Jump to content
II./JG77_motoadve

The gamer vs the sim/history buff P47

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Was hit twice into the engine section with machine gun (bullet or two hit the engine) and it goes into flame immediatelly following with explosion and disintegration seconds after.

(Ground machine gun hits)

Engine seems very fragile and damage unforgiving.

Should it be that way i honestly don't know, i would expect engine slowly dying and smoking.

That’s my biggest gripe. The engine should be able to sustain multiple critical hits. It wasn’t out of the norm for this bird to lose multiple cylinders and limp hundreds of miles back home.

 

Hopefully someone on the dev team will comment on what/if they plan to fix regarding the damage model. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my understanding, the only thing that made the P-47's engine "more robust" was that it was an air cooled radial engine.  So, when your engine is getting slammed by enemy fire, you don't have vulnerable coolant reservoirs and lines to be hit.  So In this regard, I think it's fair to say that it IS more robust than an inline engine, because the absence of a liquid cooling system means you have one less system to be reliant on.  I wouldn't expect the P-47's engine to be any more or less resistant to enemy fire than any other radial engine in the game.  If there is a problem with the amount of damage that a radial engine can take in this game before giving up the ghost, (which just because some people "feel" there is doesn't mean that it's true) then it is probably something that applies to all radial engines in this game.    Again, I don't know one way or another if there is something here that needs to be addressed, but just because somebody read Thunderbolt and heard the P-47 can take a lot of punishment, that's all relative, and it doesn't mean that the game is wrong in regard to the effect of any particular hit on the aircraft in this game.  I'm sure there was a lot of survivor's bias in a lot of the real anecdotes...the P-47 was a tough plane, but people might be expecting that they are going to have a Robert Johnson experience every time they fly the aircraft and get shot up, and I just don't know if that is realistic.

 

One thing I wonder about, and I don't have enough time in the plane to know what happens in this simulation of the P-47, but...if you are taking a bunch of hits in the rear fuselage, with all that turbocharger ducting in it, do you experience a loss of turbo revs from all that exhaust pressure leaking out?  Wouldn't that be the result of a lot of holes in the turbo system ducts?

Edited by SeaSerpent
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember flights in the 190 where I took ground fire to the engine block. Though the RPM needle was dancing chachacha and I lost top speed, it got me home through a 10 minute flight including landing. I can't remember a flight with an inline where the damaged engine ever lived past 3 minutes or so. So I would guess that the air cooled radials already have a higher damage tolerance (or maybe, a lack/reduced damage over time creep). Maybe it also comes down to what specific part was damaged. They could lose a cylinder and keep going but lose something further down the line and even the radial setup won't keep on soldiering on indefinitely.

Share this post


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

I remember flights in the 190 where I took ground fire to the engine block. Though the RPM needle was dancing chachacha and I lost top speed, it got me home through a 10 minute flight including landing. I can't remember a flight with an inline where the damaged engine ever lived past 3 minutes or so. So I would guess that the air cooled radials already have a higher damage tolerance (or maybe, a lack/reduced damage over time creep). Maybe it also comes down to what specific part was damaged. They could lose a cylinder and keep going but lose something further down the line and even the radial setup won't keep on soldiering on indefinitely.

 

I've had similar experiences many times in the 190 and in La-5 (including one where I took 11 hits from He 111 gunner all to engine and nothing happened) but only once with an inline plane.

 

Anecdotal evidence though until someone makes a controlled test.

Share this post


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

I remember flights in the 190 where I took ground fire to the engine block. Though the RPM needle was dancing chachacha and I lost top speed, it got me home through a 10 minute flight including landing. I can't remember a flight with an inline where the damaged engine ever lived past 3 minutes or so. So I would guess that the air cooled radials already have a higher damage tolerance (or maybe, a lack/reduced damage over time creep). Maybe it also comes down to what specific part was damaged. They could lose a cylinder and keep going but lose something further down the line and even the radial setup won't keep on soldiering on indefinitely.

I’ve had similar positive experiences in my 190’s, but with the P-47, my engine will quit just seconds after taking any sort of damage. Also, this is from MG AAA fire, not heavier ordinance. 

Share this post


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

 

I've had similar experiences many times in the 190 and in La-5 (including one where I took 11 hits from He 111 gunner all to engine and nothing happened) but only once with an inline plane.

 

Anecdotal evidence though until someone makes a controlled test.

 

3 minutes ago, lord_certalic said:

I’ve had similar positive experiences in my 190’s, but with the P-47, my engine will quit just seconds after taking any sort of damage. Also, this is from MG AAA fire, not heavier ordinance. 

 

All true. And there were cases where my 190 engine was shot dead with 1 hit. Before we call for investigations, let's allow some more reports to come in so we can judge whether the P47 has a glass jaw or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is instances that a Jug have returned with 3 pistons in its radial knocked off. The way a radial engine works it is possible. But that does not mean it will function everytime a piston or cylinder got hit. The engine itself need a minimum level of oil in order to maintain. This is a game with relative few parameters to simulate this. I think we have to live with that

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

And how do you plan on doing that?

Is this a rhetorical question or you really don't know? Parked bomber turrets are an obvious and ideal choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

Is this a rhetorical question or you really don't know? Parked bomber turrets are an obvious and ideal choice.

Was just asking a question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

Is this a rhetorical question or you really don't know? Parked bomber turrets are an obvious and ideal choice.

 

I was thinking, parking the plane on the side of a hill, so that the nose is pointed horizontal! 🤣🤣🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

I was thinking, parking the plane on the side of a hill, so that the nose is pointed horizontal! 🤣🤣🤣

 

please do it and send us video :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a single bit of proof out there that the Johnson warstory actually happened the way he told it?

 

Does anybody have a damage-assesment record of it?

If a P-47 had actually survived 21 20mm hits (you know, the odd Minengeschoss in-between), that would have been a major piece of intel that would have made the rounds.

Pity is, it didn't. So what do we take from it.

 

Apart from the fact that no german war-story about that goddamn Thunderbolt which would eat up a lion's share of 20mm ammo and just wouldn't go down exists.

 

 

Share this post


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

Is there a single bit of proof out there that the Johnson warstory actually happened the way he told it?

 

Does anybody have a damage-assesment record of it?

If a P-47 had actually survived 21 20mm hits (you know, the odd Minengeschoss in-between), that would have been a major piece of intel that would have made the rounds.

Pity is, it didn't. So what do we take from it.

 

Apart from the fact that no german war-story about that goddamn Thunderbolt which would eat up a lion's share of 20mm ammo and just wouldn't go down exists.

 

 

Well there are photos of Johnsons P-47 after the incident, fact is there's no reason not to believe him just because you think it's impossible, was it a common occurance to each 20 20mm rounds? of course not, but that doesn't mean it never happened.

 

At the end of the day Johnson was a very lucky pilot.

 

Fact is there are too many first hand accounts of P-47s making it back with extreme damage to to dismiss it as an odd occurrence.

 

P-47s hitting trees, telephone poles, chimneys, getting hit by flack, 88,  20mm, 30mm, losing part of wings/fuselage, losing multiple cylinders, the list goes on.

It's not just some propaganda or pretty story, this was a daily occurrence for the P-47 and not some rare event.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Is there a single bit of proof out there that the Johnson warstory actually happened the way he told it?

 

Does anybody have a damage-assesment record of it?

If a P-47 had actually survived 21 20mm hits (you know, the odd Minengeschoss in-between), that would have been a major piece of intel that would have made the rounds.

Pity is, it didn't. So what do we take from it.

 

Apart from the fact that no german war-story about that goddamn Thunderbolt which would eat up a lion's share of 20mm ammo and just wouldn't go down exists.

 

 

 

Well, there are reports of Jugs coming home missing cylinders, so at least that proves it's possible. As to Johnsons story, I'm also inclined that the 21 20mm hits are probably not that close to reality (personal opinion alert). If he indeed was peppered with the hundreds of 8mm rounds afterwards, I would guess that some holes were "misinterpreted". Luftwaffe estimated (as far as that is even possible, so grain of salt) that it took roundabout twenty 20mm hits to take out a Flying Fortress. This was a rough estimate to account for the necessity to get those few hits in that actually deal some critical damage and not just chew chunks out of the stabiliser and whatnot. To assume that the Jug survived a similar "treatment" sounds somewhat fictional imho.

 

The fact that the Jug did indeed eat up those hundreds of 8mms is the real kicker here. Not one of his wings or his tail fell off due to it.

Edited by Mauf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with an aircraft with legendary status  is that you have all of these exceptional stories about its performance. The roll rate, the maneuverability, the time a fellow came back with a brick lodged in the wing, the time a plane got hit hundreds of times and returned to base, the time a wing got partially sheared off and yet the pilot still managed to land the aircraft, or the time that an Ace took on a half dozen enemy aircraft and came out the victor by doing this one thing.

 

I'm not disputing the authenticity of those stories but I would dispute the frequency of just how often these exceptional occurrences happened.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that the P-47 is one tough aircraft. It may even need a bit of a look over to make sure that the damage model is working the way its intended. But at the end of the day its an airplane just like any other and just like any other simulated in the limited confines of this flight sim (as impressive as it is). I would hesitate to buy too deeply into the incredible stories... They are incredible but they don't represent the other hundreds and thousands of times that a P-47 took a hit and was shot down.

 

Let's make sure that its standing up the way it should in terms of the strength of the spars in the wing and the by the numbers stuff. The other stuff I think helps give the wrong impression sometimes.

Edited by ShamrockOneFive
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Well there are photos of Johnsons P-47 after the incident, fact is there's no reason not to believe him just because you think it's impossible, was it a common occurance to each 20 20mm rounds? of course not, but that doesn't mean it never happened.

 

At the end of the day Johnson was a very lucky pilot.

 

Fact is there are too many first hand accounts of P-47s making it back with extreme damage to to dismiss it as an odd occurrence.

 

P-47s hitting trees, telephone poles, chimneys, getting hit by flack, 88,  20mm, 30mm, losing part of wings/fuselage, losing multiple cylinders, the list goes on.

It's not just some propaganda or pretty story, this was a daily occurrence for the P-47 and not some rare event.

 

I have seen the pictures. And while there were a couple definitive 20mm hits, the number 21 always seemed high to me given the pictures.

 

What is the ratio of P-47 making it back with large amounts of damage to those that didn't? Do we have a number? We don't.

It seemed to be more durable, and it most probably was. But by how much?

How do you quantify durabilityby anything other than subjective means?

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Mauf said:

The fact that the Jug did indeed eat up those hundreds of 8mms is the real kicker here. Not one of his wings or his tail fell off due to it.

 

I have seen pictures of a He 111 (which isn't that much larger than a Jug) with a similar amout of rifle-caliber holes (and it actually looked like it).

It's not really a structural miracle - it's more of a miracle that enough systems stayed online for the aircraft to limp back home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

I have seen pictures of a He 111 (which isn't that much larger than a Jug) with a similar amout of rifle-caliber holes (and it actually looked like it).

It's not really a structural miracle - it's more of a miracle that enough systems stayed online for the aircraft to limp back home.

 

Absolutely correct. It's not surprising that ammo load outs for the smaller calibers went with AP and Incendiary beltings.

Share this post


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

Fact is there are too many first hand accounts of P-47s making it back with extreme damage to to dismiss it as an odd occurrence.

 

P-47s hitting trees, telephone poles, chimneys, getting hit by flack, 88,  20mm, 30mm, losing part of wings/fuselage, losing multiple cylinders, the list goes on.

It's not just some propaganda or pretty story, this was a daily occurrence for the P-47 and not some rare event.

All credit goes to Vintage Wings: http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/325/Lower-Than-a-Snakes-Belly-in-a-Wagon-Rut-Redux.aspx

 

Lowdown24.jpg

"A P-47 of the 64th Fighter Squadron, while on a mission to Milan, struck the ground during a low-level strafing run. Despite the bent props and crushed chin, the pilot nursed the Jug 150 miles home to Grosseto." Photo via Hebb Russell

LowDown118.jpg

"A P-47 flown by Lt. Richard Sulzbach of the 364th Fighter Squadron, 350th Fighter Group, 12th Air Force on 1 April 1945. Lt. Sulzbach had a little run-in with some trees while on a strafing run over Italy. He was able to fly the plane 120 miles back to base and land safely. It’s a real testament to how tough the P-47 was."

Share this post


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

The trouble with an aircraft with legendary status  is that you have all of these exceptional stories about its performance. The roll rate, the maneuverability, the time a fellow came back with a brick lodged in the wing, the time a plane got hit hundreds of times and returned to base, the time a wing got partially sheared off and yet the pilot still managed to land the aircraft, or the time that an Ace took on a half dozen enemy aircraft and came out the victor by doing this one thing.

 

I'm not disputing the authenticity of those stories but I would dispute the frequency of just how often these exceptional occurrences happened.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that the P-47 is one tough aircraft. It may even need a bit of a look over to make sure that the damage model is working the way its intended. But at the end of the day its an airplane just like any other and just like any other simulated in the limited confines of this flight sim (as impressive as it is). I would hesitate to buy too deeply into the incredible stories... They are incredible but they don't represent the other hundreds and thousands of times that a P-47 took a hit and was shot down.

 

Let's make sure that its standing up the way it should in terms of the strength of the spars in the wing and the by the numbers stuff. The other stuff I think helps give the wrong impression sometimes.

 

No one is saying the P-47 should be invincible but these stories aren't just overstretched nonsense, there's plenty of photographic evidence to back them up.

Also the P-47 had the lowest loss rate of any American fighter in Europe iirc and it flew twice as many missions at over 500,000 sorties.

Out of all those sorties only just over 3000 were shot down in combat, a majority due to ground fire.

 

With that being said I agree at the end of the day it's just an aircraft but it bugs me when people dismiss first hand accounts as mere fairytails when we werent there and they were. This goes for everything and not just the P-47.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the above pics are any miracles.

 

There's a pic of a Ju 88 having both it's props reduced to half-length after striking the water.

A 190D-9 flew home after flying through the trunk of a tree right head on.

 

You'll find stories of similar occurances with all kinds of airplanes. The P-47s had two things in favor for getting the word out:

- a much larger number of aircrew surviving the war, telling stories

- a large number of cameras to document damage

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


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

 

No one is saying the P-47 should be invincible but these stories aren't just overstretched nonsense, there's plenty of photographic evidence to back them up.

Also the P-47 had the lowest loss rate of any American fighter in Europe iirc and it flew twice as many missions at over 500,000 sorties.

Out of all those sorties only just over 3000 were shot down in combat, a majority due to ground fire.

 

With that being said I agree at the end of the day it's just an aircraft but it bugs me when people dismiss first hand accounts as mere fairytails when we werent there and they were. This goes for everything and not just the P-47.

 

It's not so much that they deny the story. What is in question is how representative they actually are (#survivorshipbias) or how accurate the recollection/reporting of the story is. I think nobody is well served by going with one extreme or the other in these situations. Rather it should be broken down to factoids that can be believed without compromise. Example: There actually were P-47s coming home with these damages to props and missing cylinders and whatnot. So in the game, the DM should present at the very least the possibility to have that too (eg, damage to only one cylinder should not start a timer that eventually kills the engine, for example).

 

It's not really possible to nail the perfect solution at the first stab one takes at it. Rather, it's about coaxing the whole thing towards the state that is most closely to what the reports show while having to stay within the framework that is the game engine.

Edited by Mauf
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

 

No one is saying the P-47 should be invincible but these stories aren't just overstretched nonsense, there's plenty of photographic evidence to back them up.

Also the P-47 had the lowest loss rate of any American fighter in Europe iirc and it flew twice as many missions at over 500,000 sorties.

Out of all those sorties only just over 3000 were shot down in combat, a majority due to ground fire.

 

With that being said I agree at the end of the day it's just an aircraft but it bugs me when people dismiss first hand accounts as mere fairytails when we werent there and they were. This goes for everything and not just the P-47.

 

And I was very careful not to discount that those stories happened. Clearly they did and they were well documented. Sometimes, though, they can become a little elevated and exaggerated. It happens. You should see the fish I caught once :)

 

As @Mauf rightly pointed out, survivor bias is potentially an issue here and how representative each of these individual stories is. That's why I'd prefer to focus on things like the strength of the wing and what seems reasonable on average.
Edited by ShamrockOneFive
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

No one is saying the P-47 should be invincible but these stories aren't just overstretched nonsense, there's plenty of photographic evidence to back them up.

Also the P-47 had the lowest loss rate of any American fighter in Europe iirc and it flew twice as many missions at over 500,000 sorties.

Out of all those sorties only just over 3000 were shot down in combat, a majority due to ground fire.

 

With that being said I agree at the end of the day it's just an aircraft but it bugs me when people dismiss first hand accounts as mere fairytails when we werent there and they were. This goes for everything and not just the P-47.

Take into account that most of the pictures shows the damage from ground fire, where the shells (mostly single or few) hit from the lower side.

Also usually far less bullets strike same area when shoot form aaa guns, due different factors like:

-longer range from which they were shot (fighters when attacking the enemy planes shoot from far shorter distance)

-different aspect angles than the ones when the fighter is attacking etc.

 

Fighters usually come very close and the bursts are very concentraded and hit quite small areas. 

 

1 hour ago, lord_certalic said:

 

 

LowDown118.jpg

"A P-47 flown by Lt. Richard Sulzbach of the 364th Fighter Squadron, 350th Fighter Group, 12th Air Force on 1 April 1945. Lt. Sulzbach had a little run-in with some trees while on a strafing run over Italy. He was able to fly the plane 120 miles back to base and land safely. It’s a real testament to how tough the P-47 was."

 The forward engine cowling is not out of armour steel but of aluminum as used on all other planes so he didn't hit the trees but brushed some top, thin branches. If he would hit a thicker branch he would be dead, not speaking about the tree main body (more or less the diameters of the branches can be guessed from the cuts on propeller)

One of my friends  with whom I've flown many years back  hit some thin branches when he was droping water on forest fire  and brought back the plane home with almost foot long cuts on the wings as i measured after his landing… (and this was civil agricurtural/firefighting plane...)

 

As for the bend prop, I didnt see it myself so its not 1st hand, but I heard a story that one of the guys while on crop dusting contract in Sudan brushed end of his prop, he managed to get back to the airfield . Due to the fact that the contract was finishing and the whole team was returning home, there was no time to wait for the spare prop, the mechanic just sew off some inches of the end of the prop blades and he managed to fly off with the team back to europe...   

 

Edited by Carl_infar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnson will claim the P-47 outrolls most airplanes under the sun.

Well, the roll-rate might have been impressive for a 7t airplane and it's roll-acceleration might have been good, but compared with airplanes that really rolled well, it wasn't special at all.

 

It's those details that make me skeptical about his "close-encounter"-story.

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Johnson will claim the P-47 outrolls most airplanes under the sun.

Well, the roll-rate might have been impressive for a 7t airplane and it's roll-acceleration might have been good, but compared with airplanes that really rolled well, it wasn't special at all.

 

It's those details that make me sceptical about his "close-encounter"-story.

Compared to a 190 nearly every aircraft looks average or worse.

No reason to really doubt it, it outrolled nearly everything he fought against and that's all that really matters.

It's pretty well represented in-game as well imo I can outroll 109s with relative ease only the 190 gives me trouble. And at 25-30k ft it does outroll everything (in my experiences), it's rollrate at high altitude is pretty great, though I haven't fought a 190 up high yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png

 

one 30mm round is a .28 chance the plane goes down in the next 5 minutes and a .42 chance the next 2 hours.

Share this post


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

Johnson will claim the P-47 outrolls most airplanes under the sun.

Well, the roll-rate might have been impressive for a 7t airplane and it's roll-acceleration might have been good, but compared with airplanes that really rolled well, it wasn't special at all.

 

It's those details that make me skeptical about his "close-encounter"-story.

 

Indeed! This was a subject matter on my blog recently from some of the commenters and I was curious enough to go and revisit the roll rate evidence. It was a big subject matter back in the original and its the same here. Trying to find evidence of an exceptionally rolling P-47 had me finding an mid-pack aircraft rolling somewhere between 63 degrees a second and about 80 degrees a second. So about 4.5 to 5.5-6 seconds to roll 360 degrees.

 

One USAAF report even says that aileron response was inadequate for Army standards. It flies in the face of the stories that I've read but its hard to find evidence to prove the contrary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No reason to really doubt it, it outrolled nearly everything he fought against and that's all that really matters.

 

Quite to the contrary. Not only did the 109 have very comparabele roll-capabilities to the P-47 (well, depends largely on the speed you're measuring the roll response at).

Roughly 50% of the german fighter-force consisted of 190s. His argument goes right down the kitchen-sink.

 

Also, in 1943 the P-47 's roll was probably top-notch in the US arsenal in England. He elegently misses to point out, though, that both the P-38 (boosted ailerons) and the P-51 (aileron gap-seals) got much higher roll-rates in 1944 and could out-roll the P-47 (depending on speed) with ease.

Also, the clipped-wing/ metal aileron Spitfire had an easy time out-rolling the P-47 by a very substantial margin (it could actually out-roll the 190 at lo speeds).

 

 

8 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

one 30mm round is a .28 chance the plane goes down in the next 5 minutes and a .42 chance the next 2 hours.

 

Not necessarily debating the paper, but how did the come to the conclusion? Statistical data?

Which metrics were used?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Quite to the contrary. Not only did the 109 have very comparabele roll-capabilities to the P-47 (well, depends largely on the speed you're measuring the roll response at).

Roughly 50% of the german fighter-force consisted of 190s. His argument goes right down the kitchen-sink.

 

Also, in 1943 the P-47 's roll was probably top-notch in the US arsenal in England. He elegently misses to point out, though, that both the P-38 (boosted ailerons) and the P-51 (aileron gap-seals) got much higher roll-rates in 1944 and could out-roll the P-47 (depending on speed) with ease.

Also, the clipped-wing/ metal aileron Spitfire had an easy time out-rolling the P-47 by a very substantial margin (it could actually out-roll the 190 at lo speeds).

 

 

He never fought allied aircraft so thats irrelevant.He also never stated he outrolled 190s though I've heard and read of more than one P-47 pilot stating that they could stick with it in a roll. As for the 109 at higher speeds the 47 most certainly outrolls it, no question about it.

 

Theres a difference between a generalization and a factual statement, when he says he could outroll everything under the sun that doesn't mean he actually meant it, it's just s statement to show the quality of the aircraft.

 

As for the roll rate vs later P-51 and P-38 it's unknown if  Johnson had much experience with these aircraft since he returned to the US in June of 44 and may have never experienced the later variants.

Zemke would be a better authority on the comparison of the 51 vs 47 imo since he flew both in combat.

 

Above 400 mph the P-47 is one of the fastest rollers in the sky along with the tempest and boosted P-38.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

He never fought allied aircraft so thats irrelevant.He also never stated he outrolled 190s though I've heard and read of more than one P-47 pilot stating that they could stick with it in a roll. As for the 109 at higher speeds the 47 most certainly outrolls it, no question about it.

 

He claimed he could outroll most airplanes in the sky, which is factually wrong. By any metric. A P-40 could outroll him in 1940.

Pilots claim a lot. They claim to roll quicker than the other guy or turn tighter than the other guy. Trouble is, they have no idea how hard the other guy tried and pushed his airplane.

Unless there's a good comparative fly-off, those accounts aren't worth a damn. Especialy when for every claim in one direction, there's a claim in the opposite direction.

 

7 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Theres a difference between a generalization and a factual statement, when he says he could outroll everything under the sun that doesn't mean he actually meant it, it's just s statement to show the quality of the aircraft.

 

Like he doesn't actually meant to have been hit by 21 20mm rounds and it's just a general statement to show the quality of the aircraft?

 

8 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

As for the roll rate vs later P-51 and P-38 it's unknown if  Johnson had much experience with these aircraft since he returned to the US in June of 44 and may have never experienced the later variants.

 

So much for giving an accurate comparative account. Claiming the P-47 to be the best airplane around when not having any idea about the general and specific capabilities of the other airplanes (much less having even flown them) counts as painting with a pretty broad brush.

In other terms: The accuracy of his other statements can be doubted.

 

15 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Above 400 mph the P-47 is one of the fastest rollers in the sky along with the tempest and boosted P-38. 

 

Yes, and at Mach 25 the Spce Shuttle is one of the fastest rollers.

You can always take some arbitriary condition to make your facts fit the narrative, despite for most of the speed-range the polar opposite is the case.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


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

So much for giving an accurate comparative account. Claiming the P-47 to be the best airplane around when not having any idea about the general and specific capabilities of the other airplanes (much less having even flown them) counts as painting with a pretty broad brush.

In other terms: The accuracy of his other statements can be doubted.

In that case, should Eric Brown be the sole authority on WWII aircraft (considering he flew most of them)? To some extent, we're all speculating (painting with a broad brush), us being armchair fighter pilots, relying on statistical data from the 40's and reading personal accounts from the men who were there.

 

List of aircraft Brown flew:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_flown_by_Eric_"Winkle"_Brown

Edited by lord_certalic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

almost in every book you will read that you have to hit oil radiator to send Il2 down. its just stories

 

I too think that mg´s are too powerful in this game , but thats probably problem with the damage model.

but it compensate luck off punch of MK108. i just had numerous QMB fights today against Spits and Jugs and they can survived 2-3 hits without problem.

Even the mighty Jug with 30cm hole in the wing will stop fighting. one hit in the elevator or rudder area will be end for every plane(except 4 engined bombers).

Yesterday I hit P47 3 times with the MK108 in the tail and nothing happened, only some small holes and liquid trail

Share this post


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

almost in every book you will read that you have to hit oil radiator to send Il2 down. its just stories

 

I too think that mg´s are too powerful in this game , but thats probably problem with the damage model.

but it compensate luck off punch of MK108. i just had numerous QMB fights today against Spits and Jugs and they can survived 2-3 hits without problem.

Even the mighty Jug with 30cm hole in the wing will stop fighting. one hit in the elevator or rudder area will be end for every plane(except 4 engined bombers).

Yesterday I hit P47 3 times with the MK108 in the tail and nothing happened, only some small holes and liquid trail

If I'm reading it correctly in the report listed above it states that there is a .23% chance that a 30mm will bring down a P-47 with one shot within 5min due to structural failure and .30% chance that it will go down within the next two hours.

 

So it seems they determined it's completely possible for the Jug to survive hits with 30mm rounds.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

None of the above pics are any miracles.

 

There's a pic of a Ju 88 having both it's props reduced to half-length after striking the water.

A 190D-9 flew home after flying through the trunk of a tree right head on.

 

 

 

That's incredible. I would love to hear more about that Fockewulf flying head on through that tree trunk. Could you please point us to an article detailing that?

 

A similarly traumatic story I know of is Gunther Rall trying to pull out, stalling his Messerschmitt down through the top of an LA5 sending it crashing down and then flying the machine back across to friendly lines with the motor/propeller vibration like it was going to jump out of the airframe. I forgot where on the Eastern front he said it was. 

Edited by Bilbo_Baggins

Share this post


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

If I'm reading it correctly in the report listed above it states that there is a .23% chance that a 30mm will bring down a P-47 with one shot within 5min due to structural failure and .30% chance that it will go down within the next two hours.

 

So it seems they determined it's completely possible for the Jug to survive hits with 30mm rounds.

True ,but it will probably fly home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, lord_certalic said:

In that case, should Eric Brown be the sole authority on WWII aircraft (considering he flew most of them)?

 

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I think Brown is very objective in his reports (even though at times subjective impressions will surface, which is after all human).

 

3 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

That's incredible. I would love to hear more about that Fockewulf flying head on through that tree trunk. Could you please point us to an article detailing that?

 

IIRC it's in "First in Combat with the Dora 9" by Axel Urbanke.

I'd have to check it though.

 

The pilot specifically mentions that he was lucky to hit the tree with the motor - otherwise he'd had bought the farm.

3 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

A similarly traumatic story I know of is Gunther Rall trying to pull out, stalling his Messerschmitt down through the top of an LA5 sending it crashing down and then flying the machine back across to friendly lines with the motor/propeller vibration like it was going to jump out of the airframe. I forgot where on the Eastern front he said it was. 

 

It was at Kursk.

They had just transferred a Gruppe of Fw 190 Schlachtflieger into the same operational area. He had the La 5 in his sight, but was unfamiliar with the way the 190 looked in real life, so he wouldn't  attack without re-evaluating. He then pulled up, ID'ed the La 5 and pressed on wth the attack. He fired a shot, pulled hard on the stick and high-speed-stalled into the La 5.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

The pilot specifically mentions that he was lucky to hit the tree with the motor - otherwise he'd had bought the farm.

 

It was at Kursk.

They had just transferred a Gruppe of Fw 190 Schlachtflieger into the same operational area. He had the La 5 in his sight, but was unfamiliar with the way the 190 looked in real life, so he wouldn't  attack without re-evaluating. He then pulled up, ID'ed the La 5 and pressed on wth the attack. He fired a shot, pulled hard on the stick and high-speed-stalled into the La 5.

 

 

Incredible. Do you know anything of the damage to his machine after he landed back at friendly lines?

 

I remember him saying something along the lines "I wasn't sure, so I pulled up above. There- green, red stars! So I had to push down, but then I got in a stall... I came crashing straight through his airframe"

Edited by Bilbo_Baggins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rall describes that incident in detail in his book (pp 166, German edition). His wingman Trepte later told him Ralls propeller cut through the La-5 plane wing near the fuselage. That pilot didn't make it out of the plane. The propeller of his 109 G-6 was damaged obviously and shook the plane badly. He was over enemies territory. Flying with adapted rpm to reduce the shaking as good as possible he made it back to the airstrip "Ugrim". After the "softest landing of his life" he discovered his 3 prop-blades in different stadium of damage. His belly fuselage was ripped off badly by the propeller of the La-5. 10 cm more and his fuel tank would have been cut open.

Edited by 216th_Retnek
  • 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

×