Jump to content
Pruciak

Tips flying P-47

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, I./ZG1_Martijnvdm said:

Hi Guys,

 

I'm having a great time with the Jug. I think it might become my favorite aircraft. One thing that kept me wondering though, was the range. The ingame notes state it has 2,4 hours flight time at 350 kph/3000m. Converting that to TAS and actual range, it gives me roughly between 950 and 1000 km's. Sources on the net differ very much, with some some giving 600 miles as combat radius and other 1000 miles at cruising speed. What was considered cruising speed and do you guys think the current range is somewhat realistic?

 

Grt M

 

I think the range is okay. It can fly 1000 km one way easily. If you wish I can make a test or two - we of course need to include takeoff and landing too.

Share this post


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

 

I think the range is okay. It can fly 1000 km one way easily. If you wish I can make a test or two - we of course need to include takeoff and landing too.

 

Thnx. I want to do the same. I'm wondering if range increases at altitude or not. The one thing i was talking about is this. 

 

Range for D26 at max cruising is 1030.

 

p-47-tactical-chart.jpg

 

And on the other hand.

 

ARMY AIR FORCES 
MATERIEL CENTER 
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio 
6 October 1944

Comparison of P-47D, P-47M and P-47N Performance

 

  P-47D P-47M P-47N
High Speed at S.L.   345   367   359
   "        "      "  10,000   383   401   392
   "        "      "  20,000   417   436   423
   "        "      "  32,000   435   473   457
 
R/C at S.L. 3180 3960 3580
   "   "  10,000 2920 3740 3500
   "   "  20,000 2470 3300 3150
   "   "  32,000 1100 2180 1840
 
Combat Radius   600   400 1310
Combat Weight 12,731   13,262   15,790  
War Emergency Power 2,600 2,800 2,800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, I./ZG1_Martijnvdm said:

 

Thnx. I want to do the same. I'm wondering if range increases at altitude or not. The one thing i was talking about is this. 

 

Range for D26 at max cruising is 1030.

 

p-47-tactical-chart.jpg

 

And on the other hand.

 

ARMY AIR FORCES 
MATERIEL CENTER 
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio 
6 October 1944

Comparison of P-47D, P-47M and P-47N Performance

 

  P-47D P-47M P-47N
High Speed at S.L.   345   367   359
   "        "      "  10,000   383   401   392
   "        "      "  20,000   417   436   423
   "        "      "  32,000   435   473   457
 
R/C at S.L. 3180 3960 3580
   "   "  10,000 2920 3740 3500
   "   "  20,000 2470 3300 3150
   "   "  32,000 1100 2180 1840
 
Combat Radius   600   400 1310
Combat Weight 12,731   13,262   15,790  
War Emergency Power 2,600 2,800 2,800

 

Thats with internals only and at best cruise, in-game however you should probably expect a bit less due to combat and rarely flying at best cruise settings.

 

So in-game flying optimum settings we should get a combat radius of around 400-600 miles. That may seem like alot but when you're in the air for long periods of time it's not. 

 

It's one of the reasons I'd like drop tanks and manual fuel management added to the sim.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

flying at 10000ft at speed of 215mph it can go for 3h on 100% fuel ( used that speed and alt to compare it to other airplanes specs they give in game for same alt and speeds ), 60trottle 60 rpm pitch and auto mix, so it can probably go even longer with less mix but i didnt bather to test 3h is more then enought for me :)

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 77.CountZero said:

flying at 10000ft at speed of 215mph it can go for 3h on 100% fuel ( used that speed and alt to compare it to other airplanes specs they give in game for same alt and speeds ), 60trottle 60 pitch and auto mix, so it can probably go even longer with less mix but i didnt bather to test 3h is more then enought for me :)

 

That's not bad! Quite a different figure from that of the specs page. I do agree with Legioneod that drop tanks would be nice. Not just for the P-47.

 

Grt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally only use the P-47 as an energy fighter. But if you get caught in a dogfight don't be afraid to deploy 20-40% flaps. In a dogfight with flaps the P-47 can hang with 109s especially if there is altitude to play with. In some dogfights I've used up to 50% flaps just to cause an overshoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright so I did following:

 

1st test: Took off at military power and climbed all the way to 25,000 ft at max continuous. Then set mixture to lean, 35" and 2050 RPM. Cruising speed was initially 209 mph IAS, later when the plane lost a lot of weight it increased to 213 mph. I flew 700 km, then made a 5 minute "combat simulation" = WEP and turning, then flew another 150 km and landed. Taxied to bunker and made 3 min warming run and still had fuelleft. The needle sat above 0 line. The flight took 2 hours 40 minutes.

 

I would say that even raising cruise speed a bit and zig-zagging it is possible to fly to a target 350 km away, fight for 10 minutes, fly home and still have some fuel in reserve for leaks or a long high power flight if say enemy gives chase.

 

2nd test: 30 000 ft, 35", 2100 RPM, auto lean. About 195 mph indicated. In two long tests I averaged about 135 gal/h and it took just short of 1 hour 25 min to cross 700 km. So at that setting you need about 30 gal / 100 km. Consumption and mileage can be both improved still. Thats 350 km back and forth that left over 160 gal in the tank for takeoff and initial climb to altitude, fighting, climbing, loiter, higher speed cruise near target etc.

 

edit: related to fuel economy, heres a test on P-47N (yes I know a different model) that includes fuel consumption tests. At 25 kft, 40" and 2250 RPM consumption is 160 galls/hour = BoX P-47 is right on the money! http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406.html

Edited by LeLv76_Erkki
edited in 2nd test
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Alright so I did following:

 

1st test: Took off at military power and climbed all the way to 25,000 ft at max continuous. Then set mixture to lean, 35" and 2050 RPM. Cruising speed was initially 209 mph IAS, later when the plane lost a lot of weight it increased to 213 mph. I flew 700 km, then made a 5 minute "combat simulation" = WEP and turning, then flew another 150 km and landed. Taxied to bunker and made 3 min warming run and still had fuelleft. The needle sat above 0 line. The flight took 2 hours 40 minutes.

 

I would say that even raising cruise speed a bit and zig-zagging it is possible to fly to a target 350 km away, fight for 10 minutes, fly home and still have some fuel in reserve for leaks or a long high power flight if say enemy gives chase.

 

2nd test: 30 000 ft, 35", 2100 RPM, auto lean. About 195 mph indicated. In two long tests I averaged about 135 gal/h and it took just short of 1 hour 25 min to cross 700 km. So at that setting you need about 30 gal / 100 km. Consumption and mileage can be both improved still. Thats 350 km back and forth that left over 160 gal in the tank for takeoff and initial climb to altitude, fighting, climbing, loiter, higher speed cruise near target etc.

 

edit: related to fuel economy, heres a test on P-47N (yes I know a different model) that includes fuel consumption tests. At 25 kft, 40" and 2250 RPM consumption is 160 galls/hour = BoX P-47 is right on the money! http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406.html

 

Thnx! That is quite some testing. And looks a bit more promising then the initial 2.4 hours stated in the game stats. With one additional fuel tanks range should be sufficient even for the bigger Bodenplatte map. 

 

I do wonder which tanks will be modeled for US planes. I did some research, and there are quite a few of them. 75, 108, 110, 150, 165, 200 gallons. The list seems endless...

 

Grt M  

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 4:05 AM, DirtyRotnFlieger said:

 

It's a shame all our engines break on a time limit instead of overheating... kinda gamey and unnecessary, if they just made over heating the limitation and we were looking at our temp gauges instead of our technochat time warning... Oh well. 

Considering there is already an overheating mechanic in game it seems it would be dreadfully easy to switch over to using that to limit power.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 11:05 AM, DirtyRotnFlieger said:

Great thread, I am just riding around admiring the manifold pressure gauge. Got to remind myself to look out the window for Bf109s !   I have a lot to learn about how to use this new manual turbo mechanism.

 

Thanks for the manual pages. I would never have used the interlinked throttle and turbo lever  if I hadn't read it in the manual to do that.

 

I thought it was just a game thing...

 

I was fighting the AI at high alt and there was a Bf109 on my six so I revved up the turbo for a short time to dangerous levels (25K rpm)  and it seemed the boost went even higher and that big 10 000 pound plane climbed away from a controlling bf109 !  Wow quite a sight. I think I love this thing.  I had no idea we would get to control the turbo manually and be able to push it harder in moments of danger at risk of breaking the engine. 

 

These time limits are strange though. I would have thought the WEP engine time limits were usually due to overheating. But the timer just breaks the engine even if it is not overheating. 

 

Wiki page on WEP says:

 

 "Like other boost techniques, MW 50 was restricted by capacity and engine temperatures and could only be used for a limited time" 

 

It's a shame all our engines break on a time limit instead of overheating... kinda gamey and unnecessary, if they just made over heating the limitation and we were looking at our temp gauges instead of our technochat time warning... Oh well. 

 

Although i think the current limit's are punishing some aircraft (Both German and US) too hard, overheating and destroying an engine by surpassing it's limit's are two completely different things. Just using heat as a factor for an engine durability is gamey in my opinion. They should be able to compromise between a useful limit for WEP and still having to factor in engine durability. The 20 minute resting time for the P-47 is weird. But so is the 1 minute timer on the DB605. Same story for the P-40 and the P-39. 

 

I would hate it if they would eliminate all engine limits, but there is definitely room for some compromise.  

 

Grt M

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, I./ZG1_Martijnvdm said:

 

Although i think the current limit's are punishing some aircraft (Both German and US) too hard, overheating and destroying an engine by surpassing it's limit's are two completely different things. Just using heat as a factor for an engine durability is gamey in my opinion. They should be able to compromise between a useful limit for WEP and still having to factor in engine durability. The 20 minute resting time for the P-47 is weird. But so is the 1 minute timer on the DB605. Same story for the P-40 and the P-39. 

 

I would hate it if they would eliminate all engine limits, but there is definitely room for some compromise.  

 

Grt M

Yes but the engine time limits in and of themselves is just as gamey of a mechanic.

So either you have a more realistic mechanic which is still gamey (the overheating mechanic) or you have very unrealistic and restrictive time limits (the current mechanic).

One is far better than the other imo, even though both are gamey.

Share this post


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

Yes but the engine time limits in and of themselves is just as gamey of a mechanic.

So either you have a more realistic mechanic which is still gamey (the overheating mechanic) or you have very unrealistic and restrictive time limits (the current mechanic).

One is far better than the other imo, even though both are gamey.

 

I understand your point, but for me personally it would be immersion breaking if i could run my DB605 engine all mission long on 1,42 ATA. Same for the 2800 engine. So i get what the dev's are trying to do with using manuals as guideline.  It just do's not work well for some aircraft. 

 

Grt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, I./ZG1_Martijnvdm said:

 

I understand your point, but for me personally it would be immersion breaking if i could run my DB605 engine all mission long on 1,42 ATA. Same for the 2800 engine. So i get what the dev's are trying to do with using manuals as guideline.  It just do's not work well for some aircraft. 

 

Grt M

Well if it was a realistic simulation you pretty much would be able to run your engine the whole flight at those settings. Depending on the quality and state of the engine that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in The Other Sim, there's no artificial enforcement of engine time limits, or artificial heat generation. In multiplayer people generally fly reasonably realistically with respect to engine limits, mostly because of fuel. Would it really be a disaster if the BoX destruction timer was at the very least able to be turned off as a server setting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

in The Other Sim, there's no artificial enforcement of engine time limits, or artificial heat generation. In multiplayer people generally fly reasonably realistically with respect to engine limits, mostly because of fuel. Would it really be a disaster if the BoX destruction timer was at the very least able to be turned off as a server setting?

 

This would actually be a good solution imo, add realistic heating damage (which is pretty much already implemented) and we can have a pretty realistic server.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subject of engine limits has been flogged to death. 

 

I cannot recall any pilot account saying "I took off, engaged WEP and flew for an hour with it on."  I can however remember accounts saying words to the effect of "I was in real trouble so I pushed the throttle through the gate and ran away.  When I got back my engine was replaced."

 

What other sims do is irrelevant.  Simply put, fly within the engine's limitations and get on with it.  Keep an eye on the clock and off you go.  Just remember it is not reality and that we operate within the confines of computer coding and that sometimes an artificial limit has to be used.

 

Speaking personally, I cannot recall busting an engine through a time limit.  Over-revving sure, in the P39 and P40, but that is it.

 

von Tom

Edited by von_Tom
typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What other sims do is irrelevant.  Simply put, fly within the engine's limitations and get on with it.  Keep an eye on the clock and off you go.  Just remember it is not reality and that we operate within the confines of computer coding and that sometimes an artificial limit has to be used.

 

The timers have nothing with modelling difficulties. You can already bypass them in the QMB by setting the "unbreakable" option. Historic manuals just gave some justification for them. And keeping "an eye on the clock" is artificial - yup - I'm doing it by why I have to count seconds (like in the P-40) when IRL the machine simply didn't care if a boost was exceeded by mere seconds. In the sim few s is the difference between engine running or seizing. A fractional change of the boost can change the power mod thus inflicts serious consequences. Planes have IRL limitations but they didn't need to be run like precise lab experiments.

Share this post


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

The subject of engine limits has been flogged to death. 

 

 

exactly.

 

there was even a POLL!

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/33759-how-should-emergency-limits-be-treated/

 

 The only suggestion which makes sense is to make engine limits a player option. Player/servers can then decide whether to use them or not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what if it precise?  What if it was random and the engine bust early. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth then. 

 

If they can code randomised falure at or after a time limit then great, but that simply isn’t here yet. 

 

About a poll - I wonder how many have killed their engines regularly in multiplayer by exceeding a time limit. I suspect the number will not be high. 

 

Stay within the parameters and you’re fine. It’s not real life. 

 

von Tom

Edited by von_Tom

Share this post


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

I have not read al the responses in here.. but has anyone else think the P47 is slow?

Irl it was a slow aircraft at low altitude (max speed at SL only around 340-350 mph depending on settings), it's one of the fastest aircraft at higher altitude (around 438 mph at 24,000 ft)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AKA_Ramstein said:

I have not read al the responses in here.. but has anyone else think the P47 is slow?

 

No, its not slow. Versus 109 and 190 its main trouble is that it can maintain that top speed for only relatively short time, and that right now in multiplay it faces 109 K-4 that is head and shoulders above all other fighters. Against historically most common adversaries to the type - 109 G-6, G-14 and 190 A-8 - it performs very well.

Edited by LeLv76_Erkki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AKA_Ramstein said:

I have not read al the responses in here.. but has anyone else think the P47 is slow?

It is slow vs the K-4. It is competitive vs the A-8 and G-14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see now in 3.008 P-47 will in dive start losing alerons at around 585mph (940kmh), same as 109s for example. befor in 3.007 it was losing them at around 560mph (900kmh). So another improvment for 47 in last update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sync your turbo and your pitch to the throttle. And do not fly it like a 109. It is more like the 190 as far as combat goes. Be careful diving in for bombing or straffing runs. You will be at 600+ mph before you know it. And compressibility is a REAL issue with this beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

recent video from meow in P-47, should help in how to fly it effectivly online ( hint have good aim and use the flaps : )  ) :

 

 

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pheeeeeew all good info and thankful for it being provided.

 

But everything seems so complicated and this is the one bird i would love to fly.

 

Is the flight model in BoX more realistic than CLOD. Never had to learn about half this stuff in that sim.

 

Thanks for a great thread everyone. 😎 😎

 

Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I have to ask for some assistance with this flying bulldozer. I have not  flown the 47 in any other sim so I have no reference.

 

I've read over these pages, watched the Req video and read over some other stuff from the manual etc. With the help of the video I can get the beast off the ground and land ok but once in the air I feel clueless. I bind the throtte, turbo and prop after takeoff and it remains so mostly since I haven't come close to the height or speed where unbinding those controls are called for. 

 

Seems no matter what I have tried I cant get speed up or climb with any authority. I'm not flying it properly but I'm not sure what I should be doing. For instance should the intercooler and oil cooler be neutral or should they be closed for normal flight or combat? I'm closing or reducing cowl flaps, trims in neutral after takeoff. At say 5000 ft my understanding is the 47 can do 350 mph or better. I cant get it over 300 at that altitude or any altitude unless I dive it. 

 

Any help with how to fly this thing are appreciated. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

dont take to mutch fuel, 60% is ok for more then 1h

 

For cowlings you can have them at 0%, oil also at 0%, but inlet at 50% 

 

have turbo at 100% from start (youll not brake engine if you leve it at 100% all time)

 

use 52" MP and 2500 rpm to have combat mode for 30+min and good speed

 

use 58" and 2500 rpm+100%mix + boost to get ~15min of wep and good speed

 

when flying strait ~2550rpm gives you best speed, 2700 at high alts abow 7km and in climbs

 

if in combat and you cant run, go on 100% flaps down youll turn better then Spit9 and just outturn enemys and even outclimb them on full power with no speed loss.

 

or just fly axis or vvs and have no problems

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

if in combat and you cant run, go on 100% flaps down youll turn better then Spit9 and just outturn enemys and even outclimb them on full power with no speed loss.

 

it work for sure if you say it but it sounds totally unrealistic for this plane... 😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, StaB/Tomio_VR*** said:

it work for sure if you say it but it sounds totally unrealistic for this plane... 😕

yes i never heard stories of P-47s turning like spits something is either wrong with how flaps effect airplane, or real ww2 pilots never bather to try using flaps in combat the way we use them in game and didnt know how nimble airplane they had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response. I will try those things although I dont think dropping flaps 100% is going to help me...

 

It feels like I'm flying with the brakes on. Closing the oil cooler is the only thing I hadnt tried but I doubt that alone would change performance all that much.  

 

What is the relationship between manifold pressure and rpm other than as RPM increases so does MP? Does something other than the throttle setting control the RPM's and MP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TheSNAFU said:

Thanks for the response. I will try those things although I dont think dropping flaps 100% is going to help me...

 

It feels like I'm flying with the brakes on. Closing the oil cooler is the only thing I hadnt tried but I doubt that alone would change performance all that much.  

 

What is the relationship between manifold pressure and rpm other than as RPM increases so does MP? Does something other than the throttle setting control the RPM's and MP?

 

use rpm controler only to set rpm

 

turbo supercharger keys or axis control MP, your slow if you dont use it, but contol with it is delayed compared when you use trottle

 

also boost key will increse your MP, but you cant control it with it, only turbo and trotte axis effectivly control it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the only option to control turbo supercharger  linked to the RPMs?

 

Is there an axis or key that just controls turbo supercharger?

I cannot find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 9./JG27DefaultFace said:

You can unlink it and control it on a separate axis. All under engine controls.

Got it in an axis and works now, thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

yes i never heard stories of P-47s turning like spits something is either wrong with how flaps effect airplane, or real ww2 pilots never bather to try using flaps in combat the way we use them in game and didnt know how nimble airplane they had.

P-47s never used flaps in combat iirc. I've read the P-47 had trouble with asymmetrical flap deployment and as a result flaps were rarely, if ever used in combat. Not saying it didn't happen but I haven't read of a single instance of a P-47 pilot using flaps in combat.

 

Some more info on this would be nice though as the flaps do seem overly effective while other things seem to be lacking.

  • Like 1

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...