New mechanics solutions for Bodenplatte aircrafts.

[Legioneod]

2 hours ago, GridiroN said:

The game uses many shortcuts. Not necessarily a bad thing, but you should not be expecting complex turbocharger physics or anything like that.

 

I don't know why the P38 would be complicated...it will just require a counter-spinning engine to negate torque. Things like the P51's ramjet speedboost effect however, Jason said will not be done (as of time of announcement) so instead of having the ramjet decrease drag when it's working properly, they'll probably just decrease the drag variable of the entire plane. Or we'll just have to accept that the P51 is slower in the sim than it was in real life. Or, ya know...something like that.

 

I mean, almost all the planes in Bodenplatte era had self-sealing tanks. Even some planes in the sim now are supposed to have self-sealing tanks and we just deal with not having that, so it won't be much different. 

 

War Thunder even models the Turbo Supercharger to some degree, you can even control it manually, if they do it then Il2 Devs certainly can as well.

 

Shortcuts are needed sometimes but they shouldn't be used when modeling crucial components of an aircraft. The P-47 was built around it's turbosupercharger, it'd be a crying shame if they didnt model it as accurately as possible.

 

I'd rather they didn't release the P-47 than have it simplified for gameplay sake.

[Ehret]

49 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I'd rather they didn't release the P-47 than have it simplified for gameplay sake.

 

The BoBP is quite the undertaking - even bigger than the Kuban. I'd prefer brief simplifications than months of delays. I know - I had truly enough waiting for the BoK. Not just me, probably.

 

It all can be improved/fixed in patches.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Ehret

[Legioneod]

24 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

The BoBP is quite the undertaking - even bigger than the Kuban. I'd prefer brief simplifications than months of delays. I know - I had truly enough waiting for the BoK. Not just me, probably.

 

It all can be improved/fixed in patches.

 

Why half-a** something just to get it done quicker? Take the time and do it right that way you don't have to go back and fix your mistakes.

[RNAS10_Oliver]

Ignoring aircraft mechanics for an moment, but game mechanics wise I gather there's also going to have to be some kind of mechanic added to manage switching between Russian British & American pilot models and radio languages?

Edited June 10, 2018 by Oliver88

[Gambit21]

Umm...you mean like with German and Russian now? 

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

 

Why half-a** something just to get it done quicker? Take the time and do it right that way you don't have to go back and fix your mistakes.

 

Dunno... ask Jason why the P-51 will not get modelling of the Meredith principle. A simplification don't have to be that bad, either. People want to be payed on time and customers to get something decent within reasonable time-span, too.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

8 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Umm...you mean like with German and Russian now? 

Then that means the Western allies would have to be another faction with its own drop down lists of aircraft, the way it is done currently.

[Quinte]

22 hours ago, Legioneod said:

What makes you say it's a weak dogfighter? If by dogfighter you mean turn and burn then you are correct but there is more to dogfighting than just turning.

Above 3000 meters the Jug will do well, it can also handle itself down low but it is at a disadvantage.

This is just a matter of being objective, really. And "a weak fighter" doesn't mean much. It's a matter of comparisons, and as it turns out, we know what planeset we're getting.

 

The jug did have a splendid zoom climb, at high altitude, in 1943, and early 44. Now compared to the rest of the planeset, in very late 44 and 45, it doesn't. As I said earlier, the Tempest, Mustang, and Dora will outzoom it, at least at any practical altitude for a tactical air war scenario. And the K-4 is probably very close. As I assume we're getting the big paddle blade prop, it's not as bad as it had been in the climbing department, but it's still the worst climber of the bunch. Turn-wise, it's the worst, probably on par with the A-8. Speedwise, once again at practical altitudes, it will only rival the G-14 and the A-8. In dives, the tempest is probably the king, followed by the mustang the Jug and the dora, all on pretty much even performances, which means that the dive would only be an option if you already have a ton of separation. The K-4 better acceleration means that it will probably be able to stick with a Jug for a little while in a dive. Low speed handling, probably the worst aircraft of the bunch once again, though the Dora is probably up there too.

 

I mean, there are reasons the P-47 was largely phased out as an air superiority fighter by that time. I'm sure it will still be a ton of fun to fly, and do extremely well in the ground-pounding role, especially since we're not getting a Tiffie. You will see people doing extremely well in it in the A2A game, but those are the same that will do well in any plane.

[Ehret]

24 minutes ago, Quinte said:

I mean, there are reasons the P-47 was largely phased out as an air superiority fighter by that time.

 

Other reasons are cost and logistics - the Jug gobbled fuel, took more time to service and for one P-47 you would get (almost) two Mustangs.

[dkoor]

P-51 was like it or not, ahead of its time, advanced prop machine... it takes one look at it to realize that. Probably was the least wanted thing to encounter in the sky if you were flying under black cross during WW2... I think devs will find a way to make P-51 a justice in BoBP. GridiroN thanks for the info, I knew very little about some tech stuff you mentioned...

 

Also about this P-47 thing... I think we are overly impressed with one aspect of the story, and that is pure relative A2A performance vs contemporary fighters... ground pounding capabilities, flight endurance (capability for undertaking much more various missions), pilot comfort and all the little things that come with it, ruggedness (resilience to combat damage)... those are all very serious factors that mostly can't be simulated properly and they had enormous impact in daily life of fighter pilot in WW2.

 

We can put things this way... P-47D may be in inferior position versus FW-190D regarding pure A2A but consider this, no performance in this world tops brains! If you have a good wingman that can and will cover you then you will negate most if not all that P-47 lacks in terms of performance.

25 minutes ago, Quinte said:

You will see people doing extremely well in it in the A2A game, but those are the same that will do well in any plane.

Yes, in fact after some mileage under belt, some guys turn into a real killing machines, you can't present them even the slightest chance if you want to survive.

Even with .50s 'working' quite a bit worse than they 'work' now, there were people that could score several victories in one mission with P-51 for example... I think I have a 6 kill track somewhere. Amazing stuff, not in terms of some brilliant gunnery or flashy maneuvers, but rather good tactical playing and positioning...

 

Also newbies will often be left with their mouths open when they see what kind of opportunities their flying opponents are taking...

No machine can substitute experience and know-how.

[klebor]

When it comes to P-47 it had better power to weight ratio, speed and climb rate even than Bf-109K4  - at 10km

Edited June 11, 2018 by sereme1

[303_Bies]

1 hour ago, Quinte said:

The K-4 better acceleration means that it will probably be able to stick with a Jug for a little while in a dive.

For P-47 with his better roll rate it will be equally easy not to give Bf-109 an opportunity to shoot during this first phase of the dive.

Thud will be better than other planes but at extreme alt.

 

I'm really wondering how the game will looks like alt wise. Especially at more abtitiouse servers with stats.

Would main group of i.e. german planes stop climb at lets say 4km if they know an enemy probably waits them at 5km? Or they climb at 6km to have an advantage? What enemy do? Climb even more? It may be interesting to see. Soviets were rather forced to stay low because their engine performance. What allies do knowing they have an advantage high? Role reversal?

On the other hand ground pounding would force some low alt engagements but Tempest could be one of the best low alt fighter of the war.

cheers

Edited June 11, 2018 by bies

[Quinte]

It's anyone's guess, and we'll see, but I don't see things changing in any radical way. The objectives being down low put the attackers down low (especially with no level bombers whatsoever), so the fighters escorting and hunting somewhere between 3 and 4km. Obviously, the occasional fight at 6+km, as we see now, but rarely.

 

Getting a fight to degenerate lower is fairly easy. Forcing your opponent to climb to 6+k is pretty much impossible (well, it does happen sometimes if an extended 1v1 or 2v2 turns into a climbing contest, but the allies will usually lose this to 109s before they get to really high altitudes).

Obviously, in 44, the bombers flew high to gain range and put some distance between them and the 88s, so that was a perfectly good excuse to go and fight at 7km. But there's no reason for it to happen in our context, I believe.

 

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

Then that means the Western allies would have to be another faction with its own drop down lists of aircraft, the way it is done currently.

 

I'm guessing it means exactly that yes.

What I know for sure is that we won't be flying a P-47 with a Russian pilot model and Russian radio calls.

 

 

 

 

[dkoor]

13 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

What I know for sure is that we won't be flying a P-47 with a Russian pilot model and Russian radio calls.

I seem to remember (if memory serves me right) there was actually some early razorback P-47D model that was featured in IL-2 1946 VVS campaign... land lease models, similar to the P-40... not exactly sure during which campaign you had chance to fly those, but I'm pretty sure they were there.

[Ehret]

53 minutes ago, Quinte said:

It's anyone's guess, and we'll see, but I don't see things changing in any radical way. The objectives being down low put the attackers down low (especially with no level bombers whatsoever), so the fighters escorting and hunting somewhere between 3 and 4km. Obviously, the occasional fight at 6+km, as we see now, but rarely.

 

IMHO, this will be a bit different in the BoBP where we will have turbo equipped planes. The advantage going higher in the Jug, or the Lighting, is clear enough. Especially in the latter where you can observe what is going on your low six.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Ehret

[Gambit21]

8 minutes ago, dkoor said:

I seem to remember (if memory serves me right) there was actually some early razorback P-47D model that was featured in IL-2 1946 VVS campaign... land lease models, similar to the P-40... not exactly sure during which campaign you had chance to fly those, but I'm pretty sure they were there.

 

Thanks - but in keeping with the context of the conversation,  we're talking American or British operated aircraft.

Lend lease is another matter.

 

 

[Legioneod]

2 hours ago, Quinte said:

This is just a matter of being objective, really. And "a weak fighter" doesn't mean much. It's a matter of comparisons, and as it turns out, we know what planeset we're getting.

 

The jug did have a splendid zoom climb, at high altitude, in 1943, and early 44. Now compared to the rest of the planeset, in very late 44 and 45, it doesn't. As I said earlier, the Tempest, Mustang, and Dora will outzoom it, at least at any practical altitude for a tactical air war scenario. And the K-4 is probably very close. As I assume we're getting the big paddle blade prop, it's not as bad as it had been in the climbing department, but it's still the worst climber of the bunch. Turn-wise, it's the worst, probably on par with the A-8. Speedwise, once again at practical altitudes, it will only rival the G-14 and the A-8. In dives, the tempest is probably the king, followed by the mustang the Jug and the dora, all on pretty much even performances, which means that the dive would only be an option if you already have a ton of separation. The K-4 better acceleration means that it will probably be able to stick with a Jug for a little while in a dive. Low speed handling, probably the worst aircraft of the bunch once again, though the Dora is probably up there too.

 

I mean, there are reasons the P-47 was largely phased out as an air superiority fighter by that time. I'm sure it will still be a ton of fun to fly, and do extremely well in the ground-pounding role, especially since we're not getting a Tiffie. You will see people doing extremely well in it in the A2A game, but those are the same that will do well in any plane.

P-47 zoom climb had little to do with how high it was. It could zoom no matter the altitude and is one of the best in the current lineup.

Above 10,000 feet it can hang with and even outurn a Fw.

Turn is worst in lineup below 10,000 feet

Climb is worst in lineup.

Speed wise it is one of the fastest at altitude with a top speed (depending on the power settings) of around 443 mph at 25K, top speed on the deck is around 345 mph.

Dive wise it is indeed still top dog, the 109 and Fw can accelerate quicker in a dive but the Jug will overtake them.

Roll rate is one of the best in the lineup, Fw is still top of course.

^Above is just for the D model, if we were getting the M it would be the top fighter of the lineup.

 

The Jug never stopped being an air superiority fighter, it stopped being an escort fighter (in Europe only)

The primary reason the P-47 was phased out in Europe as an escort had nothing to do with it's A2A ability, it was all about it's range. The P-51 at that time just had superior range that is why the Jug placed in a ground support role.

 

In the Pacific the Jug remain an escort fighter the entire war and escorted B-17s, B-24s and B-29s in bombing raids over the Pacific and Japan.

 

The P-47 is in no way a lesser fighter compared to other aircraft in the lineup.

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by Legioneod

[dkoor]

47 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Thanks - but in keeping with the context of the conversation,  we're talking American or British operated aircraft.

Lend lease is another matter.

 

 

I know mate, hope you don't mind my intrusion. I just thought that was rather interesting trivia about P-47... to the moment I actually saw P-47 with red crosses I absolutely had no idea that at time they were shipped to USSR.

[Gambit21]

17 minutes ago, dkoor said:

I know mate, hope you don't mind my intrusion. I just thought that was rather interesting trivia about P-47... to the moment I actually saw P-47 with red crosses I absolutely had no idea that at time they were shipped to USSR.

 

It is interesting - I’d forgotten they were shipped over there as well.

[Garven]

2 hours ago, bies said:

For P-47 with his better roll rate it will be equally easy not to give Bf-109 an opportunity to shoot during this first phase of the dive.

Thud will be better than other planes but at extreme alt.

 

I'm really wondering how the game will looks like alt wise. Especially at more abtitiouse servers with stats.

Would main group of i.e. german planes stop climb at lets say 4km if they know an enemy probably waits them at 5km? Or they climb at 6km to have an advantage? What enemy do? Climb even more? It may be interesting to see. Soviets were rather forced to stay low because their engine performance. What allies do knowing they have an advantage high? Role reversal?

On the other hand ground pounding would force some low alt engagements but Tempest could be one of the best low alt fighter of the war.

cheers

Pretty sure the P-47 has a higher service ceiling than any of the German aircraft. The Luftwanauts are no longer safe.

[D3adCZE]

32 minutes ago, US103_Furlow said:

Pretty sure the P-47 has a higher service ceiling than any of the German aircraft. The Luftwanauts are no longer safe.

*cough* Ta152-H *cough*

[Quinte]

57 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

You keep repeating the same thing. It's zoom makes it the top in the lineup... if you exclude 5 of the other 9 aircrafts.Then you keep on repeating at altitude, which once again is obviously the point, since nothing forces engagements at high altitude, meaning they're obviously more likely to happen at low altitudes where the objectives are. What uses is it gonna be to be the fastest aircraft at 32k, where the germans still have a way faster aircraft by the way, when it's the slowest at any meaningful altitude (once again, save for the A-8)?

 

Roll rate? I can't say. This here tends to say otherwise, but then those are not quite the planes we're getting. I'd assume bubbletop would get a slightly better roll rate, and I hope we're getting a block 40.

 

As for the fact that it was used differently in the pacific against markedly inferior opponents, or the different performance of the M and N version we are not getting, that's pretty much irrelevant to the point at hand, I think.

 

 Now I've never been saying there is nothing a P-47 can do. It's still a good aircraft. Once again, you're setting yourself up for disappointment is all, with dreams of Pe-2-like durability and out-zooming stuff on the deck.

[Garven]

11 minutes ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

*cough* Ta152-H *cough*

Its not in Bodenplatte.

[Legioneod]

24 minutes ago, Quinte said:

You keep repeating the same thing. It's zoom makes it the top in the lineup... if you exclude 5 of the other 9 aircrafts.Then you keep on repeating at altitude, which once again is obviously the point, since nothing forces engagements at high altitude, meaning they're obviously more likely to happen at low altitudes where the objectives are. What uses is it gonna be to be the fastest aircraft at 32k, where the germans still have a way faster aircraft by the way.

 

I've found no evidence to support your statements that the P-47 inferior on zoom climb to any of the aircraft in the lineup. First hand accounts by german pilots disagree with you and state that the Jug could trade speed for altitude better than they could.

 

In regards to speed, the P-47 attains it's top speed at around 21-24k feet not 32k, at which point it becomes superior in speed to the all German aircraft in the current lineup save for the 262 and K4, though the K4 speeds are almost identical to the Jug above 24k feet.

 

Not much point in all this arguing though seeing as we don't even know how the aircraft will be modeled in-game, once we see it in-game we can get a better comparison to ho it performed historically.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by Legioneod

[HR_Zunzun]

10 minutes ago, Quinte said:

You keep repeating the same thing. It's zoom makes it the top in the lineup... if you exclude 5 of the other 9 aircrafts.Then you keep on repeating at altitude, which once again is obviously the point, since nothing forces engagements at high altitude, meaning they're obviously more likely to happen at low altitudes where the objectives are. What uses is it gonna be to be the fastest aircraft at 32k, where the germans still have a way faster aircraft by the way, when it's the slowest at any meaningful altitude (once again, save for the A-8)?

 

Roll rate? I can't say. This here tends to say otherwise, but then those are not quite the planes we're getting. I'd assume bubbletop would get a slightly better roll rate, and I hope we're getting a block 40.

 

As for the fact that it was used differently in the pacific against markedly inferior opponents, or the different performance of the M and N version we are not getting, that's pretty much irrelevant to the point at hand, I think.

 

 Now I've never been saying there is nothing a P-47 can do. It's still a good aircraft. Once again, you're setting yourself up for disappointment is all, with dreams of Pe-2-like durability and out-zooming stuff on the deck.

 

Well, if you understand air combat as 1 vs 1 only then I agree with you. The jug will be toasted most of the time if starting co-energy of at disadvantage at medium to low altitude.

But when considering many vs many. p-47 high-speed manoeuvrability (much better than 109) and the punch of the 8 brownings will make him a formidable contender.

Regarding roll rates, it is a curious subject. All the charts I have seen, put the p-47 as a mediocre plane in rolling (at least in low and medium speeds) while its users always praised its fabulous rolling characteristics. Maybe, as have been mentioned in other posts, good rolling characteristics is not all about maximum roll rate but other things like initial rolling acceleration being more important in a combat scenario.

7 minutes ago, US103_Furlow said:

Its not in Bodenplatte.

Ta-152 is a curiosity in ww2. The same as p-51h, p-72, f8f or tempest II. It just happened to have its flight trials in a combat scenario.

[Legioneod]

10 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

Well, if you understand air combat as 1 vs 1 only then I agree with you. The jug will be toasted most of the time if starting co-energy of at disadvantage at medium to low altitude.

But when considering many vs many. p-47 high-speed manoeuvrability (much better than 109) and the punch of the 8 brownings will make him a formidable contender.

Regarding roll rates, it is a curious subject. All the charts I have seen, put the p-47 as a mediocre plane in rolling (at least in low and medium speeds) while its users always praised its fabulous rolling characteristics. Maybe, as have been mentioned in other posts, good rolling characteristics is not all about maximum roll rate but other things like initial rolling acceleration being more important in a combat scenario.

80+ degrees a second ain't too bad.

It is a very curious thing, in the Spitfire vs P-47 trials it stated that they rolled about the same at lower altitudes but up high the P-47 as slightly better. Another trial stated that the P-47 and Tempest rolled better than every other aircraft above 400+ mph.

 

German reports stated that it had a deceivingly quick roll so maybe it wasn't the overall roll rate but the roll acceleration that was really good.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Legioneod

[Quinte]

4 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Maybe, as have been mentioned in other posts, good rolling characteristics is not all about maximum roll rate but other things like initial rolling acceleration being more important in a combat scenario.

Definitely. That's why this chart is really to be taken with a grain of salt in my opinion.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Nearly all the stuff from wwiiaircraftperformance on the P-47 is either from the razor backs or the late M and Ns. The only piece of information we have on the bubble canopy P-47D (D-30 in this case which is one of the likely variants we will get) is one where it compares it to M and N and for that P-47D-30 top speeds are 

Alt (kft)   Speed (mph)

SL           345
10           383

20           417

29           443

32           435

 

And climb rate of

SL        3180

10        2920

20        2470

32        1100

 

Below 10,000ft which is the most relevant altitude band where most combat will take place, it is much faster then the Spitfire, marginally faster then the Lightning, but much slower then the Mustang and Tempest
Against the Germans, it is slower then all their aircraft significantly on the deck, specifically for the G-14 and A-8 by about 15mph, but is about 10mph faster at 10,000ft.
I don't think zoom climb will be that important. Zoom climb is important in high altitudes as the propeller has less air to generate thrust, thus retaining speed is important. At high altitudes the air is also less dense so drag plays less of a factor, this plays into the hands of the P-47 were its massive weight gives it a huge inertia to retain energy in a zoom climb at 25,000ft, At low altitudes, the Jug is not the most aerodynamic aircraft, so has a lot of drag (remember 345mph only from 2535hp while Mustang can do 375mph with 1700hp) and propellers have plenty of air to chew through.

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Legioneod]

5 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

Nearly all the stuff from wwiiaircraftperformance on the P-47 is either from the razor backs or the late M and Ns. The only piece of information we have on the bubble canopy P-47D (D-30 in this case which is one of the likely variants we will get) is one where it compares it to M and N and for that P-47D-30 top speeds are 

Alt (kft)   Speed (mph)

SL           345
10           383

20           417

29           443

32           435

 

And climb rate of

SL        3180

10        2920

20        2470

32        1100

 

Below 10,000ft which is the most relevant altitude band where most combat will take place, it is much faster then the Spitfire, marginally faster then the Lightning, but much slower then the Mustang and Tempest
Against the Germans, it is slower then all their aircraft significantly on the deck, specifically for the G-14 and A-8 by about 15mph, but is about 10mph faster at 10,000ft.
I don't think zoom climb will be that important. Zoom climb is important in high altitudes as the propeller has less air to generate thrust, thus retaining speed is important. At high altitudes the air is also less dense so drag plays less of a factor, this plays into the hands of the P-47 were its massive weight gives it a huge inertia to retain energy in a zoom climb at 25,000ft, At low altitudes, the Jug is not the most aerodynamic aircraft, so has a lot of drag (remember 345mph only from 2535hp while Mustang can do 375mph with 1700hp) and propellers have plenty of air to chew through.

 

Not much changed between the razorbacks and the bubbletops, the overall performance is similar, the main difference is that the D-25 and up had much better power settings and water injection systems and therefore could produce higher MAP ratings and more power.

 

Zoom climb will be important at all altitudes, zoom climb is for trading speed for altitude and is effective at any altitude really. Zoom isn't very good for defense imo but for attack. If someone zooms away and you know you have an equal or better zoom then you can follow and catch them in the zoom for a gun solution.

The zoom is also effect after a hit n run attack in order to regain lost altitude so you can make another attack run.

 

The Jug can handle itself on the deck as well (though at a disadvantage), speed isn't everything in a fight (look at the Spitfire for example)

 

EDIT: Also, those figures for the D-30 don't show what MAP they are using but it looks equivalent to 56" MAP based off of the speed at certain altitudes.

At 65" and 70" the speed are almost the same but at lower altitude. 444 mph at 23,000 feet instead of 29,000 for example.  (This is just an observation and I can't be 100% sure)

Edited June 11, 2018 by Legioneod

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

15 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Not much changed between the razorbacks and the bubbletops, the overall performance is similar, the main difference is that the D-25 and up had much better power settings and water injection systems and therefore could produce higher MAP ratings and more power.

No, both razorbacks and and bubble canopies could use 64" Hg with water and 130 Octane, late razor backs also had the new propellors

15 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

 

EDIT: Also, those figures for the D-30 don't show what MAP they are using but it looks equivalent to 56" MAP based off of the speed at certain altitudes.

At 65" and 70" the speed are almost the same but at lower altitude. 444 mph at 23,000 feet instead of 29,000 for example.  (This is just an observation and I can't be 100% sure)

 

The War Emergency power figure of 2600hp implies 64-65"Hg

Also P-47D-30 has C-23 turbo, P-47 which judging by the serial number of 42-26167 is a D-22, probably has one of the earlier Turbos. P-47D series had 4 turbos throughout production that I can find, A-13, A-17, A-23 and C-23, of which information is very hard to come by about the specific differences (probably a possible reason why ED delayed the P-47)

 

I've compiled a series of P-47D speeds together of several sources I could find, 3 of them are bubble canopy variants (D-25, D-26 and D-30 specifically), 1 is a D-22 and another is unknown variant

From these sources

 

[Legioneod]

11 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

No, both razorbacks and and bubble canopies could use 64" Hg with water and 130 Octane, late razor backs also had the new propellors

The War Emergency power figure of 2600hp implies 64-65"Hg

Also P-47D-30 has C-23 turbo, P-47 which judging by the serial number of 42-26167 is a D-22, probably has one of the earlier Turbos. P-47D series had 4 turbos throughout production that I can find, A-13, A-17, A-23 and C-23, of which information is very hard to come by about the specific differences (probably a possible reason why ED delayed the P-47)

 

I've compiled a series of P-47D speeds together of several sources I could find, 3 of them are bubble canopy variants (D-25, D-26 and D-30 specifically), 1 is a D-22 and another is unknown variant

From these sources

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, I was just stating that it's a interesting thing that at the same power settings some blocks seem to have the same top speed but at different altitude.

 

Same top speed at different alt is most likely attributed to the different turbos on each block. Do you have any idea what turbos were on each block? We might be able to get an idea of the performance of each one by looking at the top speed at altitude but there is still plenty of info we really don't have.

 

EDIT: This is all the info I could find, gonna keep digging and see if I can narrow down more info.

 

R-2800-21 (P-47D-1-RE through P-47D-6-RE)

• C21 Turbo (earlier variants of the engine used a different turbo I think)

 

No real difference between the 59 and 63 variant of engine, main difference was the ignition system. Power output was the same.

 

R-2800-63 (P-47D-10-RE through P-47D-10-RE through P-47D-16-RA)

(couldn't find info on what turbo was used with this engine, but I'm assuming it was the C23 along with previous variants as well)

 

R-2800-59 (P-47D-20-RE through P-47D-40-RA)

• C23 Turbo

 

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Legioneod

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

13 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, I was just stating that it's a interesting thing that at the same power settings some blocks seem to have the same top speed but at different altitude.

 

Same top speed at different alt is most likely attributed to the different turbos on each block. Do you have any idea what turbos were on each block? We might be able to get an idea of the performance of each one by looking at the top speed at altitude but there is still plenty of info we really don't have.

 

The performance of the D-30 and D-22 on similar powerlevels (65" for 2600hp) are pretty close and the razorbacks were known to be slightly faster. I think the higher critical altitude of the D-30 is higher since the turbo can run at a higher RPM settings

If you look at the manual for the C, razorback D and G variants, in the engine limits, max turbo rpm is listed at 18,250

In the D-25 to D-35 manual, max turbo rpm is listed at 20,000 rpm and 22,000 rpm for 15 minutes

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=4206 pg 35

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=4207 pg 39

I don't know if the D-22 got the newer turbo or if it they were refitted but this seems to be the major difference to the critical altitudes for these tested aircraft

Edited June 13, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Arfsix]

Caution: Off topic attempt at humor!

     Please go no further if any of the following apply!

1.You have no sense of humor.

2      2.You have recently applied for and/or achieved qualified snow flake status.

3      3.You considered any person, any writing or statement and/or any information with which you disagree to be false, libelous, provoking and /or upsetting, to be politically incorrect and therefore should be banned and excluded from any discussion or interchange of information between civilized people.

4     4.You feel that many other members of this forum are simply trolls trying to make you angry and that you must protect the integrity of the forum by challenging other members viewpoints and beliefs.

Thank you.

Spoiler

     I have noticed that many members of this forum take immense pride in arguing small and mundane points of aircraft performance.  These people can be known as “Rivet Counters”.

     Other members will tell you which side (Usually theirs) has the best aircraft and pilots and why you should look up to these pilots. These people can be known as “Aces”.

     Of the remainder, you have the “artists” who give us beauty with their aircraft skins. Also there are the “Mission Planners” and the server operators who provide the rest of us something to do.

     So for the rest of us, I dedicate the following.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Arfsix

[Garven]

Did American pilots at the time of Bodenplatte have G-suits?  If they did would this add another potential game mechanic?

[BlitzPig_EL]

G suits wouldn't need a new game mechanic, just a retuning of the blackout threshold of the US aircraft equipped with G suits.

[Legioneod]

19 minutes ago, US103_Furlow said:

Did American pilots at the time of Bodenplatte have G-suits?  If they did would this add another potential game mechanic?

Yes. It would be nice to have them, but I don't think it would change the gameplay much overall, it would just help you take more g before blacking out.

[303_Bies]

Yes, Mustang pilots had G-suits for sure. P-47 i'm nearly sure also had them. I don't know about P-38.

In my humble opinion our virtual pilot in IL2:BOX can be a little bit too G-proof, especially minus G but i leave this to professionals.

Did P-38s also used G suits? Did they have an instalation in the cockpit?

Edited August 23, 2018 by bies

[MiloMorai]

P-47D-22 Airplane.
Speed increase from military power of fifty-two inches Hg. to the test war emergency rating of sixty-five inches without water averaged approximately twenty-five m.p.h. true air speed from sea level to about twenty thousand feet. Over the same altitude range, water injection at sixty-five inches Hg. gave a further speed increase of about ten to fifteen m.p.h., so that the total speed gain from military power to sixty-five inches Hg. with water was about forty m.p.h. A considerable amount of scatter was present in the obtained speed data, possibly due to varying induction losses. Engine temperatures and operating characteristics were normal in level flight runs at sixty-five inches Hg., both with and without water.

 

Only a few climbs were made at the sixty-five inches Hg. rating, with and without water injection. Both with and without water, cylinder head temperatures rose to the maximum allowable at the end of the high power period at eighteen to twenty thousand feet. Over-heating tendencies in climb were greater with the use of water, average comparable cylinder head temperatures being approximately 10° C. higher. This is believed to be due to the higher heat rejection necessary at the increased water injection horsepower. Climbs to thirty thousand feet at Military power (52 inches Hg.) required approximately one and one-half minutes longer than if sixty-five inches Hg. without water were used. Climb to the same altitude at sixty-five inches with water decreased the time about one and a half minutes. Due to improper throttle-turbo schedule, all flights were made with throttle and turbo levers used separately

[Bremspropeller]

On 6/8/2018 at 9:06 AM, AeroAce said:

"in theory"

 

No, in practice.

 

There is ALWAYS turbulent flow in boundary layers (well, unless you go to really low Renolds numbers, which you don't in full-size aeroplanes).

Aft of about 50% chord, you're in turbulent alley.

Especially with the early NACA laminar-profiles, that didn't take contamination very well and realistically didn't perform all too great under field conditions.