P-51D and P-47D variants.

[RedKestrel]

4 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

Can someone please post speed data for the Mustang, Jug and Tempest vs G-14/ K-4 and Dora. I'd like to know what to expect. Thanks

So much is going to depend on the variant and block numbers we're getting, and the boost levels permitted. I'm not sure we know all that information yet.

[Voidhunger]

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

So much is going to depend on the variant and block numbers we're getting, and the boost levels permitted. I'm not sure we know all that information yet.

Ok, thanks. I'll wait

[blockheadgreen_]

Off the top of my head, probably a bit off:

 

P-51D - ~430? mph (693? km/h)

 

P-47D-30/40 - 433? mph (697 km/h)

 

Tempest V - Sabre IIB: same as P-47, Sabre IIC: 440? mph (707? km/h

 

Kurfurst - 440 mph (710? km/h)

 

Apparently the  flight characteristics of the 47 and the Tempest V were almost identical.

 

[RedKestrel]

Another thing you could do to get a rough idea would be to download the old Il2Compare application for Il-2 1946. It compared in-game flight data between the various planes via charts airspeed, climbrate, etc. It allows you to compare two aircraft side by side. Very useful for deciding tactics against enemy aircraft (i.e. where is your craft superior or inferior to the enemy, and how to use it).

Now, the big caveat is that the comparison is IN GAME, and there's no guarantee that Il-2 BoX is going to produce the same values as Il-2 1946. The flight model in this game is much more sophisticated. BUT I believe that the relative differences between aircraft should be similar from game to game, even with modeling differences, so it can give you an idea of where there are performance differences. 

[Gambit21]

 I wouldn’t point anyone to in-game data from 1946 as indicative of anything at all. I can think of a number of ‘relative’ flight characteristics that are nowhere close to reality.

[Poochnboo]

The K could hit 440!!?? No wonder its such a pain in the ass in DCS. I knew it was fast, but not that much. Well, gee...I wonder what the Luftwaffe guys will be flying on line! lol! Gonna be a rough, hard war.

[Voidhunger]

@ Lythronax

Thanks,

these are rather numbers for higher alt, I would like to know speed for lower alt.

 

Honestly I was little worried about Spit performance( Higher speed with excellent turning ability), but I was pleasantly surprised that it's beatable with G-14.

I suppose that no US plane in BOBP is so nimble like the Spit? In that case I'm ready ?

 

[Rjel]

44 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

The K could hit 440!!?? No wonder its such a pain in the ass in DCS. I knew it was fast, but not that much. Well, gee...I wonder what the Luftwaffe guys will be flying on line! lol! Gonna be a rough, hard war.

Those that got off the ground did. Some went faster. Of course those were headed straight down. ba dada pa!!! <symbol roll>

 

Just once, I wish we could get a P-47M and P-51H in a game where they were hitting 480+. Those always get forgotten when the uber planes get mentioned.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Rjel
Humor. Or lack there of. :)

[Legioneod]

8 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

Can someone please post speed data for the Mustang, Jug and Tempest vs G-14/ K-4 and Dora. I'd like to know what to expect. Thanks

Depends on a number of factors, (boost rating, alt, block, etc.)

1 hour ago, Lythronax said:

Apparently the  flight characteristics of the 47 and the Tempest V were almost identical.

Depends on a the circumstance.

High alt the P-47 is better.

Low alt the Tempest is better.

 

P-47D top speed around 443mph at 23,000ft

-P-47 responsive roll with a max roll rate (sources vary) anywhere from 80-100dg sec. Personally I think it was closer to 80-90 degrees a second. From     all accounts I've read it was a very responsive roller. (doesn't mean it was the fastest.

-Red line for a dive was around 550 mph beyond this the aircraft locked up and controls became inverted. Accelerated quickly in a dive and could   outdive almost anything. Could even hang with a 262 for a short amount of time.

-Zoom climb was one of the greatest of the war, it could exchange speed for altitude very well. I've heard of german reports saying that its was one thing the Jug did very well, they said they had a hard time following it in a zoom climb, and that they couldn't reach the same alt after the zoom like the Jug could.

-Turn performance was lacking especially down low, couldn't really outturn anything though the Fw-190 vs P-47 test they did says that below 10,000ft the 190 was superior but still beatable, but above 10,000ft the P-47 has the edge.

 

 

Tempest V top speed around 436 at 18,000ft.

Don't really know much about the Tempest so someone else will have to fill in the gaps for a good comparison. I've heard the Tempest and Jug were similar in a Dive though.

 

 

P-47D Speed Performance

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Legioneod

[D3adCZE]

On 5/30/2018 at 6:17 PM, Rjel said:

Those that got off the ground did. Some went faster. Of course those were headed straight down. ba dada pa!!! <symbol roll>

 

Just once, I wish we could get a P-47M and P-51H in a game where they were hitting 480+. Those always get forgotten when the uber planes get mentioned.

P-51H didnt even fight in WW2 and AFAIK P-51D-30 was too late to fight above Europe, I might be wrong on the D-30 though.

[Rjel]

1 hour ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

P-51H didnt even fight in WW2 and AFAIK P-51D-30 was too late to fight above Europe, I might be wrong on the D-30 though.

I didn't say it did, did I? I only said I wished to see it in a sim just once. On the other hand, the P-47M and later the N did. I'd like to see them both too.

[Gambit21]

Korea

[Bearcat]

On 5/28/2018 at 3:33 PM, 19//Hoss said:

I'm really looking forward to the P-47, no matter what version we get, I just hope it's not a one bullet kills the engine like it did in the old legacy IL2. I flew the hell out of it in there with the old 361st Fighter group, of which only 361st_Stanger is still active in the new IL2, he's now an AH_71st_TooLate,

 

here's my old personal skin for my Jug, as 361st_BeoWolf..............

 

Cheers

 

Hoss

 

p.s. The original Willie the Wolf in WWII was Monroe Q. Willams... he actually flew on the old Hyperlobby servers with 353rd and I talked to him quite a bit, because the M. Williams you see on the skin is my name......... Monroe was a WWII P-47 and P-51 fighter pilot he stayed in the USAF after the war.  I asked him if I could use the "Willie the Wolf" name on my P-47 and he agreed.  Here's a brief bio on him...........http://www.rcwarbirds.com/Advisors/Histroical/Monroe.htm

 

Here is Monroe's Willie the Wolf........  I remember seeing a picture of his P-47 or Mustang that had his original art work on it but I can't find it now

 

I remember Monroe... What's cookin Hoss? 

[D3adCZE]

3 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Korea

AFAIK the D versions of Mustangs were used in Korea. 

[Rjel]

1 minute ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

AFAIK the D versions of Mustangs were used in Korea. 

I'm sure that's what Gambit was saying. The P-51H was never shipped overseas.

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

AFAIK the D versions of Mustangs were used in Korea. 

 

Hmmm...interesting.

I figured by then a few later models would have been utilized.

 

 

[Rjel]

5 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Hmmm...interesting.

I figured by then a few later models would have been utilized.

 

 

The H model was phased out of the regular USAAF rather quickly and sent to Air National Guard units. During the Korean War the P-51Ds were in such demand that a lot of ANG units that had Ds were either activated or issued other A/C and their Mustangs sent to the war zone.

 

The P-47 disappeared even more quickly. The USAF could've used it in Korea when that war broke out.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Rjel

[MiloMorai]

Generally speaking P-51 units were west of the Mississippi and P-47 unit were east of the Mississippi. P-51s were closer to Korea. 

[Rjel]

8 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Generally speaking P-51 units were west of the Mississippi and P-47 unit were east of the Mississippi. P-51s were closer to Korea. 

lol. Yeah. I'll bet that saved an hour or two getting them to the war zone.

[MiloMorai]

lol all you want but P-47s got to Europe quicker than P-51s because of where they were manufactured.

[Rjel]

5 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

lol all you want but P-47s got to Europe quicker than P-51s because of where they were manufactured.

You do know that almost all were transported across by ship don't you? Both escort carriers and cargo ships were used. 

[MiloMorai]

You do know that it took the P-51s 4-6 weeks to get across the Atlantic.

[Rjel]

I doubt it but I'm not an expert. Even with flying from California and Texas to the East coast would have taken only a couple of days at most. What was it, maybe 7-8 days then across the Atlantic by ship? I'm not an expert on that either. 4-6 weeks seem implausible to get the P-51 to England. Everything shipped from the U.S. to Europe would've been done so on a tight schedule. I've never read where P-51s were shipped through the Panama Canal though I suppose it's possible. In the fall of 1943, the gittyup was on to get that fighter to Europe in a hurry. I'm sure their shipment was expedited and made a priority.

[MiloMorai]

Sorry Rjel forgot to include 'to a operational unit'. You forgot that the a/c had to be prepared for sea shipment, that is protected from the elements, and this protection removed in Blighty.The a/c then had to be  certified as flight capable. P-47s were also disassembled for shipment (there is a video of being put back together on the inet.

Edited May 31, 2018 by MiloMorai

[=27=Davesteu]

1 hour ago, Rjel said:

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Hmmm...interesting.

I figured by then a few later models would have been utilized.

The H model was phased out of the regular USAAF rather quickly and sent to Air National Guard units. During the Korean War the P-51Ds were in such demand that a lot of ANG units that had Ds were either activated or issued other A/C and their Mustangs sent to the war zone.

Nothing wrong with what Rjel said, just want to stress the fact many F-51 H replaced the older F-51 D/K in ANG units which had to hand the earlier models back to frontline units.

Ironic? Probably, but serious structural and technical defects overshadowed the H model.

[dkoor]

On 5/30/2018 at 5:33 PM, Poochnboo said:

The K could hit 440!!?? No wonder its such a pain in the ass in DCS. I knew it was fast, but not that much. Well, gee...I wonder what the Luftwaffe guys will be flying on line! lol! Gonna be a rough, hard war.

In previous incarnation of IL-2 things weren't so simple, and they surely wont be in newest IL-2 incarnation...

While I found K4 to be very capable fighter, I think that many guys that like to fly Bf-109 actually preferred G6/AS to K4.

G10 too.

G6/AS was very agile, it had nice loadout options and more than decent speed. K4 in comparison was noticeably less agile, which was not really nice if you tended to fly on airquake server, primarily engaging fighter opposition. It really all depended on what you asked for when selecting Bf-109 variant, but K4 certainly wasn't universally best 109 variant of them all.

[Poochnboo]

35 minutes ago, dkoor said:

In previous incarnation of IL-2 things weren't so simple, and they surely wont be in newest IL-2 incarnation...

While I found K4 to be very capable fighter, I think that many guys that like to fly Bf-109 actually preferred G6/AS to K4.

G10 too.

G6/AS was very agile, it had nice loadout options and more than decent speed. K4 in comparison was noticeably less agile, which was not really nice if you tended to fly on airquake server, primarily engaging fighter opposition. It really all depended on what you asked for when selecting Bf-109 variant, but K4 certainly wasn't universally best 109 variant of them all.

I don't know if you have the DCS version, but I can't help feeling that it's rediculous in there. I finally got to where I could fly the DCS Mustang fairly well, and could regularly shoot down the FW190D in a dogfight. I have yet to kill a 109K in there. He's faster, more maneuverable, climbs quicker. He's all over me and it's as though I'm completely helpless. A bit much, I think. The 109G would have made more sense considering they made a Normandy map! But this is the wrong forum for that.....so never mind.

[DD_fruitbat]

48 minutes ago, dkoor said:

In previous incarnation of IL-2 things weren't so simple, and they surely wont be in newest IL-2 incarnation...

While I found K4 to be very capable fighter, I think that many guys that like to fly Bf-109 actually preferred G6/AS to K4.

G10 too.

G6/AS was very agile, it had nice loadout options and more than decent speed. K4 in comparison was noticeably less agile, which was not really nice if you tended to fly on airquake server, primarily engaging fighter opposition. It really all depended on what you asked for when selecting Bf-109 variant, but K4 certainly wasn't universally best 109 variant of them all.

 

G10 was always my favourite late 109 ride in il2 1946, so i agree!

[Ehret]

57 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Nothing wrong with what Rjel said, just want to stress the fact many F-51 H replaced the older F-51 D/K in ANG units which had to hand the earlier models back to frontline units.

Ironic? Probably, but serious structural and technical defects overshadowed the H model.

 

The H was designed with British help to make a much lighter airplane. The need was for a fighter-bomber with emphasis on the latter. I recall the H has visibly smaller landing gear - one of reasons why the D was used instead. The D was more numerous and readily available, too.

 

[Rjel]

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

Sorry Rjel forgot to include 'to a operational unit'. You forgot that the a/c had to be prepared for sea shipment, that is protected from the elements, and this protection removed in Blighty.The a/c then had to be  certified as flight capable. P-47s were also disassembled for shipment (there is a video of being put back together on the inet.

I know. I've got books too that feature pictures of them in a black coating to protect them from salt spray. There were supply depots setup in England with the sole purpose of preparing those incoming A/C to be issued to the groups.

[dkoor]

39 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

I don't know if you have the DCS version, but I can't help feeling that it's rediculous in there. I finally got to where I could fly the DCS Mustang fairly well, and could regularly shoot down the FW190D in a dogfight. I have yet to kill a 109K in there. He's faster, more maneuverable, climbs quicker. He's all over me and it's as though I'm completely helpless. A bit much, I think. The 109G would have made more sense considering they made a Normandy map! But this is the wrong forum for that.....so never mind.

Nah mate, never got a feeling for DCS... graphics are superb, but my 'heart' was always with IL-2 as being no.1 sim. I know I may sound like a fanboi with stating this, but that's how it is.

Anyhow I was just referring to what you might expect in BoBP... G14 was in fact least preferred of all late war 109 variants, well maybe not if you could squeeze in vanilla Bf-109G6 Late (Erla haube) version which had rather awful performance in game for its operational period. Especially when you put before/after 109 performance in the perspective, 109 was lethal from beginning to the end, but with this model it was least competitive in game of all 109s. Cold shower converting from beastly G2.

 

38 minutes ago, DD_fruitbat said:

 

G10 was always my favourite late 109 ride in il2 1946, so i agree!

Yep, G10 was my fav for a long time... that crate could perform?.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

1 hour ago, Poochnboo said:

I don't know if you have the DCS version, but I can't help feeling that it's rediculous in there. I finally got to where I could fly the DCS Mustang fairly well, and could regularly shoot down the FW190D in a dogfight. I have yet to kill a 109K in there. He's faster, more maneuverable, climbs quicker. He's all over me and it's as though I'm completely helpless. A bit much, I think. The 109G would have made more sense considering they made a Normandy map! But this is the wrong forum for that.....so never mind.

It's every Luftie wet dream. Thats why for every D-9 there you have 9 K-4s. It has superior speed and can effectively outrun P-51 on deck and altitude, superior rate of climb, superior turn rate, acceleration and I;d say even armament is more effective. 

So if we get similar to DCS 109 K-4  and similar P-51 (in terms of performance) I expect similar issues. However, you can beat K-4. I've done that a number of times, a lot depends on enemy pilot and the way he can utilize his airframe. Against randoms I managed to outturn them in sustained turns, I mananged to beat them in diving sprials (keep around 400 mph and 3 G turn, 109 wont be able to keep up) and even some vertical maneuvers. But if you face opponent like DavidRed then your chances are slim alone. Which is why I never fly alone  

 

The thing that bothers me the most is how P-51 will be modeled. In DCS its a relatively nimble (for its size and weight) aircraft, but older flight sims had a tendency to make out of it a flying brick. Personally I expect nothing less from Il-2 guys in terms of quality to what competition offers. Hopefully it will meet the expectations.

[dkoor]

I feel old IL-2 P-51D was somewhat a plane for people who are patient and know how to play inside out... it was capable crate in right hands.

For a long time FW-190 was advocated as an 'experten plane', and while to extent that may be true, for people with some experience that crate was used as a tool to boost K/D difference.

Most of the old farts will remember just how big difference between cannon and LMG/HMG equipped planes was present in old Sturmo... damage models were simpler and machine guns suffered. HE cannon rounds ruled.

 

Coming from that perspective, if nothing (or little) regarding relative performance between aircraft changes, new P-47 & P-51 will be noticeably more deadly than they were in old IL-2.

[DD_fruitbat]

I always got on well in the 1946 P51 and i have high hopes for this games version. The 6 50 cals will be a completely different proposition to the old il2 1946 versions, and will be much more effective.

 

Just 2 in the Spit MkIX are adequate to bring down fighters. 

 

PS, nice to see you back around Kuna/Dkoor

Edited May 31, 2018 by DD_fruitbat

[=27=Davesteu]

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

The H was designed with British help to make a much lighter airplane. The need was for a fighter-bomber with emphasis on the latter. I recall the H has visibly smaller landing gear - one of reasons why the D was used instead. The D was more numerous and readily available, too.

Indeed the P-51 D/K was build in significantly greater numbers compared to the H, but I hesitate to call them "more readily available" in 1950. USAF and ANG numbers combined summed up for ~1700 available Mustangs, 555 H build, so roughly calculated 1/3 out of the total number used to be F-51 H. Assuming this is somewhat correct, they would have had more than enough F-51 H to make up the entire first delivery to Korea, consisting of 145 aircraft,  of solely this model.

Twisted tails, structurally weak wings, landing gear prone to various failures and even loosing the canopy in-flight - the F-51 H had multiple weak spots heavily contributing to its mixed reception and non-existent combat career.

[RedKestrel]

1 hour ago, dkoor said:

I feel old IL-2 P-51D was somewhat a plane for people who are patient and know how to play inside out... it was capable crate in right hands.

For a long time FW-190 was advocated as an 'experten plane', and while to extent that may be true, for people with some experience that crate was used as a tool to boost K/D difference.

Most of the old farts will remember just how big difference between cannon and LMG/HMG equipped planes was present in old Sturmo... damage models were simpler and machine guns suffered. HE cannon rounds ruled.

 

Coming from that perspective, if nothing (or little) regarding relative performance between aircraft changes, new P-47 & P-51 will be noticeably more deadly than they were in old IL-2.

Yeah I always needed a lot of hits in the P-47 to kill anything. On the other hand, every once in a while I got a catastrophic kill by blind luck. That was always cool...

[Hoss]

6 hours ago, Bearcat said:

 

I remember Monroe... What's cookin Hoss? 

S.O.S.D.D.  wishing I could retire again, but the wife beat me too it and likes spending my money now............  she needs to find a Sugar Daddy or a cheap hobby!............ you still playin music?

 

Cheers

 

Hoss

 

[dkoor]

2 hours ago, DD_fruitbat said:

I always got on well in the 1946 P51 and i have high hopes for this games version. The 6 50 cals will be a completely different proposition to the old il2 1946 versions, and will be much more effective.

 

Just 2 in the Spit MkIX are adequate to bring down fighters. 

 

PS, nice to see you back around Kuna/Dkoor

Thanks mate?, likewise OFC!

I remember not only you, but also a lot of other old sturmo fellas here, many are still 'wearing' same username / avatar...

 

About .50cals... there were pages of threads about them in the Zoo, people arguing and claiming all kind of stuff, but I guess whoever was a bit realistic realized that when in range .50cal equipped plane is absolutely deadly vs. anything with wings that WW2 has to offer. Sheer quantities of fired projectiles is overwhelming, something similar as seen in Battle of Britain... .303 itself wouldn't be so deadly vs. Heinkel sized target, but when one multiply it by 6 or 8, then Heinkel faces curtain of deadly lead that makes a lot of damage. Realistic (number of) hitboxes are the key for machine gun bullet effectiveness, the more detailed DM is the more MG's are going to be effective I guess...

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

Yeah I always needed a lot of hits in the P-47 to kill anything. On the other hand, every once in a while I got a catastrophic kill by blind luck. That was always cool...

Yep, unless you concentrated your hits in one area you probably wont make catastrophic damage on E/A.

Nevertheless, I actually made a video of me hitting 4 FW-190A Sturmbocks with P-51D... every pass one went down. I used BnZ to attack them from above and had little to no probs downing them with one burst.

That however proved only that .50cal destructive power was ok (at least seemed that way to me), not that overall effect was ok. I wouldn't agree on that. Trouble was there was a lot of misinformation, deliberate and otherwise, and a lot of professional trolls, so people had to read a lot of pages only to find few bits of usable information.

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 hour ago, dkoor said:

Thanks mate?, likewise OFC!

I remember not only you, but also a lot of other old sturmo fellas here, many are still 'wearing' same username / avatar...

 

About .50cals... there were pages of threads about them in the Zoo, people arguing and claiming all kind of stuff, but I guess whoever was a bit realistic realized that when in range .50cal equipped plane is absolutely deadly vs. anything with wings that WW2 has to offer. Sheer quantities of fired projectiles is overwhelming, something similar as seen in Battle of Britain... .303 itself wouldn't be so deadly vs. Heinkel sized target, but when one multiply it by 6 or 8, then Heinkel faces curtain of deadly lead that makes a lot of damage. Realistic (number of) hitboxes are the key for machine gun bullet effectiveness, the more detailed DM is the more MG's are going to be effective I guess...

Yep, unless you concentrated your hits in one area you probably wont make catastrophic damage on E/A.

Nevertheless, I actually made a video of me hitting 4 FW-190A Sturmbocks with P-51D... every pass one went down. I used BnZ to attack them from above and had little to no probs downing them with one burst.

That however proved only that .50cal destructive power was ok (at least seemed that way to me), not that overall effect was ok. I wouldn't agree on that. Trouble was there was a lot of misinformation, deliberate and otherwise, and a lot of professional trolls, so people had to read a lot of pages only to find few bits of usable information.

 

I remember those days. What a mess some of those discussion threads were.

 

The thing I said then and the thing that is true now is that the old IL-2 DM didn't have the level of sophistication required to really represent what a large number of .50cal bullets would do and favoured the 20mm and up destructive potential. Now we have far greater levels of detail and that all helps make this work really well. The P-40s .50cals work great. Now, putting them on higher performing aircraft like the P-51 will definitely add to my enjoyment

[Rjel]

I think far too many of us use this and other simulations to try to recreate history and then point to that result as the truth. At least as far as we each view the truth. As good as this sim is, it can't be done and get the definitive answer we seek. This is a great approximation of history. Whether the P-51 was truly as dominate as I've always wanted to believe or that the Bf-109K was this uber wunder plane that was only hampered by lack of fuel and untrained pilots is a question we really can't answer based on a game.

 

Too, can we really answer the question of how or should a .50 caliber battery fired from a U.S. aircraft destroy an enemy aircraft each and every time we hit it? Can this or any computer simulation calculate the flight path of those bullets in the millions of different angles they might take on the way to their target or how they react after contacting that airframe that itself might be in a multitude of different angles to the firing airplane? Can it be any wonder that we argue about how this or that does or doesn't work in a game? Maybe someday home PCs and the programming they use will be so powerful they can recreate all the possibilities needed to satisfy our needs.