Jump to content
II/JG17_HerrMurf

American Iron

Recommended Posts

from aiming point of view i like p-38 more then 51 or 47, all is grouped tight in nouse and gunsight is high enought and nouse is not opstructing anything in line of sight, so you can snipe easy far targets and also see where your shooting on high turning targets. 

Share this post


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

 

It really all depends on the scenario.  It would be a very dangerous game to assume a P-47D will always outdive a 109 or 190 as some get out of jail free card (not claiming you are stating this).  We see this already in the game with yaks and LaGGs diving with 190s during the initial stages and this is as it should be.

 

A P-47 may have twice the weight of a 109 but it doesn't have twice the HP (1700hp vs 2600hp), so power to weight ratio favours the contemporary 109G14 by a decent margin.  This means acceleration favours the 109 and 190, at least until higher speeds.  So if both planes are at low - medium speed during a dogfight and the P-47 decides to shallow dive away without evasive maneuvers, he would be a sitting duck for a very long time.

 

A US dive test with a P47D against a captured Fw190-A (or G) had both planes enter a dive from cruise speeds at 10,000ft.  The 190 initially left the P-47D behind and it took the P-47D until 3,000ft (7,000ft of altitude) to catch and overtake the 190.  When that happens in game I expect a lot of P-47D pilots to complain loudly.

 

I can't find the original report, but here is a link to some quotes made on another forum.

 

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=1113

 

Here's one, theres also another one from 43 but I'm not sure where it is.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_versus_FW-190.pdf

 

I agree with you though, diving in a straight line is suicide no matter what aircraft you are in, unless you have a separation/speed advantage already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

It's faster than that and I'm sure it will be represented in-game, he was just giving a generalization imo, not it's max speed. Our top speed with 64" should be around 438-443 mph.

 

If we get 70" it would add about 7-8 mph to that figure.

 

The P-47 is no slouch but it will demand to be flown to it's strengths, it's not a noob friendly aircraft.

The P-47 will still be one of the fastest aircraft up high.

 

why would he say/pick some speed that is not his max speed on some random alt like 7km if its not his max speed in game, like they have this info in tech manual for all airplanes, and like in that same dd he says for k4, i belive what han posted p47 we will get will have max speed of 700kmh at 7000m. Thats not some ground braking speed like it would be 700kmh at 8,5 or 9km like some were saying and like you can see on that graph posted in dd for d-30.

So if you look at k4 geting to 715 at 6,2km i would not be suprised that k4 is faster then 47 from numbers han said up high or atleast on same speed, as if what han posted are max speed at best alt then abow that they go down not up for both airplanes and k4 in that 800m distance i dont see losing as mutch as 15kmh from it top speed.

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 77.CountZero said:

 

why would he say some speed that is not his max speed on some random alt if its not his max speed, like they say in tech manual for all airplanes, and like in that same dd he says for k4, i belive what han posted p47 we will get will have max speed of 700kmh at 7000m. Thats not some ground braking speed like it would be 700kmh at 8,5 or 9km like some were saying and like you can see on that graph posted in dd for d-30.

So if you look at k4 geting to 715 at 6,2km i would not be suprised that k4 is faster then 47 from numbers han said up high or atleast on same speed, as if what han posted are max speed at best alt then abow that they go down not up for both airplanes and k4 in that 800m distance i dont see losing as mutch as 15kmh from it top speed.

 

That's not the D-28s tops speed due to the fact that 7000m is not the critical altitude of the D-28. The D-28 was indeed faster the higher it went.

The D-28 should have similar speeds to the D-30 depending on turbo rpms, nothing changed in performance between the D-28 and D-30, the engine and turbo are the same on both aircraft.

Share this post


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

 

That's why you don't start engagements at low speeds. You really want that 0.5*V*V going to make most of the *m from the start. Once there you are "free" - no "free card" should be needed; only just enough discipline to bug off when facing an energy trap.

 

Unlike the P-40 the Jug has great rate of fire and ammo reserves; both at the same time and the gyro sight should help, too. Thus, per single bounce the P-47 will be deadlier; it will be possible to open fire from afar, keep it and move like a directed beam.

(which is possible in the Kittyhawk but only with 4 guns + extra ammo mod; the Jug will have 8x guns @ +400rpg...)

 

The P-38 might be even more interesting but... harder to use.

 

The post I replied to did not have any such "variables" and as such, taken in isolation implies categorically that a P-47 will always escape from a 109 or 190 in a shallow dive.  Had you stated the above clarification/scenario in your original post on this topic, we would not be having this debate. :)

 

" As long there is some altitude left, no 109/190 will catch you " is a very unambiguous statement.  It's the kind of thing an inexperienced virtual pilot will read and when they get shot down in a slow shallow dive with 4x20mm cannons and 2x 13mm MGs up their tail pipe, they will be very unhappy.  It's the kind of vague scenario you read from real  pilot accounts and come away thinking "I read a P-47 easily outdives a 190, why does it not work in this stupid sim".

 

Sorry again, not trying to start a to and fro debate.

 

I have been guilty of this in the past and complained to poor old Oleg about why my Fw190 was not always outdiving Yak's with ease. :)

Edited by ICDP
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

The post I replied to did not have any such "variables" and as such, taken in isolation implies categorically that a P-47 will always escape from a 109 or 190 in a shallow dive.  Had you stated the above clarification/scenario in your original post on this topic, we would not be having this debate. :)

 

" As long there is some altitude left, no 109/190 will catch you " is a very unambiguous statement.  It's the kind of thing an inexperienced virtual pilot will read and when they get shot down in a slow shallow dive with 4x20mm cannons and 2x 13mm MGs up their tail pipe, they will be very unhappy.  It's the kind of vague scenario you read from real  pilot accounts and come away thinking "I read a P-47 easily outdives a 190, why does it not work in this stupid sim".

 

Sorry again, not trying to start a to and fro debate.

 

thats exactly what i see online,

i see same thing happening with new usaf airplanes

and all this hype will just make it wors and harder to avoid, with 51 it will probably go in extrem hype :)

10 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

That's not the D-28s tops speed due to the fact that 7000m is not the critical altitude of the D-28. The D-28 was indeed faster the higher it went.

The D-28 should have similar speeds to the D-30 depending on turbo rpms, nothing changed in performance between the D-28 and D-30, the engine and turbo are the same on both aircraft.

 

but to me it looks like they will have it in game as critical alt for 47 as he pick that alt to say it goes 700 at, why not say for example it can go 708kmh at 8,5km then if thats his critical alt, but say 700 at 7km?

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

but to me it looks like they will have it as critical alt for 47 as he pick that alt to say it goes 700 at, why not say it can go 708 at 8,5km then if thats his critical alt, but say 700 at 7km?

Why would they have the critical altitude as something that isnt historically accurate? It doesn't make sense.

The P-47 critical altitude varies depending on turbo settings iirc

Share this post


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

Here's one, theres also another one from 43 but I'm not sure where it is.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_versus_FW-190.pdf

 

I agree with you though, diving in a straight line is suicide no matter what aircraft you are in, unless you have a separation/speed advantage already.

 

Thanks, that's the one I remembered reading.  I was given a link to it 17 years ago in the old IL-2 days when I was complaining the 190 was unable to easily out-dive Yaks like I read in the books. :)

 

The guy who gave me the link simply said I should go read some facts rather than vague pilot accounts.  I even remember another US test with a P-47 against a Zero and the Zero had better initial dive acceleration.  That was when I realised pointing the nose down and expecting instant separation and safety was idiotic.

Edited by ICDP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ICDP said:

 

Thanks, that's the one I remembered reading.  I was given a link to it 17 years ago in the old IL-2 days when I was complaining the 190 was unable to easily out-dive Yaks. :)

 

The guy who gave me the link simply said I should go read some facts rather than vague pilot accounts.  I even remember another US test with a P-47 against a Zero and the Zero had better initial dive acceleration.  That was when I realised pointing the nose down and expecting instant separation and safety was idiotic.

 

and still so many years latter same things happend dayly online, why/how yak/lagg catch me in dive lol things dont change

6 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Why would they have the critical altitude as something that isnt historically accurate? It doesn't make sense.

The P-47 critical altitude varies depending on turbo settings iirc

 

 i dont know but im just basing my expactations on 47 high alt on what he says for now, and dont expect it to kick butt up high as i expected it before last dd

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

 i dont know but im just basing my expactations on 47 high alt on what he says for now, and dont expect it to kick us up high as i expected it before last dd

I doubt they'll make it inaccurate, we'll just have to see how they implement it all. Even the document one of the devs posted shows a higher critical altitude and speed than what was said by han, I doubt they'll screw it up.

 

Depending on your turbo settings you should be able to obtain different critical altitudes. So running the turbo at 18,000 would give different CA than running it at 20,000 and 22,000. Running it maxed out at 22,000 should give us a critical altitude (and speed) similar to the D-30 at around 29,000-30,000 ft.

 

The turbosupercharger dictates your critical altitude, P-47 is nothing without it's turbosupercharger.

If you never use your turbo the Jug CA would be very low, somewhere around 7-12k ft based off what the manual says.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ICDP said:

" As long there is some altitude left, no 109/190 will catch you " is a very unambiguous statement.  It's the kind of thing an inexperienced virtual pilot will read and when they get shot down in a slow shallow dive with 4x20mm cannons and 2x 13mm MGs up their tail pipe, they will be very unhappy.  It's the kind of vague scenario you read from real  pilot accounts and come away thinking "I read a P-47 easily outdives a 190, why does it not work in this stupid sim".

 

Well... it should be obvious if there is a bandit on the six and within gun range then it needs attention first. Also, by the principle if the enemy has better power-loading then keeping high speed is essential. One can not be too precise in posts... otherwise, pages would be written instead of few sentences.

 

11 minutes ago, ICDP said:

The guy who gave me the link simply said I should go read some facts rather than vague pilot accounts.  I even remember another US test with a P-47 against a Zero and the Zero had better initial dive acceleration.  That was when I realised pointing the nose down and expecting instant separation and safety was idiotic.

 

You can do that in (kind of)... the P-40 in the sim, now. The engine will seize after 15s (or 30s by a random chance) when on 100% open throttle but you will get something like +1700hp and the Kittyhawk will start outpacing EVERYTHING. I guess that's because we don't have detonation physics in the sim, yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

Well... it should be obvious if there is a bandit on the six and within gun range then it needs attention first. Also, by the principle if the enemy has better power-loading then keeping high speed is essential. One can not be too precise in posts... otherwise, pages would be written instead of few sentences.

 

Agreed it should be but I have seen so many virtual pilots complain when they inevitably get shredded, after attempting a shallow dive from a poor position because they read a vague unambiguous statement or pilot account somewhere.  Your post wouldn't have been much longer if you had prefaced it with, "as long as you keep your P-47 over 350mph and have altitude, you will have a fairly decent dive advantage against any 109 or 190".

 

7 hours ago, Ehret said:

You can do that in (kind of)... the P-40 in the sim, now. The engine will seize after 15s (or 30s by a random chance) when on 100% open throttle but you will get something like +1700hp and the Kittyhawk will start outpacing EVERYTHING. I guess that's because we don't have detonation physics in the sim, yet.

 

One can hope the devs add a better engine model at some point.  The random timer is a very poor fudge but I personally feel it is better than nothing.

Edited by ICDP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the P47 D-28 engine limitations. It used water injection which works on the same principle as german MW-50. The tank capacity was apparently enough for 15 minutes. In early 44, max WEP with water injection was officially boosted to 64" which matches with the latest screenshots in the DD. This was with 100 octane fuel.

 

So it looks like we may be getting 64" for max 15 minutes.

 

Should be quite the monster.

Share this post


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

On the P47 D-28 engine limitations. It used water injection which works on the same principle as german MW-50. The tank capacity was apparently enough for 15 minutes. In early 44, max WEP with water injection was officially boosted to 64" which matches with the latest screenshots in the DD. This was with 100 octane fuel.

 

So it looks like we may be getting 64" for max 15 minutes.

 

Should be quite the monster.

Yep it's gonna be good but what doesn't make sense in the DD is the speed/altitude listed by han. The D-28 should have a higher CA and Speed than that, and would actually vary depending on the turbo settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2018 at 12:59 AM, Legioneod said:

Here's one, theres also another one from 43 but I'm not sure where it is.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_versus_FW-190.pdf

 

On the Fw 190: "Engine seems to run very rough at all times and the vibration is transmitted through the control column almost completely destroys any feel of flying characteristics"

 

I would take some results and conclusions of that test with a grain of salt... or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

On the Fw 190: "Engine seems to run very rough at all times and the vibration is transmitted through the control column almost completely destroys any feel of flying characteristics"

 

I would take some results and conclusions of that test with a grain of salt... or two.

 

As C3 fuel wasn't being used, so the engine ran rough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

On the Fw 190: "Engine seems to run very rough at all times and the vibration is transmitted through the control column almost completely destroys any feel of flying characteristics"

 

I would take some results and conclusions of that test with a grain of salt... or two.

A lot of these threads and discussions could've been avoided if all the warring nations would have had the foresight in WWII to trade factory fresh equipment back and forth amongst themselves. They did modern flight simmers a terrible disservice and made it much more difficult to simply enjoy playing a game. 

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

On the Fw 190: "Engine seems to run very rough at all times and the vibration is transmitted through the control column almost completely destroys any feel of flying characteristics"

 

I would take some results and conclusions of that test with a grain of salt... or two.

Even if it's not exact it's still a good representation of the abilities of each aircraft. The P-47 proved itself in combat against the Fw time and time again, many pilot accounts coincide with the reports, even if not 100 accurate.

Share this post


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

Even if it's not exact it's still a good representation of the abilities of each aircraft. The P-47 proved itself in combat against the Fw time and time again, many pilot accounts coincide with the reports, even if not 100 accurate.

 

I think people who expect P-47 to be reliably "easily out-turning" the 190 in the game at low altitudes will be disappointed. Our 190s dont "vibrate violently" as the report also puts it.

Edited by LeLv76_Erkki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

I think people who expect P-47 to be reliably "easily out-turning" the 190 in the game at low altitudes will be disappointed. Our 190s dont "vibrate violently" as the report also puts it.

 

Why not? The Jug's wing-loading isn't worse at all; she has much bigger elliptic shaped wings than the 190. Of course, it wouldn't be preferable thing to do in the P-47 because she will lose in acceleration, but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ehret said:

 

Why not? The Jug's wing-loading isn't worse at all; she has much bigger elliptic shaped wings than the 190. Of course, it wouldn't be preferable thing to do in the P-47 because she will lose in acceleration, but still.

 

Wing loading is just one of many parts in the equation. I'm thinking about the wording used: "easily out-turned" which I'm afraid many will take as gospel while ignoring some other areas of the report, including ones on the condition of the tested aircraft and some imho very 190-unlike qualities reported on it. The initial test altitude of 10,000ft is also smack in the middle of 190's weak spot on the speed and power output vs. altitude curves, and is so in the game too.

 

I'm a great fan of the plane and its the one I wait the most together with the P-51, but I'm afraid that after the initial hype is over, most will abandon P-47 for P-51, Tempest and Spitfire IX just like they did in 1946. At least for multiplayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a P-47 can chase a 109, flown by an experienced pilot, around the slack heaps and shoot it down during Bodenplatte there is no reason why a P-47 shouldn't give a Fw190A a hard time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect that at sea level with the BMW801 producing maximum power the Fw190A-8 will have the upper hand in a classic dogfight against the P-47. It pretty much holds all the cards. However, as altitude increases and the BMW loses ~400hp while the R2800 maintains the power output, the tables will quickly turn. Additionally, if the P-47 is low on fuel and ammo, while the Fw190 is not, things might look quite a bit different.

 

Personally, I'd only engage with an advantage in either plane and leave before things get bad. It's close enough performance wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in Janes WW2 Fighters P47 vs A8 was one of the most enjoyable matches. You had two planes that had many similarities, but also differed enough so that the guy who dictated the fight would win it. I think that made it so enjoyable. I expect it to be the same here. 

 

Neither were particularly manouverable, at least not by turning (I expect the A8 to be somewhat better) both pack helluva punch, one is sprinter the other is a marathon runner. Its like a box match between two heavy weight champions. Against lighter, more manouverable planes I think they might suffer though without some very disciplined flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

I think people who expect P-47 to be reliably "easily out-turning" the 190 in the game at low altitudes will be disappointed. Our 190s dont "vibrate violently" as the report also puts it.

I don't think it will be easily out turn-able but I know I'll be able to stick with it at the very least. Many first hand accounts state they had little trouble staying on a 190 or turning with him.

That being said, turn fighting is never the best option and there's always variables to consider.

 

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

If a P-47 can chase a 109, flown by an experienced pilot, around the slack heaps and shoot it down during Bodenplatte there is no reason why a P-47 shouldn't give a Fw190A a hard time.

Iirc he was flying a razorback, he said they turned better than the bubbletops.

Don't forget the P-47 pilot who got a lucky rocket kill against a german fighter, during the battle.

 

41 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Back in Janes WW2 Fighters P47 vs A8 was one of the most enjoyable matches. You had two planes that had many similarities, but also differed enough so that the guy who dictated the fight would win it. I think that made it so enjoyable. I expect it to be the same here. 

 

Neither were particularly manouverable, at least not by turning (I expect the A8 to be somewhat better) both pack helluva punch, one is sprinter the other is a marathon runner. Its like a box match between two heavy weight champions. Against lighter, more manouverable planes I think they might suffer though without some very disciplined flying.

 

Agreed, two very good matchups though I do feel that the 47 is the superior aircraft at mid-high altitudes. A8 is good but I think it will be the weakest aircraft in the Bodenplatte lineup.

Edited by Legioneod

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...