Jump to content
Legioneod

P-51D and P-47D variants.

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Rjel said:

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.

 

I have zero doubt that if sufficient people and computing resources were pored into studying this that we could do those calculations with reliable and real world accuracy down to some significant fraction of a percent within real world. But that's time consuming. So we have to abstract in the flight sim world to make it pretty close or close enough and hope that it works fairly well.

 

We're at a good point these days I think. We have complex systems modeling. Wing deformation to some degree. It's convincing enough for me anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

I have zero doubt that if sufficient people and computing resources were pored into studying this that we could do those calculations with reliable and real world accuracy down to some significant fraction of a percent within real world. But that's time consuming. So we have to abstract in the flight sim world to make it pretty close or close enough and hope that it works fairly well.

 

We're at a good point these days I think. We have complex systems modeling. Wing deformation to some degree. It's convincing enough for me anyways.

I agree with you. What in the world would we do if we could have that prefect storm where we had 100% accuracy in simming? We would suddenly find ourselves without anything to argue about. It would be the death of the forums and simming too.

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

I'd love a Razorback version. One has to dream :)

If they make more western europe expansions then we will definitely see one or more Razorback P-47s and maybe even a razorback P-51.

We also have a chance of seeing a Razorback if they do certain Pacific expansions like New Guinea. I personally hope for more European expansions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 19//Hoss said:

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

 

 

Yessior. In fact.. I have a lot to share.. I'll send you a PM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

I have zero doubt that if sufficient people and computing resources were pored into studying this that we could do those calculations with reliable and real world accuracy down to some significant fraction of a percent within real world. But that's time consuming. So we have to abstract in the flight sim world to make it pretty close or close enough and hope that it works fairly well.

 

We're at a good point these days I think. We have complex systems modeling. Wing deformation to some degree. It's convincing enough for me anyways.

 

 

Aircraft designers still use a wind tunnel model with smoke and strings to check their projects, as even the most capable dynamic model can get things wrong. Seeing as they have multiple $bns, we are getting a pretty good deal for our $79,99. 😃

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rjel said:

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.

 

This is one of the best summations of why much of the brohuha over FMs , DMs and such is just nonsense. Just enjoy the sim... and use it as it is.. In the real world that is what you would have to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bearcat said:

 

This is one of the best summations of why much of the brohuha over FMs , DMs and such is just nonsense. Just enjoy the sim... and use it as it is.. In the real world that is what you would have to do. 

 

Much of the brohuha is indeed nonsense, but I do not think for that reason. For some people, the enjoyment of the sim is in using it as a device that helps them understand real aeroplanes a bit better - and weapons, tactics and campaign history too. Playing leads to questions, which leads to research, which leads to playing in a new way.  When I just want a game without delving into the factual and theoretical background I can just play Cultist Simulator.  

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bearcat said:

Just enjoy the sim.

Please..YES!  Enjoy the sim..it is fun. Most of the FM complaints come from people who have never even been in the cockpit of an airplane. FM's are NOT written in stone. I've flown some crap, real, airplanes to know that. If the airplane has not been well maintained you are not going to get the same numbers that are in the airplane's handbook. 

I even remember reading a very good book called "The Aces Speak." A P-38 pilot talks about him, and a bunch of P-47's, chasing an Oscar at low altitude and not being able to catch him! I still remember that after having read it so many years ago because it surprised me so much. I know that the KI-43 was slow. It could do, maybe, 320 at best. The Lightning and the Jugs could hit well over 400!! And yet....! If that had happened in a sim the simmers would have been all over the developers on that one. You can imagine. 

"The Oscar is OP!"

"This game is biased towards Japanese planes!"

"This game sucks!" and of course the inevitable, "War Thunder is better than this!"

Don't use a game to "understand real airplanes better." The only way that you're gonna do that is to go out and learn to fly the real ones. 

It's a game and enjoy it as a game. 

Edited by Poochnboo
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Please..YES!  Enjoy the sim..it is fun. Most of the FM complaints come from people who have never even been in the cockpit of an airplane. FM's are NOT written in stone. I've flown some crap, real, airplanes to know that. If the airplane has not been well maintained you are not going to get the same numbers that are in the airplane's handbook. 

I even remember reading a very good book called "The Aces Speak." A P-38 pilot talks about him, and a bunch of P-47's, chasing an Oscar at low altitude and not being able to catch him! I still remember that after having read it so many years ago because it surprised me so much. I know that the KI-43 was slow. It could do, maybe, 320 at best. The Lightning and the Jugs could hit well over 400!! And yet....! If that had happened in a sim the simmers would have been all over the developers on that one. You can imagine. 

"The Oscar is OP!"

"This game is biased towards Japanese planes!"

"This game sucks!" and of course the inevitable, "War Thunder is better than this!"

Don't use a game to "understand real airplanes better." The only way that you're gonna do that is to go out and learn to fly the real ones. 

It's a game and enjoy it as a game. 

 

Oh come off it. That is quite demonstrably wrong - bold part, that is, I agree with most of the rest. 

 

One of the things that is obvious from reading this forum for many years is the RL pilots have no monopoly of the truth about aviation issues.  Just about every time there is a thread in which someone comes along and says "I am a RL pilot, and X" - before long someone will come along and say, "So am I and notX". We had this this very week in the discussion of whether the ground handling was right. Many pilots have only a sketchy understanding of the physics of how planes work, because they can get by without it. 

 

Do you think that operating a high power aero engine makes you better qualified to understand how it works than an engineer who designed the thing, despite never having flown a plane? Knowing how to use something effectively is absolutely not the same as understanding why it works as it does.

 

No one with a modicum of intelligence thinks that all examples of a given plane in RL flew the same way all the time;  but that does not mean that there is not a normal range; and if you are far outside the parameters as set out in design documents and PNs there should be some identifiable reason.

 

Yes the sim is fun - but it is not fun for everyone in the same way. Let us also bear in mind that the developers themselves take an enormous amount of time and effort to simulate these planes as accurately as they can. If the "let's just have fun" philosophy applied to everyone, they may as well not have bothered.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

No one with a modicum of intelligence thinks that all examples of a given plane in RL flew the same way all the time;  but that does not mean that there is not a normal range; and if you are far outside the parameters as set out in design documents and PNs there should be some identifiable reason.

 

Absolutely. And if it's rediculous I'm right along with you that it should be changed. All I'm saying is that some people want EXACT replications according to what they've read in the books. It says that a given plane is supposed to do this given speed and why isn't it. And all I'm saying is that it doesn't always work that way.

And I still say that if you really want to understand flight, at all, go take at least a couple of lessons. You'll appreciate what's going on in your sim airplane a lot better.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that we know what variants (block) we will be getting what modifications do you think we could potentially see.

 

P-47D-28

-K-14 Gyro Gunsight (for late 44 onwards, 56th got them in november-december 44)

-Dorsal Fin (less common but some D-28s were retrofitted with a dorsal fin)

- Various weapon loadouts (obviously)

-Drop Tanks (maybe)

 

P-51D-15

-K-14 Gunsight (bout the only thing I can think of, I know next to nothing about the P-51)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is there anything to be said about the performance of the P51 knowing that it's a D15? Or does that not guarantee anything in particular?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Windmills said:

 Or does that not guarantee anything in particular?

 

It does not - especially with a simulated aircraft.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-47 is pictured with a DF loop. Were those used in Europe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rjel said:

The P-47 is pictured with a DF loop. Were those used in Europe?

 

Wikipedia (I know, I know...) says the D-28 received a radio compass, so presumably yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking at the book Thunderbolt by Roger Freeman. I haven't found any pictures yet of one with it. But with thousands serving in the ETO, it's hard to prove or disprove I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope we get the D-30 as a modification. I'd love to see the dive flaps implements in game. I'm kinda disappointed they went with an older D-28 when they are adding a 262, K4 and D9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DSR_T-888 said:

I hope we get the D-30 as a modification. I'd love to see the dive flaps implements in game. I'm kinda disappointed they went with an older D-28 when they are adding a 262, K4 and D9.

 

The D-30 would require an overhaul of the instrument panel, so unless the dive brakes were a retrofit available for the D-28, I doubt we'll see them.

 

Nothing really "old" about choosing the D-28, either. There were lots of them present in Europe in January '45.

1 hour ago, Rjel said:

I'm looking at the book Thunderbolt by Roger Freeman. I haven't found any pictures yet of one with it. But with thousands serving in the ETO, it's hard to prove or disprove I guess. 

 

It is a tough one. I just spent some time doing an image search, and it from what I found, it seems radio navigation equipment was more of a China-Burma-India / PTO thing, where the ranges were much more vast and recognizable terrain features could be more sparse. I was also expecting it to maybe be a feature found on the a/c of flight leaders / prominent pilots (such as Gabreski), but that was also a dead end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rjel said:

The P-47 is pictured with a DF loop. Were those used in Europe?

Only T-bols used in C-B-I, like P-40 or P-51, were equiped with DF.

Edited by Saburo
gramar...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Windmills said:

So is there anything to be said about the performance of the P51 knowing that it's a D15? Or does that not guarantee anything in particular?

P-51D performance didn't really change until D-25 block where elevator and tail plane was changed (tail plane angled lowered from 2 to 0.5 degrees and fabric covered elevators replaced with metal) to increase stick forces and stability at high mach numbers. From D-10 in the production, along with the tail fin extension, the elevator bob weights and reverse rudder tabs were added to make controls heavier as they were seen to be too light.

Edited by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

P-51D performance didn't really change until D-25 block where elevator and tail plane was changed (tail plane angled lowered from 2 to 0.5 degrees and fabric covered elevators replaced with metal) to increase stick forces and stability at high mach numbers. From D-10 in the production, along with the tail fin extension, the elevator bob weights and reverse rudder tabs were added to make controls heavier as they were seen to be too light.

 

So I guess the biggest thing is the boost pressure they model for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Windmills said:

  

So I guess the biggest thing is the boost pressure they model for it?

And judging from the Spitfire Mk IX we have ingame, P-51 will run at 67"Hg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rjel said:

The P-47 is pictured with a DF loop. Were those used in Europe?

Not sure why they modeled that either. The only pic I've ever seen of a P-47 with a DF Loop is of a P-47 D-23 operating in the China Burma India theater.

 

DF Loop shouldn't be modeled on the D-28, they never used them in Europe as far as I know.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Not sure why they modeled that either. The only pic I've ever seen of a P-47 with a DF Loop is of a P-47 D-23 operating in the China Burma India theater.

 

DF Loop shouldn't be modeled on the D-28, they never used them in Europe as far as I know.

 

If you are sure about that PM Han.  The devs changed the aerial of the Spitfire IX after someone on the forum pointed out the mistake on their DD pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, unreasonable said:

DF Loop shouldn't be modeled on the D-28, they never used them in Europe as far as I know.

Where is this photo of the sim's P-47 equiped with  a df loop? 

I have a rather extensive amount of literature on the Jug. If you came into my home and saw my aviation library you'd say, 'Um...like the P-47 a bit, huh?"

So upon reading this post I broke out the books. Went through every one. The only DF Loops I saw were on P-47's based in China and Burma. And they were on D-30's. They were also retrofitted to earlier razorback Thunderbolts, there. It was a very difficult country to navigate in, and I'm sure lots of fighter pilots got lost, making it a  necessarry addition. Mustangs had them, too.

But not in Europe! I couldn't find a single photo. Not one. I hope the devs take that off. It's not supposed to be there. Someone try and convince them, please.

Edited by Poochnboo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

 

Where is this photo of the sim's P-47 equiped with  a df loop? 

I have a rather extensive amount of literature on the Jug. If you came into my home and saw my aviation library you'd say, 'Um...like the P-47 a bit, huh?"

So upon reading this post I broke out the books. Went through every one. The only DF Loops I saw were on P-47's based in China and Burma. And they were on D-30's. They were also retrofitted to earlier razorback Thunderbolts, there. It was a very difficult country to navigate in, and I'm sure lots of fighter pilots got lost, making it a  necessarry addition. Mustangs had them, too.

But not in Europe! I couldn't find a single photo. Not one. I hope the devs take that off. It's not supposed to be there. Someone try and convince them, please.

 

You can see it just aft of the mast.

Another thing I just noticed is that the wire shouldn't be going to the tip of the mast, it should go down to an inlet next to the base of it.

_47_1.jpg

Edited by Legioneod
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it wouldn't keep me from flying the plane, but, no....it shouldn't be there if we are modeling the European Air War. I don't understand why they added that. Of course, the airplane isn't out yet so everything is subject to change. But devs, if you're reading this, take that off please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Well, it wouldn't keep me from flying the plane, but, no....it shouldn't be there if we are modeling the European Air War. I don't understand why they added that. Of course, the airplane isn't out yet so everything is subject to change. But devs, if you're reading this, take that off please.

 

Agreed, it still bothers me ever so slightly, but I'll fly it no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the 3D model of the P-47, you can get a real sense of how slick of an airframe it is. No bumps or lumps all over it. The only ones relate to the turbo. The wing pylons are another question though. I've always wondered why Republic used such a large size when the P-51 carried nearly as large a load on it wings with much smaller attachments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, as a matter of fact, now that I think of it....if you REALLY want to get technical. Since we're are actually re-enacting the tactical air war, our P-47's really shouldn't have K14 gunsights. The 9th Air Force was low on the priority list for them. Most 9th Jugs had the old standard reflector types right to the end of the war. But, what the hell. I'll probably be flying it in 56TH fighter group colors most of the time, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Poochnboo said:

And, as a matter of fact, now that I think of it....if you REALLY want to get technical. Since we're are actually re-enacting the tactical air war, our P-47's really shouldn't have K14 gunsights. The 9th Air Force was low on the priority list for them. Most 9th Jugs had the old standard reflector types right to the end of the war. But, what the hell. I'll probably be flying it in 56TH fighter group colors most of the time, anyway.

Main reason I want the K-14 as a modification is because I suck at gunnery, other than that I think the older sight looks so much nicer in the Jug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, when I picture a P-47 cockpit, it has the Mark II sight fitted. But again, yeah...I'l fly it! Just gimme the Jug!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, catchthefoxes said:

if its subject to change would it be too much of a big change if it was turned into a D 30?

 

As has already been said, that would require significant changes to the cockpit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LukeFF said:

 

As has already been said, that would require significant changes to the cockpit.

o well, as long as it has a bubble canopy and 8  50. cals, I'm a happy camper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

 

You can see it just aft of the mast.

Another thing I just noticed is that the wire shouldn't be going to the tip of the mast, it should go down to an inlet next to the base of it.

_47_1.jpg

Salutations,

 

Explain how this 'if accurate' will effect my or others in-game flight experience?

 

About variants and modifications. Good grief everybody. Let the developers at least finish and present their initial chosen versions before pleading for more. 😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Thad said:

Salutations,

 

Explain how this 'if accurate' will effect my or others in-game flight experience?

 

About variants and modifications. Good grief everybody. Let the developers at least finish and present their initial chosen versions before pleading for more. 😕

I'm just nitpicking that's all. I was doing is pointing out the inaccuracies of the 3d model. It's nothing serious, just pointing it out. I'm gonna love the thing no matter the inaccuracies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thad said:

Let the developers at least finish and present their initial chosen versions before pleading for more. 😕

Well actually, in this case, we're pleading for less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...