - no matter which side.

 

___

* Perhaps I should define what I mean by that:

Informations about numbers, figures and hard data.

A fighter-pilot writing a "der I wuz"-report seldomly gets those right, because he is subject to selective perception. Also, war-stories tend to exaggerate over time and the more often they're told.This is one reason for inflated kill-claims.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[Legioneod]

7 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

You're not getting my point, but that's fine.

 

You never take memories at face value, because they're seldomly factual but represent an interpretation of experience (at best) and are subject to selective memory bias.

That's why eyewitness-reports are the lowest form of evidence in court.

 

Mix that with restricted access to sources at the time of writing and a writing-style to impress the regular folks and you'll arrive at a work that can give you perspective, but little factual information*. This is a limitation of all (auto-)biographical work - no matter which side.

 

___

* Perhaps I should define what I mean by that:

Informations about numbers, figures and hard data.

A fighter-pilot writing a "der I wuz"-report seldomly gets those right, because he is subject to selective perception. Also, war-stories tend to exaggerate over time and the more often they're told.This is one reason for inflated kill-claims.

I understood what you meant.

 

Hard numbers and data cant tell the whole story, it's good to look at both the data and first hand accounts.

 

First hand accounts are a good way to see how an aircraft performed in combat vs what the numbers say it could do.

 

Also, in the US guncam and eyewitness testimony were used to confirm kills most of the time, very rarely did they take the word of a single pilot.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Legioneod

[novicebutdeadly]

Not only is there compressability at speed, but also aileron reversal,

I vaguely remember reading that Spitfires aileron reversal speed was below that of it's critical mach number (until the Mark XXI which had a stiffened wing).

I wonder if when compressability is modeled if aileron reversal will also

be modeled??

Edited September 15, 2018 by novicebutdeadly

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, novicebutdeadly said:

Not only is there compressability at speed, but also aileron reversal,

I vaguely remember reading that Spitfires aileron reversal speed was below that of it's critical mach number (until the Mark XXI which had a stiffened wing).

I wonder if when compressability is modeled if aileron reversal will be modeled??

Not sure, but I hope so. This could be why the safe dive speed of the spitfire was so low.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Legioneod